NBCS threatening court action on behalf of House of Fraser.

[MarkWood]

A few months ago I received a letter from 'NBCS' saying they were a civil recovery firm, demanding money on behalf of their client House of Fraser.

Basically, I made quite a large order a while ago and about £300 worth of goods didn't arrive. House of Fraser rejected my complaint and said that the items did arrive, so I went to my card company. They refunded me after their investigation. House of Fraser disputed this, but their dispute was rejected by VISA.

Initially I thought that they haven't got a leg to stand on? A S75 claim is considered a legal remedy I believe?

House of Fraser have confirmed NBCS are acting on their behalf, and they both have said they now intend to go to court, as I have told them several times that I won't be paying.

What has me concerned is that they have said they have extremely strong evidence - CCTV, packaging and delivery receipts etc etc - that prove the items were indeed delivered. I can't possibly see that this can be true. At first I thought they were just trying to scare me, as these companies do, but what happens if these items were lost or removed at some point in the supply chain that their 'evidence' doesn't highlight? Could I be in trouble?

I have had issues with HoF in the past, and so I actually recorded me opening the parcel (I do this with large orders, or orders where I have had issues with the retailer in the past). It shows clearly that the items were indeed missing, but I appreciate this is unusual behaviour and might be construed as being 'set up' in order to commit fraud? I have never ever had issues with a large order before, despite taking tens of videos, but am worried that it could somehow be used against me?

If they do indeed take me to court and I lose, I imagine I could be down well over a grand for the sake of £300, and could also lose my job.

Really not sure what to do. I feel like I've done everything I possibly could have done and they're still bullying me.

[R0b]

Are you able to post up a letter from NBCS so we can what the letter actually says, making sure any personal info is redacted.

You have two options really, continue disputing the allegations or pay up the £300 they are asking for. Why do you think you will be down over a grand if the value of goods are £300?

Did you take a video as evidence of the contents of the box for this order and do you still have that video evidence?

Ultimately this comes down to who has the best evidence to show in court. HoF will need to prove that the goods were in fact delivered to you and were also in the box on delivery. A reasonable presumption may be made by the court that the delivery box did indeed contain those missing goods but it is a rebuttable presumption and all you need to do is sow the seeds of doubt.

Your contemporaneous evidence of missing items with larger orders and complaints to HoF of similar issues in the past may very well show that doubt. Add to the fact that recently more and more customers are complaining that the goods which have been delivered by couriers are missing or they have been replaced further backs up your point of missing goods, although that would be hearsay since most of these are news articles but you could also look on review websites such as TrustPilot and see whether people have given negative reviews of missing goods to show that this is not just a one off.

Your argument would then be that HoF has not proven their claim i.e. that the goods were actually in that box that was delivered and therefore it is plausible that those goods were missing from your delivery.

We can help you if things do go down the legal route but you need to decide whether you are willing to defend it all the way. In the end, NCBS could be bluffing and nothing comes of it.

[MarkWood]

Thank you. Here is the first letter they sent. They have changed the 'final date' twice now too. I thought they have been bluffing the whole time, but most recently have essentially said the next step is I'll be hearing from their lawyers.

In terns of paying over grand, just because I'll have to pay everyone's court fees / travel costs / work expenses won't I?

With regards the video, it is just a video of me unsealing the parcel, and removing the items one by one. I'll still have this video somewhere. I sent it to House of Fraser originally when I logged the complaint.

[MarkWood]

Trustpilot was a great shout! So many terrible reviews, especially recently.

[R0b]

Looking at that email, I can't see any evidence where they are suggesting that they have CCTV, receipts evidence etc. was this on another email or letter sent to you? Also is that the latest correspondence from them and have you responded to them?

If you can share the other correspondence that would be helpful as well. In the meantime, you may want to consider responding to their alleged letter before action and put them on the back foot with a little bit of an aggressive stance. For example, if I were in your shoes, I may be minded to respond with something like below though it is a quick draft but feel free to use as little or as much as you like.

Alternatively, you can ignore everything and wait to see what happens.

- - - - - - -

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing in response to your email dated 11 October 2022, the contents of which threatened legal proceedings if I did not pay the sum of £539 relating to an alleged fraud on my part. First, I wholly reject any notion that I have committed fraud of any kind against your client.

Second, I am sure you are no doubt aware that any prior to any commencement of legal proceedings, it is a prerequisite that the pre-action protocols must be complied with. Given the allegations made, this appears to be a debt-related claim and so your client should follow the Pre-action Protocols for Debt Claims ("PAPDC"). Failure to comply with the protocols may result in sanctions against your client, usually in the form of a costs order, or worse, the claim being struck out. Your email headed "notice of intended Civil Proceedings" does not meet the requirements of the PAPDC. In the event that your client commenced legal proceedings, it would be my intention to make an application to the court to stay proceedings, if not strike out your client's claim on the basis of non-compliance with the PAPDC. I would also be seeking costs of the application, being £275 plus attendance costs and costs of preparing and drafting the application at the current litigant in person rate of £19 per hour.

As regards the allegation of fraud, I have already alluded in the earlier part of my email that I deny any such allegation. In your email of 11 October 2022, you state, as a matter of fact that "the goods were in fact delivered successfully". Please provide evidence in your possession that proves the contents of the package which was delivered to my address, contained said goods at the time of delivery. The fact that a package was delivered, does automatically mean that the goods were actually delivered. Without prejudice to the foregoing, I can categorically state that the goods in question were not in the package that I took receipt of. You also claim in previous emails that your client has in its possession CCTV, delivery receipts, [insert anything else they mentioned they are in possession of]. Please provide me with copies of this evidence as I am particularly intrigued around the CCTV your client claims to have that proves the goods were in the package at the time of delivery.

However, if I do not receive this evidence, I will assume that no such evidence exists and I am putting you on notice that I reserve the right to produce both this email and your earlier emails as evidence of your client's dishonesty, and deliberate conduct to falsely represent that something exists when it does not in an attempt to deceive me in agreeing to pay this supposed debt that I do not actually owe. I am sure the court would not take too kindly to your client's conduct and will clearly undermine your client's credibility in relation to the allegations. Nevertheless, this is not the first time that this has happened to me in relation to high value goods and I have since taken the liberty of video recording the opening of packages to verify its contents. The video recording shows that the goods were not in the package upon opening. I should also add that there has been a number of news reports recently where customers have not received their goods or they have been swapped out for goods that were never order, and this is especially so where high value goods are involved. I have also checked recent customer reviews about House of Fraser on TrustPilot, and there are numerous examples of customers receiving wrongly delivered items. It is clear that I am not the only one that this is happening to and I would suggest that instead of your client pursuing me with ridiculous allegations, it should be looking at its supply chain.

I trust this response gives you a flavour as to my position on the matter. I do not intend to respond to you or anyone else unless and until I receive a letter of claim compliant with PAPDC or, failing that, a claim form in which case I will make an application to the court as described above.

Yours faithfully,

[Insert name].

[MarkWood]

Thanks for the help, I think sending am e-mail like you've suggested would be a good idea. I have attached the e-mails and their 'final response' below. I haven't heard from them in perhaps a fortnight, so they may already have sent instruction, or have called it a day at last.

[MarkWood]

Remaining e-mails...

All I've been replying is that they had an opportunity to challenge and it was rejected. This is considered a legal remedy etc. I've already said I haven't heard anything from HoF, and I'm not going to blindly transfer money to a company I have never heard of because they send me an e-mail.

[MarkWood]

Here is their final response letter. Thanks again.

[R0b]

That final response letter just recent or was that the one 2 weeks ago you mentioned? Ultimately, they haven't complied with the pre-action protocols per the example response I put above, but whether you wish to make an application which would be at your cost of £275 and if successful should get it back, is your choice. You could just alternatively decide to defend the case instead and call their bluff as to whether they want to chance it going all the way, particularly if their conduct has been poor throughout.

[des8]

Meanderings on this thread:

National business Crime Solutions Ltd appear to me as an upmarket Retail Loss Protection outfit.

Seeing they are not solicitors the comment " that we are currently preparing to pursue this matter in court" is interesting" !

I wonder how much of any monies "recovered" is kept by NBCS (altho' a not for profit company?). RLP apparently retain 40%

I can't find any reports of HoF actually taking anyone to court over this sort of alleged incident

[MarkWood]

I've been calling their bluff for over two months now, and they have changed their deadline from early November, to late November, to mid December, so it clearly means nothing. I've also submitted a SAR to both themselves and HoF. Initially they came back to me with my contact details, which were just the details they asked me to confirm on the SAR... I'll perhaps leave ti another week and then send them another e-mail asking for an update, including the points advised by Rob.

I also questioned what they were preparing with them not being lawyers. I think they're just bullies tbh and will probably leave me alone now.

[MarkWood]

Could telling them they've not been compliant with the PAPDC just give them an opportunity to correct that, and then I'd lose that as a defence / means of getting the claim struck out?

Second, I am sure you are no doubt aware that any prior to any commencement of legal proceedings, it is a prerequisite that the pre-action protocols must be complied with. Given the allegations made, this appears to be a debt-related claim and so your client should follow the Pre-action Protocols for Debt Claims ("PAPDC"). Failure to comply with the protocols may result in sanctions against your client, usually in the form of a costs order, or worse, the claim being struck out. Your email headed "notice of intended Civil Proceedings" does not meet the requirements of the PAPDC. In the event that your client commenced legal proceedings, it would be my intention to make an application to the court to stay proceedings, if not strike out your client's claim on the basis of non-compliance with the PAPDC. I would also be seeking costs of the application, being £275 plus attendance costs and costs of preparing and drafting the application at the current litigant in person rate of £19 per hour.

[StacyB]

I have also received a letter from NBCS and wanted to know what happened in your situation in the end?
Today I received a letter “notice of intended civil proceedings”.

[Gizzzzmo]

I have also received a letter of intended civil proceedings from this company but with regards to Next and its word for word the same as the original post on this thread. Does anyone have any more advice on this company?

[des8]

probably not because no one has come back!
I can't find any reports about Next trying court for a civil recovery ,so I would tend to ignore them (but that will depend on the circumstances of your case)