Dear All,
Thank you for your response and for the time you devoted to reviewing my appeal.
Unfortunately, the reasoning presented still does not address all material circumstances of the case, and some of the conclusions appear to be based on an incomplete evidentiary record and an incorrect assumption regarding the chronology of events.
In light of this, I am compelled to submit supplementary clarifications and formal evidentiary requests, which, in my assessment, have not yet been duly considered.
1. Alleged “date discrepancy” – incorrect factual assumption
You indicate that the fact that shipment A003DDZP71 was registered on Wednesday, 10 December undermines the consistency of my account regarding the events on Sunday.
This assumption is incorrect, because:
I have never claimed that this specific shipment was successfully dispatched on Sunday;
On 9 December at 15:26, I was contacted by an Allegro consultant, who:
was informed of the locker malfunction,
advised me that a courier would attempt to collect the parcel and place it in another Allegro locker,
with the purpose of activating a new code and enabling dispatch.
It was precisely this logistical intervention by the Operator, and not my own actions, that resulted in the physical dispatch of one parcel on Wednesday.
This circumstance cannot be used against me; on the contrary, it confirms that the Operator assumed control over the shipment following the malfunction report.
2. Absence of a technical report from the locker / hotline – objective circumstances
You note that the system does not record a technical report “at the time of dispatch.”
However, this assessment omits the fact that:
the malfunction occurred on Sunday after 9:00 p.m.,
Allegro’s hotline does not operate during those hours,
the locker did not allow submission of a technical report via the screen, as the interface itself was partially non-functional.
Negative consequences cannot be imposed on a consumer where the reporting procedure was objectively unavailable at the relevant time.
3. System logs and technical reports – formal request for disclosure
You refer to an analysis of “system logs and technical reports of the locker.”
Accordingly, I hereby formally request:
Access (for review) to:
dates and times of any service or system log entries for the locker,
records of compartment openings within the time window indicated in my report,
information as to whether, following my report, any courier or service intervention occurred;
Clarification as to whether the analysis included:
video recordings from the locker (if such monitoring is used),
differentiation between actions performed by a consumer and those performed by a courier.
Without disclosure of the evidentiary basis, the assertion that “handover of the parcels cannot be confirmed” remains declaratory rather than factual.
4. Telephone call with the consultant – material evidence
I reiterate that:
the telephone call took place on 9 December at 15:26,
it was conducted using the phone number registered to my Allegro account,
it directly concerned the locker malfunction and subsequent logistical steps.
I formally request that the recording of this call be reviewed and taken into account, as it is material to establishing the factual sequence of events.
5. Exhaustion of the complaint procedure – formal position
I acknowledge your statement that the internal complaint procedure is considered exhausted.
At the same time, I note that:
the new circumstances and evidentiary requests presented above have not yet been substantively assessed,
in such situations, standards derived from principles of good administration and consumer protection warrant re-verification of the case or reassignment to another reviewer, in order to ensure objectivity.
Accordingly, I request either:
reassignment of the case to another expert for renewed analysis,
or
a written confirmation of refusal, including explicit identification of which evidence was disregarded and for what reason.
6. Current factual status
As of today:
two out of the three returns have already been refunded to me,
the dispute concerns one remaining parcel with a value of PLN 25,
which further confirms that the issue was operational and technical in nature, rather than resulting from my actions.
I trust that the matter will be reassessed in a manner that is complete, proportionate, and consistent with consumer protection standards, without further formal shifting of responsibility for the Operator’s infrastructure malfunction onto the consumer.
Best,
