High value item missing/stolen from parcel - retailer refusing to refund

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Okell said:

A_Geordie said:

... Your consumer rights are that the goods remain at the retailers risk until the goods (not the parcel) physically comes into your possession. There will likely be a reasonable presumption that the contents of the parcel will contain the goods but you have evidence of potential tampering and that is enough to rebut the presumption and pass the burden back onto the retailer to show the goods physically came into your possession. 

It won't help the retailer saying they are satisfied the goods were in that parcel at the time of delivery because it was sealed, plus I would be very surprised that they have already raised an investigation with DPD and received a response in such a short time. I think they have probably just checked the goods were delivered and assumed you received it...

SiliconChip said:

Grumpy_chap said:

cozzasmith said:

I collected both from the local DPD collection shop on the same day.  When I opened them at home, it was clear that both parcels had been damaged/tampered with in transit as both were re-taped with DPD depot tape.  

If it was so evident that the parcels had been tampered with, why didn't you insist on opening the parcels at the DPD depot in the presence of their staff?

I think you've misinterpreted what the OP has written. A DPD collection shop is just a local shop that allows parcels delivered by DPD to be left there for collection by the recipent, ...

@A_Geordie -  is the fact that the OP appears to have nominated a third party to take delivery relevant in determining when or if risk has transferred?

Could be an option at Checkout to deliver to a collection point. North Face website says:

Which carrier services do you use?

Standard: Yodel
Collection Point: Collect+
Express: UPS

I don’t think Collect+ is DPD, does imply they offer some kind of delivery to a collection point option.

cozzasmith

Okell said:

A_Geordie said:

... Your consumer rights are that the goods remain at the retailers risk until the goods (not the parcel) physically comes into your possession. There will likely be a reasonable presumption that the contents of the parcel will contain the goods but you have evidence of potential tampering and that is enough to rebut the presumption and pass the burden back onto the retailer to show the goods physically came into your possession. 

It won't help the retailer saying they are satisfied the goods were in that parcel at the time of delivery because it was sealed, plus I would be very surprised that they have already raised an investigation with DPD and received a response in such a short time. I think they have probably just checked the goods were delivered and assumed you received it...

SiliconChip said:

Grumpy_chap said:

cozzasmith said:

I collected both from the local DPD collection shop on the same day.  When I opened them at home, it was clear that both parcels had been damaged/tampered with in transit as both were re-taped with DPD depot tape.  

If it was so evident that the parcels had been tampered with, why didn't you insist on opening the parcels at the DPD depot in the presence of their staff?

I think you've misinterpreted what the OP has written. A DPD collection shop is just a local shop that allows parcels delivered by DPD to be left there for collection by the recipent, ...

@A_Geordie -  is the fact that the OP appears to have nominated a third party to take delivery relevant in determining when or if risk has transferred?

I selected the Express Delivery option (which turned out to be DPD).  The deliveries were selected to be delivered to my home address but I then got an email saying they had been unable to deliver and so they had taken it to the local DPD collection shop (this is the option I have selected as standard on my DPD account for if they're unable to deliver) to my home. 

As a complete and irrelevant side note, we have CCTV covering our gates which alerts us to vehicles entering down the track and no DPD vans arrived that day so probably more likely they couldn't find our farm and instead went to the collection/drop off shop instead.

cozzasmith

Thank you to everyone who has posted with advice/info, I very much appreciate it.  As several of you have advised, I have now reported the theft to the Police and have been given a CRN.  I also replied to The North Face's email informing them I had done so and asking them to let me have details of their legal department so that I could take the matter further.  They replied providing details of a legal firm in Scotland.

I'm going to take the advice which several people have given and try in the first instance sending a letter (using the aforementioned templates available online) and stating my case.  Would you suggest addressing this letter to The North Face head office or directly to their legal team in Scotland - Brodies Llp, Capital Square, 58 Morrison Street, Edinburgh?

brianposter

To North Face. Ideally the letter persuades them to sort things out without reference to lawyers.

A_Geordie

Okell said:

@A_Geordie -  is the fact that the OP appears to have nominated a third party to take delivery relevant in determining when or if risk has transferred?

I think the OP has confirmed the position but to answer the question, If a consumer nominates someone to take delivery, then the risk of the goods shift to the consumer. It would fall under s29(2)(b) of the CRA:

(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.

cozzasmith said:

Would you suggest addressing this letter to The North Face head office or directly to their legal team in Scotland - Brodies Llp, Capital Square, 58 Morrison Street, Edinburgh?

If you have it confirmed that you should send any letter before action to their legal team then you should follow that instruction. As it's a law firm and they have multiple clients, you would be best advised inserting the headline: Claimant Name v Defendant Name

Bear in mind it looks like The North Face is a trading name of a company called VF Group. so using the above headline you should refer to the defendant as VF Group trading as The North Face. Their website terms are also not quite clear whether VF Group is a limited or public company, partnership or some other type of business and you might want to get Brodies to clarify that because when you put the defendant name on the claim form, it needs to be right.

If you want any feedback prior to sending feel free to post up your proposed letter for comment.

user1977

A_Geordie said:

Okell said:

@A_Geordie -  is the fact that the OP appears to have nominated a third party to take delivery relevant in determining when or if risk has transferred?

I think the OP has confirmed the position but to answer the question, If a consumer nominates someone to take delivery, then the risk of the goods shift to the consumer. It would fall under s29(2)(b) of the CRA:

(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.

cozzasmith said:

Would you suggest addressing this letter to The North Face head office or directly to their legal team in Scotland - Brodies Llp, Capital Square, 58 Morrison Street, Edinburgh?

Bear in mind it looks like The North Face is a trading name of a company called VF Group. so using the above headline you should refer to the defendant as VF Group trading as The North Face. Their website terms are also not quite clear whether VF Group is a limited or public company, partnership or some other type of business and you might want to get Brodies to clarify that because when you put the defendant name on the claim form, it needs to be right.

"VF Group" isn't a company name either, the correct entity appears to be VF Northern Europe Services Limited: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC081872

Note that their registered office is at Brodies so I'm not sure you'd actually get the lawyers involved from the start (Brodies are going to charge more than £230 to open their file...) but even if it were simply a letter before action to the company you'd be writing to the same address.

A_Geordie

user1977 said:

"VF Group" isn't a company name either, the correct entity appears to be VF Northern Europe Services Limited: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC081872

Yes, your right. I didn't see the click-through link on the T&Cs to the list of entities depending on the country the consumer is purchaser.

user1977 said:

Note that their registered office is at Brodies so I'm not sure you'd actually get the lawyers involved from the start (Brodies are going to charge more than £230 to open their file...) but even if it were simply a letter before action to the company you'd be writing to the same address.

Why wouldn't you? If they have given Brodies as the nominated representative to receive the letter before action, it is valid for someone to use that address. Also, in clause 8 of the T&Cs, it confirms Brodies as the address if you have a complaint or an issue so I think its safe to say that it is an address that can be used, irrespective of whether or not Brodies choose to charge or open a file on behalf of their client. 

user1977

A_Geordie said:

user1977 said:

"VF Group" isn't a company name either, the correct entity appears to be VF Northern Europe Services Limited: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC081872

Yes, your right. I didn't see the click-through link on the T&Cs to the list of entities depending on the country the consumer is purchaser.

user1977 said:

Note that their registered office is at Brodies so I'm not sure you'd actually get the lawyers involved from the start (Brodies are going to charge more than £230 to open their file...) but even if it were simply a letter before action to the company you'd be writing to the same address.

Why wouldn't you? If they have given Brodies as the nominated representative to receive the letter before action, it is valid for someone to use that address. Also, in clause 8 of the T&Cs, it confirms Brodies as the address if you have a complaint or an issue so I think its safe to say that it is an address that can be used, irrespective of whether or not Brodies choose to charge or open a file on behalf of their client. 

I just mean it's their registered office anyway, so I expect their mailroom would in the first instance pass it to North Face to deal with - so not really any different from a LBA to any other company's registered office.

TheComplaintGuy

When something high-value goes missing in transit, it’s the retailer who is legally responsible for putting things right, not the courier. Under the Consumer Rights Act, the risk stays with the retailer until the item is delivered to you, so if the parcel has been lost or stolen before you received it, they should be refunding or replacing it. Any issues with the courier are for them to sort out behind the scenes.

It’s usually worth asking the retailer to confirm, in writing, the final position they’re taking. If they’re saying the courier “delivered” it, ask them what evidence they’re relying on. A GPS ping or vague delivery note isn’t enough for high-value goods, especially where you didn’t personally receive anything.

If you paid by credit card, you also have the option of raising a Section 75 claim with your card provider. For debit cards, a chargeback can achieve the same thing. These routes are there specifically for situations where the retailer won’t resolve a clear non-delivery.

If the retailer continues to refuse a refund and the payment provider can’t help, you can take it further with a written complaint to the retailer and, if needed, small claims. But most retailers resolve it once you push back and make it clear that delivery never occurred and the legal responsibility sits with them.

If you can post the wording the retailer used when refusing the refund, people here can help you work out the best next step.

born_again

TheComplaintGuy said:

When something high-value goes missing in transit, it’s the retailer who is legally responsible for putting things right, not the courier. Under the Consumer Rights Act, the risk stays with the retailer until the item is delivered to you, so if the parcel has been lost or stolen before you received it, they should be refunding or replacing it. Any issues with the courier are for them to sort out behind the scenes.

It’s usually worth asking the retailer to confirm, in writing, the final position they’re taking. If they’re saying the courier “delivered” it, ask them what evidence they’re relying on. A GPS ping or vague delivery note isn’t enough for high-value goods, especially where you didn’t personally receive anything.

If you paid by credit card, you also have the option of raising a Section 75 claim with your card provider. For debit cards, a chargeback can achieve the same thing. These routes are there specifically for situations where the retailer won’t resolve a clear non-delivery.

If the retailer continues to refuse a refund and the payment provider can’t help, you can take it further with a written complaint to the retailer and, if needed, small claims. But most retailers resolve it once you push back and make it clear that delivery never occurred and the legal responsibility sits with them.

If you can post the wording the retailer used when refusing the refund, people here can help you work out the best next step.

All the retailer has to do is prove delivery, Which in this case is clear as the OP stated package arrived, but missing item. Chargeback does not go to that level. Just the order is delivered. Does not even have to be correct address either.
S75 you are missing the value required for a claim £100 to £30,000 & is item value, not order value, or including P&P.