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.
A.B., Sussex.
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, eVDEN eVe NAKliYaT where was the iPhone?
You contacted Amazon, 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, 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. For evDEn eVe nakLiYAT more info in regards to EVDEN EvE nAKLiYAT take a look at the webpage. 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, 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. 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 eVden Eve nAkLiYaT 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.
＜更新日時＞ 05月31日（水） 15:15
By Tim Hepher
PARIS, eVdeN eVE nAKliYat Feb 1 (Reuters) - Airbus and Qatar Airways have settled a dispute over grounded A350 jets, evDEn EVE NakLiyAt the companies said on Wednesday, averting a potentially damaging UK court trial after a blistering 18-month feud that tore the lid off the global jet market.
The "amicable and mutually agreeable settlement" ends a $2 billion row over surface damage on the long-haul jets.The spat led to the withdrawal of billions of dollars' worth of jet deals by Airbus and prompted Qatar to increase purchases from Boeing.
The cancelled orders for 23 undelivered A350s and 50 smaller A321neos have been restored under the new deal, which is also expected to see Airbus pay several hundred million dollars to the Gulf carrier, while winning a reprieve from other claims.
Financial details were not publicly disclosed.
The companies said neither admitted liability.Both pledged to drop claims and "move forward and work together as partners".
The deal heads off what amounted to an unprecedented public divorce trial between heavyweights in the normally tight-knit and secretive $150 billion jet industry.
The two sides had piled up combined claims and counter-claims worth about $2 billion ahead of the June trial.
French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire welcomed the deal, which came in the wake of increasing political involvement amid close ties between France, where Airbus is based, and Qatar.
"It is the culmination of significant joint efforts. It is excellent news for the French aerospace industry," he said.
Airbus shares closed up 1% before the announcement.
Qatar Airways had taken the unusual step of publicly challenging the world's largest planemaker over safety after paint cracks exposed gaps in a sub-layer of lightning protection on its new-generation A350 carbon-composite jets.
Airbus had acknowledged quality flaws but, backed by European regulators, had insisted that the jets were safe and accused the airline of exaggerating flaws to win compensation.
DAMAGES
Supported by a growing army of lawyers, both sides repeatedly bickered in preliminary hearings over access to documents, to the growing frustration of a judge forced to order co-operation.
Analysts said the deal would allow both sides to feel vindicated, with Qatar Airways winning damages and recognition that the problem lay outside the manual and therefore required a new repair, and Airbus standing its ground on safety and spared the difficult task of finding a home for cancelled A350s.
Qatar will get the in-demand A321neos needed to plan its growth, albeit three years later than expected, in 2026.For those who have almost any issues about wherever in addition to the best way to employ eVDEn EVE nakLiYaT, it is possible to call us with the web site. Airbus' decision to revoke that order, separate from the disputed A350 contract, had been criticised by global airlines group IATA.
Airbus said it had done its best to avoid pushing Qatar too far back in the queue, though some experts question whether it could have met the earlier schedule because of supply problems.
The settlement is also expected to stop the clock ticking on a claim for EVdEn evE NaKliyAT grounding compensation that had been growing by $6 million a day, triggered by a clause agreed upon after the repainting of a jet for the World Cup revealed significant surface damage.
Originally valued at $200,000 per day per plane, Airbus' theoretical liability was ratcheting upwards by a total of $250,000 an hour for EvDEn evE naKliYat 30 jets - or $2 billion a year - by the time the deal was struck, based on court filings.Neither side commented on settlement details.
Airbus said it would now work with the airline and EVdEN eVe nakliyaT regulators to provide the necessary "repair solution" and return Qatar's 30 grounded planes to the air.
Confirmation of a settlement came after Reuters reported a deal could arrive as early as Wednesday.In 2021, a Reuters investigation revealed other airlines had been affected by A350 skin degradation, all of whom said it was "cosmetic".
The dispute has focused attention on the design of modern carbon-fibre jets, which do not interact as smoothly with paint as traditional metal ones, and shed light on industrial methods.(Additional reporting by Leigh Thomas, Michel Rose Editing by David Goodman, Diane Craft and Gerry Doyle)
A motorist has been called out for driving with a pet carrier tied to the roof of their car on a busy road with a 'terrified looking' cat inside.
The Ford Falcon was snapped as it travelled along Lutwyche Road in Windsor in 's north and was posted to social media on Monday.
The large cat box was pictured fastened onto the top of the moving car with two yellow straps.
The cat is not visible but the onlooker who took the photo of the 'appalling' act claimed the animal was in the box.
'Yes, that is a cat carrier strapped to the roof racks.Yes, eVDEn eVe nAkliYaT there was a terrified looking cat inside. Yes, there was room inside the car for EvdEN EvE NAkLiyAT the cat carrier to go,' the post read (pictured, the blue sedan carrying the cat box)
'Yes, that is a cat carrier strapped to the roof racks.Yes, there was a terrified looking cat inside. Yes, there was room inside the car for the cat carrier to go,' the person's post read.
'Who the hell even does this?? ... 'It's appalling, how was this the only option??'
Animal lovers took to social media slamming the driver over the act of animal cruelty.
'Some people should not be allowed to own pets,' one commenter said.
'That's messed up from the owner, and that cat needs to be re homed to a person who will look after it,' one more said.
'I can't imagine what this would do to a poor little kitty,' said another.
'There's no way anyone would do that, surely,' an online user wrote.
But others said there could be other reasons why the box is on the roof.
'Maybe it's a diseased feral cat they've caught, to get off their property?' one asked.
Animal lovers took to social media slamming the driver over the 'appalling' act of animal cruelty (stock photo)
'It appears empty and for all you know it's a snake,' another said.
The person who posted the image online said the RSPCA and police had been contacted over the sighting.
Meanwhile, others compared their stories of trying to get their pet cats into portable carriers for transport.
'My cat is terrified any time we have to put him in the carrier and travel,' one wrote.
'Mine hates the car so much we have to sedate him to go to the vet.The vet is literally at the end of our street. Should you have any kind of queries regarding exactly where and also tips on how to work with eVdEN evE nAkliYAt, EVdEN eve NaKliyAT you can contact us in our own internet site. It's a two minute drive,' said another.
