Target Sent My Item as ATL and It Got Stolen

LMrMoneySmart on 18/07/2025 - 07:10
Last edited 18/07/2025 - 09:44 by 1 other user

Recently bought a Lego set (Tyrannosaurus Rex - $399 retail price). Have bought from Target previously and they normally send signature on delivery which I like as I live in an area that is subject to parcel theft.

Anyways. For whatever reason target sent the item through Couriers Please, not Australia Post and sent it as authority to leave. And yes, the parcel got stolen.

I’ve contacted target and they investigated and provided proof of delivery, but I explained according to their own terms and conditions all parcels are sent signature on delivery. They selected ATL, not me.
I’ve even confirmed with Couriers Please it was booked as ATL. And I’ve provided Target with that email.

I paid through PayPal and submitted a claim but PayPal sided with Target as the item was delivered (All they had to do was provide a tracking and PayPal sided with them)

I’m at a loss (literally) as Target don’t respond to email or chat. And their phone number is outsourced and useless.

Any advice?

Does anyone have a phone number or email contact to an Australian customer service rep who might actually look into it properly.

General Discussion Building Blocks LEGO

Related Stores

Target Australia
Target Australia

Comments

  • Repstar on 18/07/2025 - 07:23
    +6

    Yep, you are shit out of luck here. Its home / contents insurance that you will need to claim under.

    • MrMoneySmart on 18/07/2025 - 07:43
      +3

      Yeah not worth losing my no claim on a $399 claim.

      So annoying but yes I fear your comment is most likely the end outcome.

      • Repstar on 18/07/2025 - 07:51

        Any video footage of the front door or neighbours with cameras?

        • Repstar on 18/07/2025 - 08:04
          +16

          You also need to look at it from Target's perspective:

          They dispatched the item, and have photo evidence it was delivered. There are people out there that would try this scam on them all the time.

          The photo evidence you have of delivery, was it delivered in a Target brand box, or the default Lego "ready for shipping" box?

          • 87percent on 18/07/2025 - 08:11
            +12

            @Repstar: I would report to the police, and then provide that to target and the courier company. Maybe they might take it seriously

          • lint on 18/07/2025 - 11:01
            +29

            @Repstar: But that's the reason they're supposed to have signature on delivery, so they can prove it was received. That they switched to ATL while their website assures customers it will be SOD makes them responsible for this.

            • Repstar on 18/07/2025 - 11:03
              +3

              @lint: The buyer agreed to no signature on delivery with the T&C

              • lint on 18/07/2025 - 11:05
                +6

                @Repstar: Yep, I saw somebody else post Target's actual delivery info and it's different to what OP claimed.

                You're on your own, OP. If you're in a high parcel theft area, either get it delivered to your work or use click & collect.

          • TilacVIP on 20/07/2025 - 08:15
            +3

            @Repstar: what perspective????.

            If it's meant to be delivered with a signature required, then they simply should not be leaving it out in the open. Isn't that why the Signature required option exists. If no one is home, a card is left & it gets taken to another location for pickup. Not left unattended.

            I would be seriously pizzed if this happened to me.

            • Repstar on 20/07/2025 - 08:15
              -4

              @TilacVIP: Read the entire thread before you comment

              • TilacVIP on 20/07/2025 - 08:18
                +3

                @Repstar: Yeah i did. Would you send something to that value, and leave it unattended??

                OP said they normally send Signature required.

                So what perspective? Target is to blame

                • Repstar on 20/07/2025 - 08:22
                  -3

                  @TilacVIP: So your comments right now prove to me you haven’t read the entire thread. Actually go read it before you comment.

                  • TilacVIP on 20/07/2025 - 08:27
                    +1

                    @Repstar: Seriously, that's all you have??? Repeating yourself like a parrot??? Seems you are the one who has an issue with reading the thread

                    I’ve contacted target and they investigated and provided proof of delivery, but I explained according to their own terms and conditions all parcels are sent signature on delivery. They selected ATL, not me.

                    that's from the OP.

                    OP expecting to get this, not left unattended.

                    • Repstar on 20/07/2025 - 08:34
                      -3

                      @TilacVIP: Keep trying. Go back and read it. You will eventually come to the part where the T&C say the delivery will be left unattended if no one is available to sign. The buyer agreed to no signature on delivery by accepting the T&C.

                      • TilacVIP on 20/07/2025 - 08:36
                        +3

                        @Repstar: If the buyer agreed to that, then why is he/she fighting this? Why the OP??

                        This is from the OP,

                        This is the extract I’m reading from their terms and conditions.

                        https://www.target.com.au/corporate/condition-of-use?srsltid…

                        Please note that all parcels will require a signature upon delivery. If there's no authorised person at the delivery address to sign for the parcel, then the delivery driver will leave a card and the parcel will be returned to the nearest Australia Post office for you to collect. Please note that our carrier companies Delivery Policies or zone restrictions may apply to selected areas. Where street delivery is not always possible, you will receive notification or a calling card will be left.

                          • Dan_ on 20/07/2025 - 12:17
                            +5

                            @Repstar:

                            I’m done here. Time waster. Yawn 🥱

                            Realised you were wrong and trying to exit unnoticed. Nice try.

                            • Repstar on 20/07/2025 - 12:18
                              -3

                              @Dan_: You got me. Someone else who doesn't understand T&C. Next.

                              • Dan_ on 20/07/2025 - 12:38
                                +1

                                @Repstar: I can see the part you're referring to, but the Conditions of Use link in the cart directs you to the link posted by TilacVIP.

                                The part you're referring to is the Delivery information which is contradictory to the Conditions of Use you are agreeing to at checkout. The first paragraph also ends with an incomplete sentence.

                                • Repstar on 20/07/2025 - 12:41
                                  -2

                                  @Dan_: Nah, they are just missing a comma.

                              • TilacVIP on 20/07/2025 - 14:39
                                +1

                                @Repstar: He did get you.

                          • TilacVIP on 20/07/2025 - 12:41
                            +2

                            @Repstar: Again, repeating yourself without backing it up. Show me what you are referring to after you wake from your slumber?

                            Regardless, I stand by what I said, unless the buyer allowed for ATL, then it's on him. Otherwise, Target 100% should have sent this 'Signature' required considering the value of the item.

                            my last 3 purchases from different merchants all over $100, needed a signature. Why, because that's what a good business does, for the sake of $3 extra $$$$ to make sure there is no problems. Most even give you the option to tick if you allow "ATL", otherwise its taken elsewhere to be picked.

                            • Repstar on 20/07/2025 - 12:44

                              @TilacVIP: They did allow ATL. It states it in the T&C. My god.

                              I buy sets from Lego.com all the time. They never require signature.

                              • Dan_ on 20/07/2025 - 13:06
                                +3

                                @Repstar: For everyone else's benefit, Repstar is presumably referring to the section under Receiving your order.

                                However, this is a delivery information page, not the Conditions of Use (linked and agreed to at checkout) and it is contradictory to the Conditions of Use.

                              • TilacVIP on 20/07/2025 - 14:38
                                +3

                                @Repstar: Listen, the OP has a fight on his hands to get either the item or a refund, he didn't authorise to ATL. A business should never just ATL without the buyer consent, period. It is up to Target (in this case) to get the product to him, regardless of what tracking says. They didn't, so unless the OP is lying, he didn't get what he paid for. Had they sent it signature on delivery, there would be no issue. Inmy opinion,they are100% to blame leaving the item in plain site to be stolen.

                                Does that make sense to you or are you still going to play the arrogant card?

                                • Repstar on 20/07/2025 - 15:00
                                  -2

                                  @TilacVIP: It’s not arrogant, you are just delusional and inexperienced with the topic. It’s not how it works post covid. Everyone does ATL these days. If it gets stolen, it’s home and contents insurance. You’re talking to someone who has thousands of parcels delivered every year. I know how it works, and I’ve had many items go missing.

                                  Hot tip of the day, items stop going missing once you have CCTV clearly visible installed at your front door. There is absolutely nothing stopping a courier taking a photo of your item being delivered, and then taking the item for themselves. I’m guessing that’s what happened here.

                                  Furthermore, LEGO boxes ship with a barcode that clearly states what LEGO box is hiding inside. It’s such a big flaw. I’ve had a $1300 LEGO set go missing before. I’ve been through the entire process. The OP doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The box @ checkout they ticked is the T&C for the order.

                                  Target also use Couriers Please. Check out the Facebook group and online ratings for them. It’s laughable.

                                  Take the loss, learn the lesson, and move on.

                                  • TilacVIP on 20/07/2025 - 15:15
                                    +2

                                    @Repstar: Wow, there are no boundaries for stupidity where you're concerned, are there?. You seem to push the bar even higher.

                                    Hey my $100 item got stolen Mr Insurance, can I claim? Sure, after you pay $1000 in excess. Do you see how dumb you're starting to sound? Yes, I do too.

                                    On top of that, as you state, even CCTV doesn't help (when the courier is able turn themself invisible) ,so what's the solution? Maybe a signature on delivery would solve everything, but you, being arrogant & ignorant, can't seem to grasp that concept?

                                    Btw, why are you still replying, when you said you're done 5 replies ago, so be gone already.

                                    • Repstar on 20/07/2025 - 15:21
                                      -3

                                      @TilacVIP: I said CCTV does help. Do you have an undiagnosed selective reading condition? Not sure what’s going on here.

                                      Get home and contents insurance with no excess. One day when you grow up, you will understand how it all works.

                                      • TilacVIP on 20/07/2025 - 15:51

                                        @Repstar: ok, so now we also need to install CCTV, on top of changing our insurance policy with excess to one with no excess (do you know how much extra premium that would be???) - at a total cost of what - say over $2000 + extra? Now does that make any sense??

                                        I told you, you seem to raise the stupidity-bar a little higher with each reply.

                                        • Repstar on 20/07/2025 - 15:56
                                          -2

                                          @TilacVIP: Get a $200 eufy doorbell. Problem solved. Back to school tomorrow kid.

                                          • Repstar on 20/07/2025 - 16:05

                                            @Repstar: I just found the feature on how to block useless, time wasting users who contribute nothing worthy to the conversation! Amazing!

                                  • Muppet Detector on 21/07/2025 - 01:15

                                    @Repstar:

                                    I’ve had a $1300 LEGO set go missing before. I’ve been through the entire process. The OP doesn’t

                                    Which Lego set was $1300?

                                    • Repstar on 21/07/2025 - 06:47

                                      @Muppet Detector: 75313 AT-AT

                                      • Muppet Detector on 21/07/2025 - 07:24

                                        @Repstar: WOW!

                                        I never ever saw that one! I did get a smaller one though. Must have been before my time.

                                        Only really got back into Lego this time about when Death Star was pretty much unavailable to buy anymore.

                                        Millennium Falcon
                                        Imperial Star Destroyer
                                        Bought my AT-AT around that time I think.

                                        Probably the biggest Star Wars sets but pretty sure they were both under $900?

                                        Actually annoyed me a bit that they kept releasing smaller versions of the UCA S

                                        Only saw Titanic and Eiffle Tower reach $1000 ball park.

                                        I loved the AT - AT - built a Main Street out of Modular's and had AT-AT rampage down middle of the street - amused me.

                                  • SlickMick on 21/07/2025 - 13:19

                                    @Repstar: You're wrong. Own it.

      • Assburg on 20/07/2025 - 23:19

        tribunal claim man

  • JIMB0 on 18/07/2025 - 07:45
    +23

    Credit card charge back. You'll get banned from PayPal though.

    • TilacVIP on 20/07/2025 - 08:16

      Does anyone give 2 eff's about PayPal these days???

  • geekcohen on 18/07/2025 - 07:50
    +3

    Do you have footage of the theft?

    • MrMoneySmart on 18/07/2025 - 07:52

      No. I do not.

      • geekcohen on 18/07/2025 - 08:43
        +10

        Thats unfortunate. Time to get some cameras!

        • maxboston2 on 18/07/2025 - 11:10
          +3

          Just curious, how would video footage help? Would it just assist the police report or just curious how it'll increase the chance of getting the item/refund? Thanks in advance.

          • spackbace on 18/07/2025 - 11:46
            +3

            @maxboston2: Could act as a deterrent

            • Jimothy Wongingtons on 18/07/2025 - 12:57
              +2

              @spackbace: agreed, you can get ones that will sound an alarm too if detected (though typically the ones that are not paywalled via app will have a fairly high chance of false alerts)

          • DarwinBoy on 21/07/2025 - 12:32

            @maxboston2: in most cases. something is better then nothing.

        • fatpizza on 21/07/2025 - 18:07

          Just don't get the cameras delivered home.

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 18/07/2025 - 07:51
    +7

    but I explained according to their own terms and conditions all parcels are sent signature on delivery.

    Actually, what it says is:

    Receiving your order
    Home deliveries will be delivered to your nominated address. Signatures for a delivery will be required whenever a recipient is at home. But if they're not, and a safe place for the parcel is available, we'll leave it there so it's ready and waiting for them. We'll also take a photo of the parcel as proof that it was delivered safely. If there's no safe place.

    I’m going to assume the 2nd last full stop is a typo and should be a comma.

    • Muppet Detector on 18/07/2025 - 08:25
      +4

      If you read it again, I think it may be an independent sentence, but an incomplete one.

      Either they were meant to remove it before publishing or explain what they would do if there's no safe place.

      Regardless, doesn't help OP. They should have read this and asked about it before agreeing to the order.

      OP, for your next set, could you please order the Endurance sailing boat? Once you've done that, PM me your address and tracking number… cheers!

      • Jimothy Wongingtons on 18/07/2025 - 08:58

        I did think that too originally , I guess they could also take it one step further as ‘what is a safe place’ and who decides?

        Courier: prob thinks anywhere out of direct rain or dog is safe space

        Customer: could be either out of view behind a pot plant, or direct to post office only or anything else?

        • lateralus45 on 21/07/2025 - 13:34

          End of the day if it got stolen it wasn't a safe place was it.

          • proudwanderer on 22/07/2025 - 08:55

            @lateralus45: Well, if the courier himself stole it “after” taking a photo for proof of delivery - then no place in the world is a safe place!

    • Qazxswec on 20/07/2025 - 15:54
      +1

      Read this one though, i reckon he has a case Conditions of Use

    • idonotknowwhy on 22/07/2025 - 11:51

      Receiving your order
      Home deliveries will be delivered to your nominated address. Signatures for a delivery will be required whenever a recipient is at home. But if they're not, and a safe place for the parcel is available, we'll leave it there so it's ready and waiting >for them. We'll also take a photo of the parcel as proof that it was delivered safely. If there's no safe place.

      Holy shit, that's ridiculous. Next time I'll just pretend I'm not home then and pick it up from the porch as soon as the delivery guy leaves, saves me (profanity) around with the tablet / pen.

      What's the point of making us sign for it if we happen to be home then? Covers their asses better or something?

      • Jono05 on 27/07/2025 - 21:13

        Most of the time the couriers don’t even check to see if you’re home. They just leave the parcel on your doorstep.

  • Muppet Detector on 18/07/2025 - 08:18
    +3

    Any advice ?

    Really sorry for your loss.

    https://www.target.com.au/help/payment-delivery

    As per their T&C, whilst it does say they will leave if it is safe to do so, the last sentence in that area seems to be incomplete. It says "If there is no safe place"

    Complete long shot here but for $400, might be worth a try, but I'd consider asking them, "if there's no safe place… what happens if there's no safe place?"

    Seems like they were going to say what they would do if there wasn't a safe place. I wonder what that was as clearly, it wasn't left in a safe place….

    However, the onus was on you to read that before you entered into an agreement with them and if you had any questions or concerns, to raise those and then only continue if you were satisfied.

    ATM: Target has proof of delivery
    : you don't have proof that it was stolen before you took physical possession of it.

    => you're out of luck, sorry. Perhaps organise a parcel locker or similar in the future, eh?

    It's my guess that charge back will look for same evidence.

    • Grunntt on 19/07/2025 - 09:31
      +5

      Seems like they were going to say what they would do if there wasn't a safe place. I wonder what that was as clearly, it wasn't left in a safe place….

      The Wayback Machine shows that it used to state -

      If there's no safe place, we'll leave a card as we normally would - and take the parcel to a nearby Post Office for your customer to pick up and sign for.

      Sometime between March 2022 and October 2022 the last sentence was truncated.

      • bazingaa on 19/07/2025 - 18:18

        probably they have switched from auspost to other couriers.

        • Muppet Detector on 20/07/2025 - 11:03

          I do think Aus post tightened up the weights and measurements of the goods they would transport, particularly to some locations, at some stage recently.

          They also overhauled and redefined a lot of the services they would provide.

          Not certain, but I also think that Covid saw a lot of changes to how things were delivered and thinking maybe some of those changes were never wound back.

          I do know that it has been a long time since I have had any confidence in the aus post "signature on delivery" service, or even registered or certified mail.

          Been a while since I've had a deep dive into their T&C so perhaps they've recently been updated, idk but for a long while there, things really didn't operate how I thought they were supposed to.

          I just came to the conclusion that Aus Post were a delivery service, they were not an insurance policy. If I wanted to insure the products I wanted them to deliver, I needed an extra insurance policy to cover that.

          • proudwanderer on 22/07/2025 - 09:00

            @Muppet Detector: Except that in this case it was delivered by Couriers Please and not Aus Post - which is notorious for failed deliveries. There’s even anecdotal evidence of the couriers themselves stealing parcels.

      • Muppet Detector on 20/07/2025 - 10:54

        I never knew about that resource, thank you.

        I just thought I knew that sometimes Google cache sometimes caught older versions of some things if you either looked hard enough and/or you got lucky enough.

        So it seems like they attempted to amend their policy to exclude the last bit (probably when they began to commonly use alternative delivery services to Aus post), and really dropped the ball when using that delete button lol.

        As we know though, it really only matters what policy was in place at the time the purchase was made.

    • Dan_ on 20/07/2025 - 22:00

      But that is the Help page for information on deliveries and not the actual T&Cs. The "Conditions of Use" (which is linked at checkout and must be agreed to in order to purchase from their website) contradicts this by specifying that all parcels will require a signature upon delivery.

      It is also referred to as the Terms and Conditions by Target. If you add an item and get to the payment stage (after selecting a payment method), it reads:

      We collect personal information to process your order, generate insights and personalise your future experiences with us. Learn more in our privacy policy. By completing your order, you consent to this and have read, understand and accept our terms and conditions and returns policy.

      The "terms and conditions" part contains a link to the above "Conditions of use".

  • djones145 on 18/07/2025 - 08:21
    +1

    tp link tapo camera
    amazon has for 40 bucks
    get one, i got one recently
    no need hub or subscription
    plug in, connect to wifi
    get notifications on mobile when triggered. takes video
    add a sd card and you can dl the footage when in the same wifi
    night vision aint bad i leave mines at the front window

    • Stewardo on 18/07/2025 - 08:25
      +17

      Just get it delivered to a post box, this area is known for parcel theft.

    • tz001 on 19/07/2025 - 08:05

      Sorry, but that doesn't help OP get their parcel back, and cameras don't prevent theft, just provide proof that it occurred. Good value though, might get one to replace my Wyze.

    • bazingaa on 19/07/2025 - 18:19

      recently c200 was just $29, I have couple of c200 and c210 with nvr, pointed outside from windows recording 24/7

  • apple2016 on 18/07/2025 - 08:44
    +3

    Firstly if you say some one stole it, do make a complaint with cops. Although they might not do much, every complaint adds to the list and eventually they will be forced to do something.

    The other option is ACCC. Try getting in touch with them. If it goes for a hearing, target will have to pay for the costs in turn forcing them to replace or refund

    • Bruceflix on 18/07/2025 - 10:03
      +4

      ACCC won't actually do anything over an issue with 1 customer.

      • Protractor on 18/07/2025 - 10:29
        +4

        ACCC is how you spell limp lettuce.

    • lint on 18/07/2025 - 11:11
      +3

      You're mean the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (xCAT), not ACCC. The party bringing the matter to the tribunal pays the fees. There is no such thing as the other party having to reimburse those fees if it goes to a hearing.

      • tz001 on 19/07/2025 - 08:18

        There absolutely is, but this varies by jurisdiction. The party bringing the matter can claim it as a cost from the other party.

        • lint on 21/07/2025 - 09:49

          In jurisdictions that allow this, does this not happen after the tribunal has come to a decision? Why would they order the other party to pay the fees as soon as it proceeds to a hearing?

          • tz001 on 28/07/2025 - 08:56

            @lint: Yep, sorry, misread your post. Not on the basis of a hearing, but if you win your full claim.

    • tz001 on 19/07/2025 - 08:08

      ACCC does not deal with this stuff. It literally says so on their home page. Even if they did, which part of consumer law has Target breached? You could try xCAT, but given the T&C, I don't like OP's chances.

  • Dollar General on 18/07/2025 - 09:01
    +3

    Your complaint and legal recourse is with the person who stole it, not Target

    Target has fulfilled their obligations

    Click and collect is a better option if your neighbourhood has a lot of theft

    • 7ekn00 on 18/07/2025 - 10:25
      +1

      or Parcel Locker or Post Office or PO Box or delivery to someone always home (mother/brother/uncle/grandma,etc) or a lock box on porch or or or

      • proudwanderer on 22/07/2025 - 09:07
        -1

        Also if you put a parcel locker address - it will force Target to use Aus Post for your delivery.

        No one else can deliver to parcel lockers except Aus Post.

        • Jono05 on 27/07/2025 - 21:44

          That’s not how it works. If a seller uses a courier, you can’t use a parcel locker for delivery.

    • GS9 on 21/07/2025 - 16:23
      +1

      Actually, I believe Target is responsible for getting the package to you. You paid for the item and delivery - it's up to them to get it to you. They should refund him and then chase up their losses with their contractor, Couriers Please.

  • DevGuy on 18/07/2025 - 09:15
    +8

    Sorry to hear this, it sucks. But lesson learned for you. You said yourself the area is known for parcel theft, yet you ordered a $400 lego set for delivery. ATL has been an auto-option since COVID, you must know this. In the past, they’d drop it off at the PO and leave a card.

    Chargeback isn’t worth losing your PP account over.
    Target delivered it and have proof.
    You have no proof it was stolen. Unfortunately, people try to scam sellers to get the item for free.

    Get a post box, or cameras, or move to a low-theft area (sort of joking here). Or use C&C if you can.

    • Dollar General on 18/07/2025 - 09:39
      +2

      Wrong.

      Deliver to your address provided as per T&C’s OP agreed to when placing the order

      • djsweet on 18/07/2025 - 09:57
        +1

        I doubt that. Sounds like there was no safe place and they left it anyway.

        • Muppet Detector on 20/07/2025 - 11:24
          -2

          Ordinary shipping only requires the service provider to deliver from point A (wherever item is lodged), to point B (the address the sender indicated they wanted the item delivered).

          Note, as there is a requirement for a letterbox to be at your boundary, there isn't even a legal obligation to deliver something inside your boundary.

          Arguably, a safe place is within your boundary as opposed to being left on some random public place somewhere in the vicinity of your nominated delivery destination.

          They do not have to deliver to whomever/whatever is named on the delivery information. They don't even have to check if the person they deliver it to actually lives at that address or knows you or has authority to collect on your behalf.

          AND

          "A safe place" is up to the receiver to provide, not the problem for the delivery service.

          If you can't provide a "safe place", don't elect to have your items delivered.

          The "safe place" delivery is a pure illusion because, without clarification or a given definition, it is subjective by nature and means different things to different people.

          safe from what?

          Fire?

          Flood?

          Rain?

          Insect infestation?

          Even a safe place from theft is subjective. If the recipient hasn't provided a securely locked facility, but still nominates that address for delivery, clearly they believe that anywhere at the nominated address is safe.

          • djsweet on 20/07/2025 - 13:23
            +1

            @Muppet Detector: If there is no safe place they are supposed to take it back to the post office or some other pick up location in the case of a courier. Not just leave it. Since when is it up to the customer to provide a safe place. The normative method of delivery is hand-to-hand. This whole safe drop thing is some new invention of convenience for the courier, and they should bear the liability.

            • Muppet Detector on 20/07/2025 - 13:48

              @djsweet: Ummmm, I'm sure that this is how you think things should be, but it isn't how things are unfortunately.

              1. Delivery is to an address, not a person.

              2. Always been customer's place to provide area for safe delivery.

              As for obliging delivery service to take your package back after their attempt to deliver, remember they are a delivery service and not a storage service. Furthermore, unless they state otherwise, their job is done after the first time they attempt delivery. No legal requirement for them to organise or attempt additional delivery attempt, especially free of charge.

              If hand to hand really was a thing, then how come we are required to have letter boxes?

              • djsweet on 20/07/2025 - 14:13

                @Muppet Detector: Are you 12 or do just have a really short memory of how postage and courier services used to work until recently?

                • Muppet Detector on 20/07/2025 - 16:47
                  -3

                  @djsweet: I'm not twelve, but I am quite sure that I know what the law says about postage and courier services.

                  For example:

                  I know what the Australian Constitution 1901 says.

                  I know what the Australian Postage Corporations Act (1989) says

                  I've got a better knowledge and understanding of Contract Law than most people have and it goes back hundreds of years.

                  I'm not too shabby with Australian Consumer Law either.

                  I know what Australia Posts own Terms & Conditions say

                  I'm not sure how short my memory is, but I think knowing about stuff created in 1901 and/or 1989 is pretty good, even for a twelve year old, eh?

                  Unless I have missed something?

                  Do you know of any relevant legislation or laws that I don't seem to be aware of?

  • cocomelon on 18/07/2025 - 09:59
    +5

    chargeback via your CC

    • Sinnerator on 18/07/2025 - 17:49

      This, if I order something that requires a signature then I damn well expect to get it.

  • Protractor on 18/07/2025 - 10:05

    PayPal side with ebay sellers more often now, too. For all the claims about supporting customers, I find PayPal has set up such a difficult and slow back & forth claim system, so customers give up.

    TLDR PayPal don't walk the talk anymore.

    Also the shit logistics system in Straya is basically a honey pot for criminality.Inside and out.

  • ihbh on 18/07/2025 - 10:17
    +4

    Recently bought a Lego set (Tyrannosaurus Rex - $399 retail price).

    So you got it for less than $399. That is, your loss is < $399?

    If so, bit disingenuous to mention the retail price.

    • MrMoneySmart on 18/07/2025 - 10:22
      -6

      Yes I purchased it on sale but the value of the item is the rrp. I’ve not seen it again on sale.

      I paid $289.

      I’m not seeking to profit from the situation. I’m asking target to supply the item or refund my payment of $289.

      • Muppet Detector on 18/07/2025 - 14:08
        -2

        Target did supply the item. They even have proof.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join