entrepreneurship

Most people don’t think twice about online shopping, but one New Hampshire woman certainly will. She ordered a number of dresses online, but when several of them never showed up at her door, she couldn’t believe it when the store told her she was still on the hook to pay for them. She had clear photographic proof they were delivered someplace else and still couldn’t get a refund or replacement, raising questions about whether anyone was actually looking at the evidence she supplied. And when her credit card company denied her request for help, NewsCenter 5 found that that was a clear violation of a consumer’s rights under the federal Fair Credit Billing Act. Kerry Laning’s house has a unique look, which gives her a uniquely strong case against Saks Fifth Avenue.”It’s a green house with brown garage doors,” she said. “There’s no white garage doors anywhere.”This spring, she ordered five dresses from Saks Fifth Avenue online ahead of a wedding she was attending.”I shop online all the time successfully have never had a problem,” Laning said. “I order things, try them on, and I return them.”But only two of the dresses actually showed up at her house. The other three ended up at someone else’s home, which is clear when you look at the delivery photos provided by FedEx as the boxes were dropped in front of a white garage door. There’s no sign of her brown garage doors or green siding anywhere in the photo.At first, Laning thought resolving the matter would be easy.”Because the photo evidence was so clear,” she said. “I have brown garage doors. The photo evidence indicated white garage doors with a barn door cross on it.”Laning started by reaching out to FedEx, which redirected her to Saks.”For the next couple weeks, I spent my evenings on the phone with Saks customer service getting passed around, saying they would elevate this to their investigation department,” she said. “And then it was denied.”At first, she couldn’t believe it. The missing dresses totaled $812, but Saks would not budge.”They said they had done a thorough investigation and concluded that I received the two packages.”Laning launched her own investigation and spotted what she believed to be the white garage door in question at a home down the road and across the street. She spoke with the owner, who remembered getting the misdelivered packages something the owner also confirmed for NewsCenter 5.”She said she got my packages, and the next day, she went to the FedEx drop box and put them in,” Laning said.With her options dwindling, Laning took the right next step: disputing the charge with her credit card. The Fair Credit Billing Act, a federal law, is supposed to protect credit card users from being charged for goods or services “not delivered” to them. The law allows credit card companies to do their own investigations, which usually includes gathering more information from the customer.Laning actually used two separate cards for the missing dresses: Citi and American Express. She says she sent them both the same evidence including the delivery photos but the outcomes could not have been more different. Citi sided with her right away, but Amex inexplicably denied her, refusing her refund request of $574.It left her baffled, given the clear photographic proof.”I was very surprised that American Express would not stand by the photographic evidence of a misdelivery,” she said.The day after NewsCenter 5 contacted Saks, Laning got her money refunded. Saks would not offer any comment.American Express would also not comment for this story citing consumer privacy but did say they contacted Laning directly. In the event of a similar outcome, other consumers may have to be persistent and escalate a dispute to executive management.In the end, Laning went with a dress from Nordstrom for the wedding she was attending.