Neighbors keep my Signed for parcel

real1314

visidigi wrote: »

No, theft is taking something without permission - they did not take the item from Parcelforce, they were offered and accepted it - Parcelforce gave permission for the neighbour to sign so there is no theft here.

As far as the recipient is concerned the parcel has yet to have been delivered - whoever has got it, the OP has the choice to obtain the package from them or insist Parcelforce do, if Parcelforce do not reclaim the package then the OP will report the package as unreceived to the shipper.

I would imagine the local Parcelforce will engage the police if the person who did sign for the package refuse to return it.

Theft is denying the rightful owner of something. PF "gave" the item to the neighbour with the intent that it would be passed to the rightful owner. The neighbour is denying the rightful owner, hence has perpetrated a theft.
What would a "reasonable person" say? - That it should be passed on, hence theft.

OP - pass details of this incident to all of your other neighbours, go back to the plod and ask them to think again. Ask for a senior officer if necessary.

(don't PF get them to sign something to say they have received goods for another person? If so, it's an open and shut case - theft)

:cool:

Naf

The Theft Act 1968 defines theft:
"A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"

It was dishonestly appropriated because they took it on the understanding they were to pass it on, while they clearly had no such intention.
And they're obviously depriving the OP of it. Yes, open/shut...

visidigi

From Wiki (for convienience) In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.

The 'person' in this scenario is Parcel Force - not the recipient as far as the recipient is concerned the package is still in Parcelforce's posession until delivered to the correct address (note address - not specifically the person as the default in these scenarios is an indirect signature is required from within the destination address - not indirect signature from another address.

At the end of the day, the OP should only deal with the supplier as this is who the contract is with, the police, neighbour and parcel force are of no involvement here to the contract drawn up between the purchaser (OP) and the supplier (clothing store).

custardy

Naf wrote: »

BUT Parcelforce have already told the OP that the delivered to the neighbour, so it is known that the goods are not with the rightful owner and so ParcelForce has been an accomplice/willing party in a theft...

you are assuming their contract doesnt state leave with neighbour/safeplace

mgenta

Thank you all so great It's lovely to think about it rational for a change,lol been running around like a headless chicken,lol
I cannot se how it is the suppliers fault,but do believe alot people think so.
The neighbor signed a form(well one of those electronic thingys) that he accepted the parcel on my behalf,meaning he'll pass it on,they didn't but parcel force should have posted a note in my letter box stating where they left it,they didn't so neighbors had it for a week without me knowing.
I do believe it's theft and what a great idea telling neighbors not to leave things with them whoo brilliant it's a sort of revenge without it being one,lol
And yes I will go to a higher police force or maybe CAB?
I'd take a layer if I could to drag them to court to wipe the smirk of their face

Naf

custardy wrote: »

you are assuming their contract doesnt state leave with neighbour/safeplace

Life's full of these little assumptions
But you're right, it could say so...

visidigi wrote: »

From Wiki (for convienience) In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.

The 'person' in this scenario is Parcel Force - not the recipient as far as the recipient is concerned the package is still in Parcelforce's posession until delivered to the correct address (note address - not specifically the person as the default in these scenarios is an indirect signature is required from within the destination address - not indirect signature from another address.

At the end of the day, the OP should only deal with the supplier as this is who the contract is with, the police, neighbour and parcel force are of no involvement here to the contract drawn up between the purchaser (OP) and the supplier (clothing store).

But its not PF's property, as they haven't paid for it. By that definition if PF were to keep the parcel indefinitely (and intentionally) they would still not be committing theft.
Yes, their contract is with the supplier, but the supplier has not done anything wrong; PF has by leaving it somewhere they weren't asked to; and the neighbour has by keeping it.

Its not like the OP doesn't know where it is and has to chase the supplier (although could play it that way as, yes, technically their contract is only with the supplier), but they know what has happened and therefore have a number of avenues they can pursue...

real1314

visidigi wrote: »

From Wiki (for convienience) In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.

The 'person' in this scenario is Parcel Force - not the recipient as far as the recipient is concerned the package is still in Parcelforce's posession until delivered to the correct address (note address - not specifically the person as the default in these scenarios is an indirect signature is required from within the destination address - not indirect signature from another address.

At the end of the day, the OP should only deal with the supplier as this is who the contract is with, the police, neighbour and parcel force are of no involvement here to the contract drawn up between the purchaser (OP) and the supplier (clothing store).

Right, ok.

Did parelforce give it to them to keep permanently?
Or to pass on to the recipient?

Are they trying to keep it permanently?

You like Wiki, I like the law. Theft does not have to require an act of taking something. And even if you want to think of it as requiruing "taking", once the period of custody expired (when the recipient asked for it) the neighbour had commenced "taking" it (as their own possession rather than as an item in custody).

:cool:

visidigi

naf wrote:

But its not PF's property, as they haven't paid for it. By that definition if PF were to keep the parcel indefinitely (and intentionally) they would still not be committing theft.
Yes, their contract is with the supplier, but the supplier has not done anything wrong; PF has by leaving it somewhere they weren't asked to; and the neighbour has by keeping it.

Its not like the OP doesn't know where it is and has to chase the supplier (although could play it that way as, yes, technically their contract is only with the supplier), but they know what has happened and therefore have a number of avenues they can pursue...

PF have been contracted to collect and item and deliver it to the exact address (not necessarily the name) - they have not done so therefore they have not fulfilled the contract between the store and the courier. As a result the contract between supplier and OP has not been fulfilled.

The OP should only speak to the supplier, not PF - it was the supplier who chose to use PF, no one else and its the supplier to whom PF are responsible.

visidigi

real1314 wrote: »

Right, ok.

Did parelforce give it to them to keep permanently?
Or to pass on to the recipient?

Are they trying to keep it permanently?

You like Wiki, I like the law. Theft does not have to require an act of taking something. And even if you want to think of it as requiruing "taking", once the period of custody expired (when the recipient asked for it) the neighbour had commenced "taking" it (as their own possession rather than as an item in custody).

:cool:

PF gave it to them to pass to the OP, legally though, until the OP has the package in the address to which it was addressed then PF's obligations have not been fulfilled.

Besides, even if this is theft through some way (which we will agree to disagree, although I beleive what I quote (which I noted openly was done for convienience)) it still does not change who is responsible for the order and who the OP should speak to.

PF have not completed the obligation they were requested to fulfill by the supplier of the OP's order.

mgenta

Well the clothing were bought from USA ebay and it wasn't parcel force in US it was an american courier,he took it to the airport it was once it got to the UK it gone pear shaped
I still cannot see how it can be any others fault,as someone said it's not that I don't know where it is,I do,just can't do anything about it.
Meanwhile they get away with keeping someone elses goods and everybody else is battling it out they sit with their feet up laughing enjoying a pint