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

Grumpy_chap

born_again said:

S75 you are missing the value required for a claim £100 to £30,000 & is item value, not order value, or including P&P.

The OP did say

cozzasmith said:

I recently ordered a jacket from The North Face for £230 along with two other, lower value, items (booths & t-shirt) which were to be delivered in two separate parcels. 

the parcel which should have contained the jacket had the t-shirt in but no jacket. 

It seems to be an item value £230 that has gone astray.

I suspect, though, an S75 claim of this nature would be really rather involved and drawn out while the bank undertakes investigations.  There does not seem to be anything actually simple or straightforward about what happened and lost of "he said, she said" elements.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

I suspect, though, an S75 claim of this nature would be really rather involved and drawn out while the bank undertakes investigations.  There does not seem to be anything actually simple or straightforward about what happened and lost of "he said, she said" elements.

Ultimately, if the customer raises an official complaint, the bank has the choice to resolve within 8 weeks or risk the customer going to the ombudsman.  

A_Geordie

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I suspect, though, an S75 claim of this nature would be really rather involved and drawn out while the bank undertakes investigations.  There does not seem to be anything actually simple or straightforward about what happened and lost of "he said, she said" elements.

Ultimately, if the customer raises an official complaint, the bank has the choice to resolve within 8 weeks or risk the customer going to the ombudsman.  

Or you can send a letter before action at the same time as The North Face and put them on notice that they are going to be a defendant in legal proceedings jointly liable under s75 with the usual 14 day response time, or if the OP is feeling generous they could extend that to 30 days to allow for the CC provider to reach out to The North Face. There's no obligation to make a complaint nor is there an obligation to go via the FOS. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

A_Geordie said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I suspect, though, an S75 claim of this nature would be really rather involved and drawn out while the bank undertakes investigations.  There does not seem to be anything actually simple or straightforward about what happened and lost of "he said, she said" elements.

Ultimately, if the customer raises an official complaint, the bank has the choice to resolve within 8 weeks or risk the customer going to the ombudsman.  

Or you can send a letter before action at the same time as The North Face and put them on notice that they are going to be a defendant in legal proceedings jointly liable under s75 with the usual 14 day response time, or if the OP is feeling generous they could extend that to 30 days to allow for the CC provider to reach out to The North Face. There's no obligation to make a complaint nor is there an obligation to go via the FOS. 

That would be my general view but I just wondered what impact the below has (not that CC or North Face are likely to go to a hearing over this)

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#18.1

Litigation should be a last resort. As part of a relevant pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction, the parties should consider whether negotiation or some other form of ADR might enable them to settle their dispute without commencing proceedings.

A_Geordie

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Litigation should be a last resort. As part of a relevant pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction, the parties should consider whether negotiation or some other form of ADR might enable them to settle their dispute without commencing proceedings.

Absolutely, litigation should be a last resort however the rules state that the parties should consider negotiating or ADR but doesn't impose an obligation to go down that path. You could argue a number of reasons why with legal proceedings over the FOS in this case: 

1. The OP can't use the FOS If the OP intends to hold both CC provider and The North Face jointly liable and several because The North Face is not subject to FOS jurisdiction. To maximise the OP's chances of recovery, litigation is the only route. Formal ADR methods will more than likely disproportionate in cost to the value being claimed.

2. Civil Procedure Rules now mandates mediation as part of the process for small claims before a hearing date is issued. Since mediation is now automatically built into the process, there's no need to consider ADR prior to proceedings.

3. The length of time it would take for the FOS to review the complaint which may be more than the time it would take to resolve matters via legal proceedings.

4. The North Face are not being very engaging, have failed to provide any evidence to dispute the OP's claim and further non-engagement could add further unnecessary delays/costs to the dispute. Whereas legal proceedings have strict timelines for the CC Provider and The North Face to meet. Failure to meet them, enables the OP to obtain default judgment and recovery their money much sooner. 

OP can include a paragraph in their LBA along the lines of "I consider that ADR is inappropriate at this stage because XYZ. However, I am willing to engage in without prejudice discussions with a view to resolving the dispute without the need to issue legal proceedings. If you wish to discuss settlement, please contact me by email on XXXXXX@XXXXXX.com before [date]"

john1

 

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.

As a side note on delivery problems DPD uses what3words for pinpoint parcel delivery, allowing customers to add a unique three-word address (like ///bands.villa.swung) in the DPD app's settings to direct drivers to an exact spot, like a specific door or entrance, making deliveries to new builds, large estates, or unclear locations much easier and more efficient. You find your three words at the what3words website or app, then enter them in the "Pinpoint Your Address" section in DPD's delivery settings to ensure drivers arrive at the precise location.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

A_Geordie said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Litigation should be a last resort. As part of a relevant pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction, the parties should consider whether negotiation or some other form of ADR might enable them to settle their dispute without commencing proceedings.

Absolutely, litigation should be a last resort however the rules state that the parties should consider negotiating or ADR but doesn't impose an obligation to go down that path. You could argue a number of reasons why with legal proceedings over the FOS in this case: 

1. The OP can't use the FOS If the OP intends to hold both CC provider and The North Face jointly liable and several because The North Face is not subject to FOS jurisdiction. To maximise the OP's chances of recovery, litigation is the only route. Formal ADR methods will more than likely disproportionate in cost to the value being claimed.

2. Civil Procedure Rules now mandates mediation as part of the process for small claims before a hearing date is issued. Since mediation is now automatically built into the process, there's no need to consider ADR prior to proceedings.

3. The length of time it would take for the FOS to review the complaint which may be more than the time it would take to resolve matters via legal proceedings.

4. The North Face are not being very engaging, have failed to provide any evidence to dispute the OP's claim and further non-engagement could add further unnecessary delays/costs to the dispute. Whereas legal proceedings have strict timelines for the CC Provider and The North Face to meet. Failure to meet them, enables the OP to obtain default judgment and recovery their money much sooner. 

OP can include a paragraph in their LBA along the lines of "I consider that ADR is inappropriate at this stage because XYZ. However, I am willing to engage in without prejudice discussions with a view to resolving the dispute without the need to issue legal proceedings. If you wish to discuss settlement, please contact me by email on XXXXXX@XXXXXX.com before [date]"

Thank you for taking the time to explain, very useful information.