Apple courier (UberEats) stole 2 MacBooks I ordered. Apple will not help.

[Eriamjh1138@DAN]

I didn’t expect this show to go on after today, but it looks like it was renewed for a second season or at least a 3 parts mini-series.

If it was me, I’d pay my remaining balance then close my account on that Visa card with that company and make it THEIR problem with Apple and delayed chargeback challenges. I have other cards for payment management.

This may not be feasible for everyone, but I said what I’d do.

 

[bzgnyc2]

I didn’t expect this show to go on after today, but it looks like it was renewed for a second season or at least a 3 parts mini-series.

If it was me, I’d pay my remaining balance then close my account on that Visa card with that company and make it THEIR problem with Apple and delayed chargeback challenges. I have other cards for payment management.

This may not be feasible for everyone, but I said what I’d do.

I can't imagine that would be good for your credit/score...

 

[bzgnyc2]

Hey thanks and while while yes this all makes sense on paper it's hard to get the police to put it into action. They haven't replied to me in weeks.

At the beginning I wasn't sure if the driver stole them or misdelivered them but now knowing he didn't enter my building at the time of delivery even though his GPS shows he was here (on the front Street while marking them as delivered probably) I'm now sure he stole them.

I think you're down to small claims court. Unfortunate but it seems either that or eat the cost, which is a lot more painful for an individual than a corporation. It my mind it was Apple's job to put those laptops in your hands. They didn't. You never received the laptops and they aren't yours. Since you didn't receive them they are not yours, no need to try to track them down unless you need more evidence to reinforces that you didn't receive them. I don't think you do but not an expert the law, Canadian processes, etc.

I also think yours an unfortunate example of what can go wrong and the risks of depending on any one vendor for everything. When IT people talk about "one throat to hold", I am like, "yeah yours". Imagine your situation if you bought this on an Apple credit card tied to an Apple bank, all your data held hostage on Apple servers, and Apple applications that only run on Apple hardware? For now I'll only choose new Apple stuff when I know I can leave any time I want.

 

[Big Bad D]

Hey thanks and while while yes this all makes sense on paper it's hard to get the police to put it into action. They haven't replied to me in weeks.

At the beginning I wasn't sure if the driver stole them or misdelivered them but now knowing he didn't enter my building at the time of delivery even though his GPS shows he was here (on the front Street while marking them as delivered probably) I'm now sure he stole them.

I sincerely hope you do get a successful result finally. But sorry I see there’s little chance that you alone will turn round Apple’s disgraceful position, influence police action or sadly to keep Visa’s chargeback without evidence. If you want the chance of a resolution, then get a lawyer to present and push your case directly to Apple.

 

[BigBlur]

If it was me, I’d pay my remaining balance then close my account on that Visa card with that company and make it THEIR problem with Apple and delayed chargeback challenges. I have other cards for payment management.

Bad idea.

1) It'd paint a picture of you being the bad guy. You took the "pending" money and ran.
2) The credit card company can send collections after you to get it back.
3) Probably ruin your credit score.

 

[timber]

At this point you were scammed by Apple.

They took your money and you got nothing.

 

[Eriamjh1138@DAN]

I can't imagine that would be good for your credit/score...

My credit score is quite fine. Thank you.

My point is if I have my money back, the chargeback problem is between Apple and visa.

Someone would have to sue me and then I’d go to court with my proof saying “Eff you, it was stolen. Not my problem.”

What judge would rule against me if I had the evidence that OP has?

I appreciate your advice. I’ll take my chances.

 

[fivetoedbear]

Just FYI for everyone following:

The "stolen from the store at pickup" time is an easy problem to solve...Apple should accept payment for the laptop when it's picked up. Until then, it's a new-in-box laptop, and they can still sell it if you abandon the sale. If someone else picks up your laptop, they have to have paid for it, and you aren't out the money.

 

[bzgnyc2]

My credit score is quite fine. Thank you.

Are you saying you've actually closed an credit card account with a pending unpaid charge / clawback and there was no further attempt by the card issuer at collections nor report to a credit agency? Or are you saying your credit is fine though you've never attempted to do what you recommended to OP?

My point is if I have my money back, the chargeback problem is between Apple and visa.

Someone would have to sue me and then I’d go to court with my proof saying “Eff you, it was stolen. Not my problem.”

In the US at least, a credit card company does not have to sue you to report you to a credit agency. Admit I don't know who that works in Canada or other countries.

What judge would rule against me if I had the evidence that OP has?

The one that sees the dispute between you and the credit card company as seperate from the one between you and Apple.

I appreciate your advice. I’ll take my chances.

Good luck with that.

 

[Six0Four]

So my bank forwarded me Apples response to the dispute. What is strange if Im reading this correctly, they are just saying they can confirm the purchase was not made by anyone else but me. Which is true. They seem to be missing the point that I am arguing it was not delivered. I'm not saying someone stole my card and made the purchase.

Either way, I have 48hrs to respond. Then Visa decides.

Spoke to the police the other day. They emailed Apple through their law enforcement portal weeks ago. They got an email back saying it was received and haven't heard anything from Apple since.


FROM BANK:

"We are writing to follow up on our investigation into this charge.

We have attempted to resolve this matter with the merchant's bank on your behalf and enclose the merchant's response for your review.

If you decide to accept the merchant's response, please reply to this email within 48 hours and let us know why you would like to close the dispute; we will reverse the temporary credit issued to your account and close the dispute.

If you decide to continue your case, please reply to this email within 48 hours with a formal rebuttal letter addressing why you would like to If continue your dispute and why you disagree with the merchant's response. Highlight any point(s) which you disagree from the merchant documents and include all supporting documents.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please call us at ******* within 48 hours of receipt of this email and we will be happy to discuss the investigation with you.

We appreciate your business and thank you for choosing ****** Bank.

Sincerely

Customer Care Associate

Customer Service

*******"

 

[laptech]

So my bank forwarded me Apples response to the dispute. What is strange if Im reading this correctly, they are just saying they can confirm the purchase was not made by anyone else but me. Which is true. They seem to be missing the point that I am arguing it was not delivered. I'm not saying someone stole my card and made the purchase.

Either way, I have 48hrs to respond. Then Visa decides.

Spoke to the police the other day. They emailed Apple through their law enforcement portal weeks ago. They got an email back saying it was received and haven't heard anything from Apple since.


View attachment 2464010
View attachment 2464011
View attachment 2464012

I do think you are reading it wrong. Your bank is basically saying you have two options, accept what the merchant (Apple) is saying or dispute what the merchant (Apple) is saying, based upon the document Apple has provided outlining why they say your dispute with them is invalid.

In Apple's document there are two things that are of particular importance which you need to carry on disputing. One is where Apple say's 'Please see attached POD (Proof of Delivery) showing the product was delivered as addressed/requested by the customer (you)'. Firstly Apple says the POD is attached so what exactly is Apple's POD? (Proof of Delivery). Your rebuttal to this is that under Apples terms and conditions of sale and delivery, the customer must take 'physical' possession of the product. This did not happen therefore Apple is in breach of the contract of sale. Having a delivery driver turn up at your address and then drive off does not constitute 'delivered'. Taking 'physical possession' is the only thing that constitutes 'delivered' under the Apple's terms and conditions. Therefore does Apples POD show that physical possession of the product took place?. We know it doesn't because the Uber driver signed off that it was delivered. The Uber driver did not walk up to the building and hand you the product. So, that is rebuttal number 1

Second point of interest in the document is where it states proof of delivery matches both billing and shipping address and see see attachments for invoice and POD (proof of delivery). You can dispute this because there is CCTV footage of no physical delivery taking place at the time the Uber driver logged the delivery taking place. Therefore rebuttal number two.

So reply back to the email with the heading title 'Formal Rebuttal' in the main content section of the email and under it give your reason for the rebuttal being that no physical delivery took place in that the delivery driver (Uber) did not get out of the vehicle and walk up to your place of residence and press the buzzer for your flat and that the police are in possession of CCTV footage showing that no delivery took place. The conclusion being that the delivery driver (Uber) drove to your place of residence for the purpose of GPS being tagged at your location, stayed in the vehicle, logged onto the computerised system, marked off the product as being delivered and then drove off with the customers package still in the vehicle. CCTV evidence provided by the property owner/landlord given to the police shows no delivery took place and that the CCTV evidence is available upon request to the police (police contact number/crime number).

In the rebuttal letter (email) you should also state that you have been in recent contact with the police and that the police have confirmed to you that Apple had been notified of CCTV evidence showing no delivery took place and that Apple acknowledged they received such info.

A useful addition to the email would be rebutting Apple's POD (proof of Delivery). Does the email you got from your bank have the attachments? because you need to see Apple's POD because if you do, in the letter you could state that Apple has provided a POD showing/stating the following (contents of the POD) and that you can rebuttal this with actual CCTV evidence of the time and day which shows no delivery took place.

This email will be extremely important if all parties still find against you because if they do find against you and you take the matter further, the bank/VISA would have some explaining to do to try and justify denying the chargeback on the back of what was written in the letter because in the email you will state that CCTV evidence of no delivery exists, the fact that the police are in possession this evidence and the fact that the police have contacted Apple through official channels and then the question to the bank/VISA would be 'The email dated 'xxxxxx' states clearly that CCTV evidence of no delivery took place. Did you both to investigate this and if not, why not? Small claims would easily find in your favour.

 

[Six0Four]

I do think you are reading it wrong. Your bank is basically saying you have two options, accept what the merchant (Apple) is saying or dispute what the merchant (Apple) is saying, based upon the document Apple has provided outlining why they say your dispute with them is invalid.

In Apple's document there are two things that are of particular importance which you need to carry on disputing. One is where Apple say's 'Please see attached POD (Proof of Delivery) showing the product was delivered as addressed/requested by the customer (you)'. Firstly Apple says the POD is attached so what exactly is Apple's POD? (Proof of Delivery). Your rebuttal to this is that under Apples terms and conditions of sale and delivery, the customer must take 'physical' possession of the product. This did not happen therefore Apple is in breach of the contract of sale. Having a delivery driver turn up at your address and then drive off does not constitute 'delivered'. Taking 'physical possession' is the only thing that constitutes 'delivered' under the Apple's terms and conditions. Therefore does Apples POD show that physical possession of the product took place?. We know it doesn't because the Uber driver signed off that it was delivered. The Uber driver did not walk up to the building and hand you the product. So, that is rebuttal number 1

Second point of interest in the document is where it states proof of delivery matches both billing and shipping address and see see attachments for invoice and POD (proof of delivery). You can dispute this because there is CCTV footage of no physical delivery taking place at the time the Uber driver logged the delivery taking place. Therefore rebuttal number two.

So reply back to the email with the heading title 'Formal Rebuttal' in the main content section of the email and under it give your reason for the rebuttal being that no physical delivery took place in that the delivery driver (Uber) did not get out of the vehicle and walk up to your place of residence and press the buzzer for your flat and that the police are in possession of CCTV footage showing that no delivery took place. The conclusion being that the delivery driver (Uber) drove to your place of residence for the purpose of GPS being tagged at your location, stayed in the vehicle, logged onto the computerised system, marked off the product as being delivered and then drove off with the customers package still in the vehicle. CCTV evidence provided by the property owner/landlord given to the police shows no delivery took place and that the CCTV evidence is available upon request to the police (police contact number/crime number).

In the rebuttal letter (email) you should also state that you have been in recent contact with the police and that the police have confirmed to you that Apple had been notified of CCTV evidence showing no delivery took place and that Apple acknowledged they received such info.

A useful addition to the email would be rebutting Apple's POD (proof of Delivery). Does the email you got from your bank have the attachments? because you need to see Apple's POD because if you do, in the letter you could state that Apple has provided a POD showing/stating the following (contents of the POD) and that you can rebuttal this with actual CCTV evidence of the time and day which shows no delivery took place.

This email will be extremely important if all parties still find against you because if they do find against you and you take the matter further, the bank/VISA would have some explaining to do to try and justify denying the chargeback on the back of what was written in the letter because in the email you will state that CCTV evidence of no delivery exists, the fact that the police are in possession this evidence and the fact that the police have contacted Apple through official channels and then the question to the bank/VISA would be 'The email dated 'xxxxxx' states clearly that CCTV evidence of no delivery took place. Did you both to investigate this and if not, why not? Small claims would easily find in your favour.

This is some solid advice, I appreciate it. Really.

So attached to the email was one pdf attachment with 4 pages.

2 pages in my previous post and these two I'm attaching now. The original receipt and some other thing showing my IP etc.

I see no "POD" proof of delivery. All I can think of is Apple is saying that since the address I entered for my order matches my IP and/or credit card info that they are in turn saying it couldn't have been misdelivered. As if I am claiming it was delivered to the wrong address or something. But even that's a stretch on my part. I have no clue what they're referring to as POD.

 

[Alameda]

Some solid advice I appreciate it. Really.

So attached to the email was one pdf attachement with 4 pages.

View attachment 2464099
View attachment 2464100

2 pages in my previous post and these two I'm attaching now. The original receipt and some other thing showing my IP etc.

I see no "POD" proof of delivery. All I can think of is Apple is saying that since the address I entered for my order matches my IP and/or credit card info that they are in turn saying it couldn't have been misdelivered. As if I am claiming it was delivered to he wrong address or something. But even that's a stretch on my part. I have no clue what they're referring to as POD.

View attachment 2464096
View attachment 2464097

@laptech gave you excellent advice.
In addition, it appears to me that no POD was supplied. And while that matters, what matters more is the video evidence which you and laptech mentioned. They seem to be arguing that, since you gave them a valid shipping address, it proves the order was delivered. That is not proof.

 

[Six0Four]

They seem to be arguing that, since you gave them a valid shipping address, it proves the order was delivered. That is not proof.

Yes this. This is what I'm thinking.

 

[Macky-Mac]

Yes this. This is what I'm thinking.

Doesn't Apple's website say you'll be required to sign for the delivery?

If it says that and in their response they haven't provided a copy of such a signature, then definitely point out that they haven't submitted it.

Your signature is supposed to be their proof that the purchase was actually delivered to you.

(Their response is a bit strange, it's like some junior staffer did their "investigation" under the impression that you were claiming somebody else had used your card info)

 

[Six0Four]

Doesn't Apple's website say you'll be required to sign for the delivery?

If it says that and in their response they haven't provided a copy of such a signature, then definitely point out that they haven't submitted it.

Your signature is supposed to be their proof that the purchase was actually delivered to you.

(Their response is a bit strange, it's like some junior staffer did their "investigation" under the impression that you were claiming somebody else had used your card info)

Ya does seem strange right. I clearly told the bank I was doing the Chargeback because I didn't receive what I paid for.

Looks like their "proof of delivery" is that the shipping address matches the billing address which proves nothing.

 

[Expos of 1969]

Ya does seem strange right. I clearly told the bank I was doing the Chargeback because I didn't receive what I paid for.

Looks like their "proof of delivery" is that the shipping address matches the billing address which proves nothing.

Keep fighting. The evidence appears to be on your side.

 

[laptech]

This is some solid advice, I appreciate it. Really.

So attached to the email was one pdf attachment with 4 pages.

View attachment 2464099
View attachment 2464100

2 pages in my previous post and these two I'm attaching now. The original receipt and some other thing showing my IP etc.

I see no "POD" proof of delivery. All I can think of is Apple is saying that since the address I entered for my order matches my IP and/or credit card info that they are in turn saying it couldn't have been misdelivered. As if I am claiming it was delivered to the wrong address or something. But even that's a stretch on my part. I have no clue what they're referring to as POD.

View attachment 2464096
View attachment 2464097

What you have said is basically correct. On the evidence you have provided all Apple have done is to confirm the product was delivered to the correct address proving no misdelivery took place. That is standard practice, to investigate that the product was delivered to the correct address. They did this by using the IP address of the computer used to make the order. The IP number would show up as being assigned to a certain ISP who would be able to identify the location of the IP number. Apple would then cross reference this with the invoice billing address and delivery address. This would tell Apple that they have the right person where the product was to be delivered.

Once the investigation of possible misdelivery has taken place and misdelivery ruled out the investigation should then move onto the next stage which is proving that delivery of the product actually took place. Once Apple has established that the details of where the product is to be delivered is correct they should then get in contact with the delivery company and establish the details of actual delivery. Uber should provide Apple with the name of the delivery driver, the time and date of delivery, GPS logging of the route the driver took to get to the address and copy of the digital signature used to sign for the product. This would constitute a proper POD (proof of Delivery) report. The problem is only half of the report is provided because as others have stated, proving misdelivery never took place does not prove that the actual delivery of the product took place.

You need to go back to the bank and ask them did you receive ALL the files that Apple sent to them because if the bank say yes then Apple has a problem because what they have provided as the POD (proof of delivery) does not actually prove POD, all it proves is that misdelivery did not occur. Where is the evidence from Uber to prove that their delivery driver walked up to the building pressed the buzzer to your flat and got you to sign for the delivery, something we know did not take place.

If you still have time to write that rebuttal email to the bank you need to make it clear to them that Apple's POD is invalid because it does not include evidence from the delivery company that their driver actually delivered the product. Failure to produce such evidence would be in clear violation of Apple's own polices and procedures. This is why you need to go back to the bank and ask them if they have sent you ALL the files because without any evidence from Apple's delivery company they cannot make a justifiable denial claim against you because they would not have all relevant and pertinent information to make such a ruling.

This is why you need to make this clear to the bank because it would show to the bank that Apple are in error and if Apple are in error then they cannot deny your claim but if Apple do deny your claim then it would show that Apple is failing to carry out it's duties properly. This helps your case because if VISA was to deny your chargeback then you can argue how did they come to that decision when you have shown in your rebuttal that Apple has failed to carry out it's investigation properly.

It just keeps getting worse for Apple.

 

[Adora]

This reminds me of my 5K iMac worth over €4.000 in that time and almost brand new.

A few weeks after the purchase, I noticed there was this thing called "backlight bleeding" if I remember correctly. I only noticed it because I read about it here.

So I sent it in to repair. It had been collected and brought to a 3rd party repair shop, because Apple didn't have any own stores in Austria in that time. For orders you could use the German one but not for repairs and maybe even sending back.

I didn't hear anything for weeks and then asked for it, it had been shipped already by whatever I can't remember, but there was a tracking number that said it had been delivered to me.

I called Apple that it didn't arrive and there was also that "lady" where I was escalated to. They can't do anything because the tracking says it's delivered.

Luckily a few days later I found it somewhere up the stairs next door. It was just put there without giving me the information, that it even has been shipped.

Anyone could have stolen it and Apple wouldn't care.

 

[genexx]

I just do not get how Apple can still deliver with Uber after all these stories even i have read in Germany.

For me there is a simple Rule of delivery or ordering.
Expensive Goods only buy from Amazon selled and from Amazon delivered.

Why ? I get a Code and only with the Code the Item can get delivered.
Easy like that. I do not get why Apple is not just doing this.
And if there is a Problem, even after close to 2 Years, you get help, sometimes a complete refund.

In the past i was just walking to a Store and get it in Person.
Before there where Apple Stores, there where Gravis and Cyberport.

 

[laptech]

After all said and done, it basically boils to one simple fact and it comes in the form of a small line in Apple's terms and conditions of sale/delivery (posted by a member in here) that states 'physical possession' must take place for an item to be considered delivered. This never took place due to the fact that there being CCTV footage of the time and date of the alleged delivery and this same footage showing no delivery took place. Apple needs to prove that physical possession took place otherwise their terms and conditions are invalid meaning they cannot deny the OP's chargeback claim. If the deny the OP's claim then they are in breach of contract (sale contract) It would be a very very easy win in court for the OP

 

[jlc1978]

This never took place due to the fact that there being CCTV footage of the time and date of the alleged delivery and this same footage showing no delivery took place.

Which is why I think it is important for the OP to secure a copy or ensure it remains available in the event of a lawsuit.

 

[Expos of 1969]

Which is why I think it is important for the OP to secure a copy or ensure it remains available in the event of a lawsuit.

I agree but unfortunately some of these key steps are not in the full control of the OP. Hopefully he prevails.

 

[bluegt]

Following. I hope this turns out ok.

In many countries, 1) “Leave at Doorstep” is not done for high value items , and 2) the drivers take photo evidence of their deliveries, sometimes with the recipient and sometimes just with the door number shown and items.

 

[Expos of 1969]

As others have said, it is incredible and against all common sense that Apple continues to use Uber. It matters not at all that they used to use another firm that then was purchased or taken over by Uber (according to at least one poster). Is Apple so cheap and driven to make extra pennies that they continue this way of operating?
Why tarnish a quality brand by using a low class delivery service for the last step to the customer? And then try to get out of resolving the issue for the customers who do have problems.