You are missing something. The article quotes the police:
“Police Scotland told me that, since the courier’s contract is with Amazon, no crime has been committed against me and I should get Amazon to sort it out,” she said.
Comment on Amazon shows ‘contempt’ for UK law over parcel thefts
Rogue@feddit.uk 1 year ago
Perhaps I’m missing something here, what is the issue with insisting thefts are reported to the police?
Isn’t a bigger issue that the
police declined to investigate delivery failures
Does that mean the police are denying a crime may have been committed? Or does it mean they agree there may have been a crime but they aren’t willing or able to commit resources to investigate what happened?
StereoTrespasser@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Rogue@feddit.uk 1 year ago
Thanks! I think that’s the context I was missing. OP cut a few paragraphs when quoting the article. Lesson learned I should read the source.
Emperor@feddit.uk 1 year ago
Does that mean the police are denying a crime may have been committed?
Unless you have, for example, video doorbell footage of a porch pirate then it could very easily be a cock-up. I can phone them.up and say someone has nicked my keys but I could very easily have left them somewhere I don’t usually do.
Algaroth@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Most likely the latter. Like if you report your bike stolen the police isn’t going to go out and look for it but you’ll have a reference for your insurance claim.
AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
It’s because consumer protection laws put the burden on the retailer to ensure delivery of products. It’s more accurate to say that the crime has been committed against Amazon, rather than the customer.
It’s not difficult to get a crime reference number, even if the police do nothing about it afterwards, but it can be a bit of a faff in terms of time and effort - last time I did it, it took a couple of hours on the phone in all, which isn’t much, but I would’ve found it much more frustrating if I was reporting something that Amazon should have followed up.