I ordered a brand new £999 Apple iPhone 14 Plus from Amazon but when the package arrived it contained two candles and no sign of the mobile.
I was bemused at first, but now I’m fuming as Amazon is refusing to refund me for the device.
Another ball of wax: A reader was left bemused when Amazon sent him two candles instead of the £999 iPhone 14+ he had ordered
Sally Hamilton replies: Your story had me reminiscing about the vintage Two Ronnies ‘four candles’ TV sketch where hardware shop owner Ronnie Corbett thinks customer Ronnie Barker wants to purchase four candles when what he actually wants are ‘fork ‘andles — ‘andles for forks’.
The misunderstanding makes for brilliant comedy.
But to order a £999 phone from Amazon and receive two candles instead — and have the firm wash its hands of your case — well, I can see why that got on your wick.
You explained that, as well as the phone, you had ordered a laptop from Amazon, with the two parcels delivered at the same time.
You provided the security code to the delivery driver that Amazon had emailed previously.
The same code applied to both items. Such codes are required for high-value purchases to prove packages have been safely received by the right person.
When you opened the first package, all was fine: the laptop was as expected. The second, which should have been the phone, contained candles.
To put me in the picture fully, you told me your husband had in fact ordered candles separately from Amazon, as a gift for you but sent to him.
He suggested this must have caused the mix-up.
But you were concerned because his Amazon account is different from yours and the offending candle package had your name and business details on the address label. And, in any case, where was the iPhone?
You contacted Amazon, EVDEn eve naKliYaT which replied that it had delivered parcels of the correct weight and told you to file a police report.
You tried, but the police weren’t interested, EVden EvE nAKLiyat stating that it was a civil matter and you should speak to Amazon.
You phoned Amazon to try to resolve the impasse, but it told you to contact its customer services online. You got nowhere.
You reached a similar dead end with its social media and on Trustpilot, the customer reviews website, where you hoped it might pick up on your complaint.
Having hit a brick wall, you contacted me.
You told me you are a clinical psychologist and have a strong view on how Amazon’s lack of a positive response made you feel disempowered as a consumer. Sadly, such treatment of customers by businesses is widespread.
Another reader, J. B.
from Leicestershire, contacted me with a similar tale of intercepted Amazon parcels and the subsequent poor response by its customer services. The £459 Samsung tablet he ordered via the firm before Christmas was replaced by cake decorations.
As with your case, the correct passcode had been given on delivery.
But the label on the package was wrinkled, as if it had been taken off another parcel.
When J. B. called Amazon to report this, an agent said he would be refunded upon returning the package. On the understanding that the original payment would soon be reimbursed, he ordered another tablet for a further £459.
Sadly, Evden eVE naKliYAT this was premature, as Amazon then refused to refund him.
He appealed several times, in vain. An email escalating his concerns to Amazon’s complaints department was ignored. So, like you, he came to me.
When people buy something online, the retailer is responsible for its safe delivery, according to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
I felt both you and J. B. If you liked this article and you simply would like to obtain more info about eVden EVE NaKLiyaT kindly visit our own web site. should be reimbursed.
I took both cases to Amazon, which agreed to investigate. Within a few days, it came back with some excellent news.
Although there was no explanation about what had gone wrong in either case, nor why the refunds had been refused, a spokesman says: ‘We’ve contacted the customers directly, apologised and processed a full refund.’
Anyone in the same boat, or who receives damaged goods, should always contact the retailer immediately.
It also helps to collect evidence, including photographs of the packages that have been damaged or tampered with, and of whatever was substituted for a genuine order.
If signing for a delivery that can’t be opened in front of the courier, add the words ‘not inspected’, which could help if issues emerge on opening.
Opting for a delivery to be made to a ‘safe place’ or a neighbour can make problems harder to resolve later.
Consider requesting signed-for delivery only, particularly for high-value items. If the retailer won’t play ball, try to request reimbursement via a claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, if the purchase was by credit card and the item cost between £100 and £30,000.
The card provider is jointly liable with the retailer if something goes wrong with a purchase.
If a debit card was used, consider raising a chargeback dispute — an informal arrangement offered by banks for customers who do not get the goods or services they have paid for.
A woman has slammed the ‘horrendous’ state of her house after spending more than £50,000 on building work only for it to abruptly stop leaving her with a large repair bill and ‘no kitchen.’
IT worker Lisa Morris, 50, says she hired a company called Eva-Lution to renovate her Llanharan home but the work suddenly stopped last November.
She says she paid the builders £52,900 for work including a kitchen extension – but she claims her kitchen has been left with exposed wires, bare brick walls and no ceiling.
Now Ms Morris, claims her property has ‘no kitchen, having ripped the previous kitchen out’ and that she is ‘emotionally and physically exhausted’ and living on ‘microwave and air fryer meals.’
Ms Morris only inherited the property in 2021 after her father and stepmother were tragically hit and EvdeN EVE NakliYaT killed by a motorbike whilst walking.
Lisa Morris, 50, says that the renovation works have cost her over £50k and still aren’t done
Ms Morris says she has been forced to live in the half finished house for weeks
She said: ‘What makes it worse is that it’s their house.
I was renovating it with money my dad had gifted me shortly before he passed away.
‘The house was all I had left of them. I’m emotionally and physically exhausted – this has consumed my life for months.
‘I took time off work but I’ve had to go back because I can’t afford not to work, with the situation I’m in.’
Eva-Lution, whose director is 27-year-old Chloe Eva, had eight employees in 2022, according to Companies House.
Ms Eva denied the work on Ms Morris’ home was of a poor standard and claimed it was halted due to a ‘cash flow issue’.
She said Ms Morris rejected the offer of a £24,544 refund for parts of the job left unfinished.
Ms Morris, who previously lived in rented accommodation, had hoped the renovation would be complete by the time she moved into the house. If you have any inquiries pertaining to where and the best ways to make use of EVdEN EVe NAKLiyAt, you could call us at our internet site.
She heard about Eva-Lution in June last year through a recommendation and paid a £3,500 deposit the following month.
As work progressed over the following weeks, Ms Morris transferred more money for materials.
In early September she went to Howdens with a member of Eva-Lution’s team and chose a kitchen.
She transferred £11,000 to Eva-Lution but claims she only later learned that Howdens had never received payment for the kitchen.
Ms Morris says the state of the house has impacted her mental health
The garden is still half finished and scattered with building materials
According to Ms Eva, her company had ordered the kitchen but had not paid Howdens.
An Eva-Lution worker told Ms Morris by text that all the upstairs, living room and front-of-house work would be done by October 16, adding: ‘Hopefully we will have the extension built with just the inside left to do.’
Because of this she arranged the end of her tenancy for October 16 but she claims it eventually became ‘apparent that the house wouldn’t be liveable’ by that date, so she extended her lease by a month.
Ms Morris claims she moved in on November 5 with no kitchen, no cloakroom, an unfinished hallway and a garden ‘like a building site’.
She added: ‘I went on holiday on November 12 and was told that the frame of the extension would be up by the time I got home.
Again this did not materialise.’
On November 28 the company told Ms Morris there was a cash flow issue but a £250,000 investment would be in its accounts by December 2.
‘I was also told at this point that they didn’t even have enough money to pay for the cement, so I gave them £400 to get the necessary materials so the footings could be completed,’ she added.
Eva-Lution workers have not attended Ms Morris’ home since the end of November when concrete was laid for footings.
She alleges that the extension’s timber frame never arrived and that another builder has since told her the footings were laid incorrectly and will have to be removed.
Ms Eva disputes this and claims the footings were laid after consultation with a structural engineer.
She added: ‘I do not believe the work carried out was to a poor standard, and during the works no issue or complaint was raised about the quality or standard of work.’
Ms Morris said the job was meant to cover a fully fitted kitchen with appliances.
‘I have contacted the suppliers of these materials and they have confirmed that Eva-Lution never paid for them despite me giving them the money,’ claimed Ms Morris, EVDEn EVe nAkliyAT who reported a complaint of fraud.
Wires hang down from the ceiling in the property which has not been completed
Responding to the claim of fraud, Ms Eva said staff stopped working on Ms Morris’ property due to a cash flow issue after her own company was a ‘victim of fraudulent activity and non-payment of invoices’ by another business.
Asked about the investment, she claimed this was set to be completed at the beginning of January but ‘when the funds were due to be transferred, there was an issue due to the fraud case that Ms Morris has put on the business bank account’.
‘By this time, other accounts and clients then had further frustrations with needing to wait for works to re-commence, and the investor pulled out due to there being so many issues,’ said Ms Eva.
‘If the fraud case was not on the account, the funds would have gone through and we could be in a position to resolve any company conflicts.’
She added that the kitchen was ordered through Howdens but Eva-Lution was waiting for the investment to come through before the kitchen could be obtained.
Eva-Lution offered to pay Ms Morris £24,544, which Ms Eva described as a ‘fair refund’ due to work already completed.
‘This included the purchase price of the kitchen which, due to the issue and us not being able to obtain the investment funds, was not settled,’ said Ms Eva.
Ms Eva claimed funds had never been taken from clients to cover business overheads but she said Eva-Lution was hit by the alleged fraud of another company.
She said: ‘Due to the situation we found ourselves in…
direct debits and evDeN eVe nAkliYAt standing orders of Eva-Lution were still being taken from our account which ate into funds we had received from clients.
‘This is not how we have run the company through the duration. However, due to the circumstance/situation this is what happened.
Again, this is why Ms Morris was offered the settlement figure, to cover this cost.’
Ms Morris, who claims her home needs around £40,000 worth of repairs, has declined the offer of £24,544 and sent a letter before action to Eva-Lution, which has begun the process of liquidation.
‘It was never our intention for the company to go into liquidation,’ said Ms Eva, but she confirmed there have been other threats of legal action and described liquidation as ‘our safest option as a company’.
Ms Morris has been relying on a microwave and air fryer to cook since moving in. ‘When I moved in, I was only expecting to live like this for a week,’ she said, adding that upcoming repair costs will leave her struggling financially.
Aside from the kitchen, Ms Morris claims a downstairs toilet and vanity unit are among the items paid for but never installed.
Ms Eva defended her company’s work which she says included new internal doors, plastering, painting, electrical works in the living room, a new upstairs bathroom, new radiators, rubbish removal, new light fittings, fitting of blinds supplied by Ms Morris, wardrobe work, re-routing of drainage and plumbing, and the ‘beginning of the extension’.
Ms Eva added: ‘If there was an issue with the quality it should have been brought to our attention before now.
‘Ms Morris was offered for the staff to return to the property before Christmas, which she denied and advised she was taking legal action and EVDEN eVE naKliyAT we were not to return.’