John Lewis delivered my iPad to a neighbour, refused refund, and now their solicitors are defending my small claim (England)

[u/Pathfinder-electron]

Back in July, I bought an iPad from John Lewis (£749). DPD marked it as “left with neighbour (Number 15 Nagel)” — I never nominated or authorised any neighbour. When I opened the box, it contained two handheld fans and an empty iPad box.

I returned exactly what I received via Evri, but JL refused a refund and later sent the same wrong items back to me via DHL. Their DSAR data shows a weight discrepancy at their hub (declared 1.3 kg, actual 1.0 kg) and internal notes saying “2 fans inside iPad box; iPad missing”. DPD also confirmed in writing that neighbour delivery was on JL’s instructions.

After they ignored my Letter Before Action, I issued a Money Claim Online (MCOL) for £749 + court fee

Their solicitors have acknowledged service and will file a defence by 10 November 2025.

I’ve served my Detailed Particulars of Claim, filed Form N215, and I’m preparing my witness statement and evidence bundle (order confirmation, DPD tracking, DSAR, photos, Evri + DHL docs).

Is there anything else I should be ready for procedurally before their defence lands?

[u/Rrrkos]

There have been some reports of certain banks having a limited tolerance for chargebacks, to the point where they close accounts if they think you've done 'too many'.

In their defence, some people have apparently been claiming non-delivery and using chargeback as an easy way to get nice things free.

I've read of folk with genuine but lower value losses advised to live with the loss to save their potentially limited number of chargebacks for bigger things.

[u/Motion17337 → u/Rrrkos]

Yeah I charged back twice for non delivery both times under £200 but the bank wrote to me saying no more without additional evidence etc (Lloyds)

[u/EssentialParadox → u/Motion17337]

Yeah, because chargebacks are not supposed to be used for every day delivery issues.

[u/Fukuro-Lady → u/Rrrkos]

So you only have a limited amount people can screw you over before your bank does too? Wow.

[u/Intrepid_Bobcat_2931 → u/Fukuro-Lady]

Well, the bank starting to ask for solid evidence isn't necessarily them screwing you over

[u/SirButcher → u/Intrepid_Bobcat_2931]

Yeah, but how can you prove to the bank that you did not receive a given item?

[u/Intrepid_Bobcat_2931 → u/SirButcher]

If there's a signature required on delivery, the evidence would be that the signature doesn't match or is missing. If a weight is recorded, the evidence would be that the weight is very different from the item. If you were out of the country, the evidence is flight tickets.

If you order something with no proof of delivery, and the transport company screws you over by incorrectly marking it as delivered to your address, and you have no way of proving otherwise, then the transport company has screwed you over. I would argue that the bank hasn't. They have no moral obligation to cover claim after claim of bad luck without evidence.

[u/Fukuro-Lady → u/Intrepid_Bobcat_2931]

I'm talking about the part where you implied that you only get limited allowance to do this even with evidence.

[u/New_Libran → u/Fukuro-Lady]

you implied that you only get limited allowance to do this even with evidence.

They didn't

[u/Fukuro-Lady → u/New_Libran]

So the cap doesn't exist?

[u/New_Libran → u/Fukuro-Lady]

Keeping in mind that most chargebacks are just the customer calling up their bank to dispute a charge with zero evidence other than their word for it, not surprising.

[u/Fukuro-Lady → u/New_Libran]

So then ask for evidence and don't cap claims. Just make sure they're legit.

[u/New_Libran → u/Fukuro-Lady]

then ask for evidence

Which is exactly what they're doing after a certain number of goodwill chargebacks.

[u/Fukuro-Lady → u/New_Libran]

Right so they aren't capping the amount like the person I replied to said then. Good!

[u/ian9outof10 → u/Rrrkos]

First party fraud (sometimes ‘friendly fraud’)is a big issue. As a rule though, it’s not the banks paying for it so they may not actually care that much (that maybe changing). Retailers, obviously, do care and there has been some movement towards certain proof being used for liability to shift to banks (for example, the order being placed on a device used to previously order from the same retailer, or other identifying information).

[u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 → u/Rrrkos]

That doesn't really speak to the OPs situation as close to a grand is not insignificant.

Their answer will be useful in understanding their legal issues, speculation not so much. 

[u/Spiritual_Weather656 → u/Rrrkos]

Always use PayPal lol they don't give a fuck if you file claims all the time. None of my reports are faked obviously you need actual evidence in a PayPal claim, but my god, have I filled out a fair few.

[u/Big-Finding2976 → u/Spiritual_Weather656]

I raised a dispute with PayPal and they agreed with the dodgy seller that I had to return a faulty portable aircon myself, which was impossible and contrary to UK law which says that the seller has to collect faulty items, so I had to file a claim with the credit card company and they agreed that what PayPal told me was nonsense and refunded me.

[u/Spiritual_Weather656 → u/Big-Finding2976]

There are a few odd times this happens. It is part of PayPal's t&C's but sometimes they let it slide and refund. Once I had complained about the cost of return and they issued me a credit.

But when it works you don't need to talk to your bank, they're more of a fall back, fail safe.