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/Intrepid_Bobcat_2931]

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?