John Lewis admitted losing my property - now claiming "delivered" without proof. Advice?

Bettersafethansorry

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for some advice or to see if anyone else has dealt with "fragmented" service at John Lewis recently.

The Situation:

I returned some earrings (£36) but the return was rejected (I am not disputing that). JL agreed in writing to send them back to my billing address.

The Evidence:

I have emails from two different agents (Agent Y on Dec 1st and Agent H admitting that JL mistakenly couriered the item to an incorrect, outdated address. They admitted the error in plain English.

The Current Mess:

The case was escalated to a manager in the escalated complaints department (Manager L) and a new case number was created (CASE-302XXXXX). Now, a different agent (Agent N) is emailing me in a new thread claiming:

1. The item was "successfully delivered" to my billing address (it wasn't).

2. When challenged, they admitted they have no proof of delivery (no photo, no signature).

3. They told me to contact my "card provider" for a refund, which is impossible as I paid by Gift Card.

It seems they have "fragmented" the case across different threads so the new agents aren't reading the admissions of error in the original file.

What I've done so far:

• I have sent a Formal Letter Before Action.

• I have drafted an email to the CEO (Jason Tarry).

• I am prepared to use Money Claim Online (MCOL) in 7 days as JL doesn't use a voluntary ADR scheme.

My Questions for the forum:

1. Has anyone successfully sued JL via MCOL for a gift card refund?

2. Since they’ve admitted the error in writing but are now retracting it, how much weight will a judge give their "admitted error" emails vs. their current "it was delivered" claim?

3. Should I report this to Trading Standards via Citizens Advice now, or wait for the 7-day deadline?

Any tips on dealing with the JL Executive Office would be much appreciated!

Okell

If they don't respond to your LBA then issue a claim - although 7 days sounds a bit short to me.  I'd have given them at least 14.

I should expect a judge to take any admission by JL that they sent it to the wrong address at face value.  (ie why wouldn't he believe it?)

You're wasting your time reporting anything to Trading Standards.  They won't be interrsted in this and wouldn't help you anyway

marcia_

 You are going to go to Court over £36 🤷 

SiliconChip

marcia_ said:

 You are going to go to Court over £36 🤷 

Why not? If you're in the habit of throwing £36 to the winds then please throw it in my direction. I'd imagine the threat will be enough to make JL pay up, probably by reissuing a gift card, but if they don't then it sounds like the OP should win and they'll be £36 better off than they are at the moment.

eskbanker

marcia_ said:

 You are going to go to Court over £36 🤷 

The working assumption is presumably that JL won't let it get to court for that....

user1977

eskbanker said:

marcia_ said:

 You are going to go to Court over £36 🤷 

The working assumption is presumably that JL won't let it get to court for that....

Indeed, the costs for them would be much more than those for the OP, so unless they really want to defend on a point of principle they will settle.

Jenni_D

user1977 said:

eskbanker said:

marcia_ said:

 You are going to go to Court over £36 🤷 

The working assumption is presumably that JL won't let it get to court for that....

Indeed, the costs for them would be much more than those for the OP, so unless they really want to defend on a point of principle they will settle.

Or they'll let it go to a default judgment (against them) and leave it to the Claimant to go to the effort of enforcing the judgment ... if JL decide to ignore them then what's the Claimant going to do? The claim value is way below what would allow High Court Enforcement Officers to be employed, and bailiffs have very little power. 🤷‍♀️

Okell

user1977 said:

eskbanker said:

marcia_ said:

 You are going to go to Court over £36 🤷 

The working assumption is presumably that JL won't let it get to court for that....

Indeed, the costs for them would be much more than those for the OP, so unless they really want to defend on a point of principle they will settle.

If the OP has "... emails from two different agents (Agent Y on Dec 1st and Agent H admitting that JL mistakenly couriered the item to an incorrect, outdated address. They admitted the error in plain English..." I'm not sure what principle or hill JL will want to die on

eskbanker

Okell said:

user1977 said:

eskbanker said:

marcia_ said:

 You are going to go to Court over £36 🤷 

The working assumption is presumably that JL won't let it get to court for that....

Indeed, the costs for them would be much more than those for the OP, so unless they really want to defend on a point of principle they will settle.

If the OP has "... emails from two different agents (Agent Y on Dec 1st and Agent H admitting that JL mistakenly couriered the item to an incorrect, outdated address. They admitted the error in plain English..." I'm not sure what principle or hill JL will want to die on

When an organisation offers two contradictory versions of events, consumers will often prefer to believe the one more favourable to them, but there could be reasons why JL changed their story, if new information came to light or whatever, so it's not necessarily the case that the later one is the less credible.

Jenni_D

I don't know if Contra Proferentem applies to seller communications as well as their T&Cs? If yes then the response favourable to the consumer would take prededence.

eskbanker

Jenni_D said:

I don't know if Contra Proferentem applies to seller communications as well as their T&Cs? If yes then the response favourable to the consumer would take prededence.

I'm no lawyer but understood that to relate to interpretation of potentially ambiguous terms, rather than this situation of a story changing - happy to be corrected but I can't see how a company could effectively be held to any statements made mistakenly and indeed there are many scenarios where that isn't the case, e.g. pricing errors?