Amazon challenging dispute

cw8825

prowla said:

born_again said:

If they have proof of delivery, & this does not have to be your address. Then under card regulations they can reject the chargeback.
If they do not, they could go legal to recover the funds.

Leaving something outside on the doorstep is not proof of delivery.

Having had this argument with Evri. 
They will say the photo is proof of them delivering - Although its not proof it has been delivered to the OP, just that it has been delivered 
OP is really arguing that she has not received it.

born_again

prowla said:

born_again said:

If they have proof of delivery, & this does not have to be your address. Then under card regulations they can reject the chargeback.
If they do not, they could go legal to recover the funds.

Leaving something outside on the doorstep is not proof of delivery.

As far as a non receipt of goods goes. It is. All the retailer has to do is prove delivery. Does not even have to be to the correct address.

As far as a S75 claim, as CC now have this evidence, they could also reject on the same basis. 

prowla

cw8825 said:

prowla said:

born_again said:

If they have proof of delivery, & this does not have to be your address. Then under card regulations they can reject the chargeback.
If they do not, they could go legal to recover the funds.

Leaving something outside on the doorstep is not proof of delivery.

Having had this argument with Evri. 
They will say the photo is proof of them delivering - Although its not proof it has been delivered to the OP, just that it has been delivered 
OP is really arguing that she has not received it.

born_again said:

prowla said:

born_again said:

If they have proof of delivery, & this does not have to be your address. Then under card regulations they can reject the chargeback.
If they do not, they could go legal to recover the funds.

Leaving something outside on the doorstep is not proof of delivery.

As far as a non receipt of goods goes. It is. All the retailer has to do is prove delivery. Does not even have to be to the correct address.

As far as a S75 claim, as CC now have this evidence, they could also reject on the same basis. 

From Evri's T&Cs (https://www.evri.com/terms-and-conditions) define "Delivered" as:

"Delivered" means delivered to the Recipient at the Address or left with a Neighbour or left in a Safe Place

Note that the definition says "to the Recipient at the Address", which binds it to being handed over.

It then defines "Safe Place" as:

“Safe Place” means a location which is not an exposed doorstep or otherwise in public view.

Note that it specifically excludes on the doorstep in public view.

born_again

prowla said:

born_again said:

prowla said:

born_again said:

If they have proof of delivery, & this does not have to be your address. Then under card regulations they can reject the chargeback.
If they do not, they could go legal to recover the funds.

Leaving something outside on the doorstep is not proof of delivery.

As far as a non receipt of goods goes. It is. All the retailer has to do is prove delivery. Does not even have to be to the correct address.

As far as a S75 claim, as CC now have this evidence, they could also reject on the same basis. 

From Evri's T&Cs (https://www.evri.com/terms-and-conditions) define "Delivered" as:

"Delivered" means delivered to the Recipient at the Address or left with a Neighbour or left in a Safe Place

Note that the definition says "to the Recipient at the Address", which binds it to being handed over.

It then defines "Safe Place" as:

“Safe Place” means a location which is not an exposed doorstep or otherwise in public view.

Note that it specifically excludes on the doorstep in public view.

A chargeback is based on Card Regulations (over & above your consumer rights) & has noting to do with either consumer rights or what a retails puts in the T/C. 

What Evri say has ZERO effect in this case, as the payment was to Amazon & that is who the claims is against.

Amazon can prove delivery, as far as chargeback goes that is the end of the matter.

So OP would need to go via Money Claim Online to stand any chance to claim funds back 🤷‍♀️

prowla

born_again said:

prowla said:

born_again said:

prowla said:

born_again said:

If they have proof of delivery, & this does not have to be your address. Then under card regulations they can reject the chargeback.
If they do not, they could go legal to recover the funds.

Leaving something outside on the doorstep is not proof of delivery.

As far as a non receipt of goods goes. It is. All the retailer has to do is prove delivery. Does not even have to be to the correct address.

As far as a S75 claim, as CC now have this evidence, they could also reject on the same basis. 

From Evri's T&Cs (https://www.evri.com/terms-and-conditions) define "Delivered" as:

"Delivered" means delivered to the Recipient at the Address or left with a Neighbour or left in a Safe Place

Note that the definition says "to the Recipient at the Address", which binds it to being handed over.

It then defines "Safe Place" as:

“Safe Place” means a location which is not an exposed doorstep or otherwise in public view.

Note that it specifically excludes on the doorstep in public view.

A chargeback is based on Card Regulations (over & above your consumer rights) & has noting to do with either consumer rights or what a retails puts in the T/C. 

What Evri say has ZERO effect in this case, as the payment was to Amazon & that is who the claims is against.

Amazon can prove delivery, as far as chargeback goes that is the end of the matter.

So OP would need to go via Money Claim Online to stand any chance to claim funds back 🤷‍♀️

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/29) states:

29 Passing of risk

(2)The goods remain at the trader's risk until they come into the physical possession of—

(a)the consumer, or

(b)a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.

That seems to define delivery as physically handing the item to the consumer (or designated person).

Certainly leaving it outside in public view and unbeknownst to the consumer means the item is still at the trader's risk.

So, are you saying that the trader's credit card conditions trump that?

born_again

prowla said:

born_again said:

prowla said:

born_again said:

prowla said:

born_again said:

If they have proof of delivery, & this does not have to be your address. Then under card regulations they can reject the chargeback.
If they do not, they could go legal to recover the funds.

Leaving something outside on the doorstep is not proof of delivery.

As far as a non receipt of goods goes. It is. All the retailer has to do is prove delivery. Does not even have to be to the correct address.

As far as a S75 claim, as CC now have this evidence, they could also reject on the same basis. 

From Evri's T&Cs (https://www.evri.com/terms-and-conditions) define "Delivered" as:

"Delivered" means delivered to the Recipient at the Address or left with a Neighbour or left in a Safe Place

Note that the definition says "to the Recipient at the Address", which binds it to being handed over.

It then defines "Safe Place" as:

“Safe Place” means a location which is not an exposed doorstep or otherwise in public view.

Note that it specifically excludes on the doorstep in public view.

A chargeback is based on Card Regulations (over & above your consumer rights) & has noting to do with either consumer rights or what a retails puts in the T/C. 

What Evri say has ZERO effect in this case, as the payment was to Amazon & that is who the claims is against.

Amazon can prove delivery, as far as chargeback goes that is the end of the matter.

So OP would need to go via Money Claim Online to stand any chance to claim funds back 🤷‍♀️

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/29) states:

29 Passing of risk

(2)The goods remain at the trader's risk until they come into the physical possession of—

(a)the consumer, or

(b)a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.

That seems to define delivery as physically handing the item to the consumer (or designated person).

Certainly leaving it outside in public view and unbeknownst to the consumer means the item is still at the trader's risk.

So, are you saying that the trader's credit card conditions trump that?

Card Regulations are over & above your consumer rights.
So Chargebacks work via the rules Visa/Mastercard/ Amex have put in place.
When you claim non receipt of delivery. All the retailer has to do is prove delivery. Does not even have to be to the right address...
Any Retailers T/C or consumer rights play no part in a chargeback.

Traders do not have credit card regulations. They agree to exactly the same Visa/Mastercard/Amex regulations as a consumer does. 

You keep quoting consumer rights. Which is the way the OP has to take it forward.

GDB2222

I think it’s being made far too complicated.

 The OP issues proceedings against the trader for non-delivery and seeks repayment, plus court fees and commencement costs. The trader probably won’t even defend the action. Court makes order. 

Even if the trader doesn’t pay, the credit card company is liable under S75.

 Amazon doesn’t come into it. Chargeback rules don’t come into it. 

saajan_12

prowla said:

born_again said:

prowla said:

born_again said:

prowla said:

born_again said:

If they have proof of delivery, & this does not have to be your address. Then under card regulations they can reject the chargeback.
If they do not, they could go legal to recover the funds.

Leaving something outside on the doorstep is not proof of delivery.

As far as a non receipt of goods goes. It is. All the retailer has to do is prove delivery. Does not even have to be to the correct address.

As far as a S75 claim, as CC now have this evidence, they could also reject on the same basis. 

From Evri's T&Cs (https://www.evri.com/terms-and-conditions) define "Delivered" as:

"Delivered" means delivered to the Recipient at the Address or left with a Neighbour or left in a Safe Place

Note that the definition says "to the Recipient at the Address", which binds it to being handed over.

It then defines "Safe Place" as:

“Safe Place” means a location which is not an exposed doorstep or otherwise in public view.

Note that it specifically excludes on the doorstep in public view.

A chargeback is based on Card Regulations (over & above your consumer rights) & has noting to do with either consumer rights or what a retails puts in the T/C. 

What Evri say has ZERO effect in this case, as the payment was to Amazon & that is who the claims is against.

Amazon can prove delivery, as far as chargeback goes that is the end of the matter.

So OP would need to go via Money Claim Online to stand any chance to claim funds back 🤷‍♀️

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/29) states:

29 Passing of risk

(2)The goods remain at the trader's risk until they come into the physical possession of—

(a)the consumer, or

(b)a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.

That seems to define delivery as physically handing the item to the consumer (or designated person).

Certainly leaving it outside in public view and unbeknownst to the consumer means the item is still at the trader's risk.

So, are you saying that the trader's credit card conditions trump that?

The point is there can be 2 (or more) different avenues possible
1) Under consumer rights, delivery = to the consumer (or designated person)'s possession. 
2) Under contract law, if OP had a contract with Evri (they don't), then delivery = to the recipient / neighbour / safe place
3) Under chargeback, delivery = a random photo of a package
4) Under S75 protection, delivery = whatever the trader was obligated to provide (ie the stronger of (1) and (2)) but the claim is against the credit card co, provided there's a direct relationship to the trader.

No 1 still applies here and the way to enforce it is via courts if the trader is not playing ball. Alternatively the OP could have used No 2 - its meant to be a quicker way to weed out the very obvious failures to deliver. Anything more involved, then its left to courts to figure out the detail. It doesn't stop OP using the other avenues. 

born_again

S75 is a moot point as OP used debit card.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81314000/#Comment_81314000

GDB2222

born_again said:

S75 is a moot point as OP used debit card.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81314000/#Comment_81314000

She used a credit card. She originally said Debi card, but changed her mind later.