Sports Direct faces claims of intimidating shoppers over missing parcels and refunds

Sports Direct customers are being accused of fraud and threatened with court action after seeking refunds for parcels that disappeared in transit or were delivered incorrectly, according to evidence seen by The Telegraph. Despite consumer protection laws that require retailers to replace or refund items lost before reaching the buyer, Frasers Group, the company behind Sports Direct, allegedly denied such claims and referred cases to debt collection agencies.

Under the Consumer Rights Act, the onus is on the retailer to ensure goods are properly delivered to the intended recipient. However, multiple customers reported their packages being left in unsecured locations or with photographic evidence provided by couriers that failed to confirm true delivery. In one example, NHS worker Adele Peacock ordered clothing valued at £112.99; her parcel was left in her garden and stolen despite specific instructions to leave it with a neighbour. After her bank processed a chargeback for the missing goods, Peacock began receiving demands from National Business Crime Solution, which threatened legal and criminal proceedings unless she paid over four times the original sum.

Customers described the letters from recovery companies as aggressive and distressing. Notices included threats of county court judgments, substantial cost demands, and allegations of fraud. One claimant said that facing a demand exceeding £2,000, he felt compelled to pay rather than contend with protracted court disputes. In another case, a shopper named Fiz Aslam lost a £1,900 bicycle after it was abandoned outside his home, contrary to the delivery policy requiring multiple attempts. Following his successful chargeback, he also was chased by the recovery firm for more than the product’s value.

Consumer advocates note that the practice of deploying third-party debt collectors to pursue those who have received legitimate refunds is becoming more aggressive among some prominent retailers. Trading Standards and the Competition and Markets Authority urge affected consumers to report what they consider unfair practices. The Minister for Consumer Protection has criticised firms intimidating customers, emphasising that such tactics breach the spirit of strengthened penalties for consumer law violations.

Sources within the banking sector confirm that chargeback provisions exist specifically to shield consumers in cases of non-delivery, with bank investigations requiring supporting evidence. Legal experts reiterate that mere photos of parcels on doorsteps do not satisfy the conditions of proper delivery. Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act further supports cardholders’ rights to reclaim funds when goods are not provided as agreed.

The collapse of National Business Crime Solution has seen ongoing cases transferred to the National Retail Crime Alliance, though affected shoppers say they have received little assistance or response from either body. As fears grow regarding the impact of county court judgments on personal finances, including mortgage eligibility, calls are intensifying for greater transparency and accountability from retailers and their agents.