3 ms·
The author is a case study in sloppy thinking. Sure, they were wronged; they are certainly a victim here. But property was stolen and the retailer is negligentl
by inopinatus 3y ago
The author is a case study in sloppy thinking. Sure, they were wronged; they are certainly a victim here. But property was stolen and the retailer is negligently complicit in the theft. When this happens, you call the police, and your insurance company.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoI agree in general, but I think he's right in claiming that this isn't a criminal matter on his end, as the console was technically stolen from Amazon prior to delivery, not from him after delivery. What he's doing with Amazon customer service and Amex are the pertinent things from his end.
- inopinatus 3y agoThe point at which Amazon denies this is the moment where they became negligently complicit.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoStill a civil matter instead of a criminal matter. Amazon has the lawful right to both protect their interests and perform their process of refund (whatever errors and pauses they may make during this process). As such the state of mind necessary for criminal complicity has yet to be shown.
- inopinatus 3y agoSo what? You're not personally responsible for prosecuting Amazon. For that matter, neither are the cops. This tunnel-vision mode of thinking is how people talk themselves out of calling the police and the insurance company. The claims unit will want a police report number to start their process, and the fact both are now involved will exert direct pressure. So do it. The point is to be maximally assertive of any rights you have or may have, not playing legal billiards and negotiating against yourself in your head.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoYou're just asking to waste your own time, and theirs, with that approach. The police department will ask whether it was stolen from your porch. No? It was stolen from Amazon? Not a crime against you. The insurance company will ask when it was switched. Switched before delivery? Not on us. We don't insure for that, only for what happens on your premises.
- inopinatus 3y agoThis is still the bizarre but all-too-common line of thinking in which someone talks themselves out of marshalling available resources. It’s negotiating against yourself, and a recipe for failing at life.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoWhen you know before hand that it will 100% just waste time, then the value is in not making you and others more aggrieved and annoyed.
- inopinatus 3y agoSince I have over the decades made several insurance claims that were paid out, I feel qualified to say that is a sack of lies, and the OP has exacerbated their aggravation and annoyance by failing to contact the police and their insurance company. Instead of asserting their rights, they’ve allowed themselves to be subordinate to Amazon and Amex corporate internal processes. I struggle not to label that as vassal thinking.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago> they’ve allowed themselves to be subordinate to Amazon and Amex corporate internal processes No, he's told Amex that he will take legal action against them under section 75 if they do not fulfill their obligations. > Since I have over the decades made several insurance claims that were paid out By which kind of insurance and for what? It's important to note that for this transaction Amex is the primary insurance company (providing purchase insurance for things bought with it). Why would homeowners insurance provide coverage? > I feel qualified to say that is a sack of lies Prove it then. Are you from the UK? I'm not.