eBay item delivered to wrong address by Royal Mail

arcon5

goater78 wrote: »

I don't see why capturing a surname would have helped at all. The parcel has obviously been nicked so they would have just written the surname they read on the parcel. Or made one up. Also its the 21st century poastmen have to use pdas so their records can be available electronically and accessed anywhere by the royal mail customer services. If they just used a red book it would take days to answer customer queries

On many occasions I have had to sign for a parcel in a book. And i'm only talking within the last few months here also. Whether they terminal wasn't working or whether this is common I don't know, nor do I care -- it takes seconds to write a signature and can solve many problems.

Your response is based on the assumption the postie stole the parcel. This may well not be the case. If the postie left the parcel at another address or with another person as signature would infact help identify that person.
"where did you leave my parcel Mr Posie?"
"I obtained a signature from X, here it is"
"oh, that rings a bell.. I think he lives a few doors down."

Obviously if the postie has stolen it this is irrelevant, but i'm betting more parcels go missing per year as a result of mis-delivering them than as a result of the postie stealing them.

goater78 wrote: »

The op must have agreed to the delivery method offered by the seller. The seller has proof that they have despatched the parcel with that method so I don't see why the seller is to blame. EBay have accepted the seller has done nothing wrong and I agree with them.

With respect, what dribble! What your basically saying is retailers should not be responsible for lost or damaged goods if in transit?

The selelr is contracted to deliver goods to the buyer -- this has not been done. Whether this is as the result of RM failings is irrelevant to the buyer and is the sellers problem -- but either way, the seller has not delivered said goods.

The fact the seller can prove the item has been dispatched is as relevant as the registration number of the lorry carrying it between depots --- completely irrelevant.

Lets get another thing straight here --- ebay are not a judge and their decision is NOT binding in a court of law. If the buyer filed a claim there is a good chance they would win.

Your understanding and logic is flawed if you think this is acceptable in the world of ecommerce. I wonder how you would feel if you bought something online which didn't arrive.

arcon5

goater78 wrote: »

The op must have agreed to the delivery method offered by the seller. The seller has proof that they have despatched the parcel with that method so I don't see why the seller is to blame. EBay have accepted the seller has done nothing wrong and I agree with them.

I'm actually shocked with this.

Whether the seller is to blame or not is irrelevant. No the seller is not to blame, that doesn't change the fact they haven't fulfilled their end of the contract by delivering the goods to the customer.

System

arcon5 wrote: »

I'm actually shocked with this.

Whether the seller is to blame or not is irrelevant. No the seller is not to blame, that doesn't change the fact they haven't fulfilled their end of the contract by delivering the goods to the customer.

It's not a business it's a private seller so things are different. The op agreed to buy an item from a private individual. They then agreed that the item would be despatched by a certain method. The seller has fulfilled everything he said he would. eBay agree which us why they have not found in the ops favour. You're other point about the book idea is frankly idiotic, major companies can't run a business like that, plus I don't think the postman nicked it. I think it was delivered to the wrong address and they nicked it b

alexanderalexander

arcon5 wrote: »

I'm actually shocked with this.

Whether the seller is to blame or not is irrelevant. No the seller is not to blame, that doesn't change the fact they haven't fulfilled their end of the contract by delivering the goods to the customer.

In principle I agree that it is the seller's responsibility to get the item to the buyer – simple as that. But actually in this instance the seller is partially to blame as well, as a 350 quid item should have been sent Special Delivery (and ultimately postage method is the seller's choice). Also I would have suspicions that the seller might've mixed something up with the address – it is pretty rare for the Royal Mail to get things completely wrong without any kind of a reason, in my experience. But that's by the by – if the item doesn't get to you, the seller has to refund even if he is not to blame in the slightest.

Might be worth paying by credit card in the future as that offers another chargeback route.

bod1467

Ref. CC ... most Ebay sales are payment via Paypal. Whether your debit or credit card is linked to your Paypal account matters not: chargebacks are difficult to instigate as Paypal will have fulfilled their obligations.

(If the buyer doesn't setup/use a Paypal account and pays via CC to the seller's Paypal account then things may be slightly different, but I'm not sure).

pinkshoes

Zebedoo, have you phoned Ebay yet? PHONE them, point out you have NOT received the item, the signature for the item is NOT yours, and that the phone was also sent via the wrong postage method.

If they won't help, then you will need to send a "letter before action" to the seller, telling them the above, and that as you do not have the phone you have paid for, then unless you receive a refund within 7 days, you will be starting legal action against them and taking them to the small claims court to get your money back.

somethingcorporate

goater78 wrote: »

It's not a business it's a private seller so things are different. The op agreed to buy an item from a private individual. They then agreed that the item would be despatched by a certain method. The seller has fulfilled everything he said he would. eBay agree which us why they have not found in the ops favour. You're other point about the book idea is frankly idiotic, major companies can't run a business like that, plus I don't think the postman nicked it. I think it was delivered to the wrong address and they nicked it b

Why are things different? Making the buyer responsible for goods before they have come into their possession is not the way these things work. I am quite surprised Ebay have found against the OP, perhaps we are not hearing the full story so jumping to the conclusion that Ebay thinks that way is premature. The ebay forums are littered with examples of when this is not the case and has happened to myself when RM lost a parcel. I didn't tell the buyer tough because I could prove I had sent it.

Are you suggesting if RM lost the parcel (and not delivered to the wrong address) the buyer should just accept the loss since the seller had posted it? The item remains the responsibility of the seller until the buyer receives. Simple as.

System

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Why are things different? Making the buyer responsible for goods before they have come into their possession is not the way these things work. I am quite surprised Ebay have found against the OP, perhaps we are not hearing the full story so jumping to the conclusion that Ebay thinks that way is premature. The ebay forums are littered with examples of when this is not the case and has happened to myself when RM lost a parcel. I didn't tell the buyer tough because I could prove I had sent it.

Are you suggesting if RM lost the parcel (and not delivered to the wrong address) the buyer should just accept the loss since the seller had posted it? The item remains the responsibility of the seller until the buyer receives. Simple as.

The op is pretty clear that eBay have found against him. The seller sold an item on eBay, the item was despatched by an agreed postal method and then a signature was given confirming receipt of the item. The op says he didn't sign for it which I believe, however I don't see why the seller should be responsible. He has proof of sale and proof of delivery, it is the ops word against royal mail that he never received it. I can't see any smallclaims court finding in the ops favour

zebedoo

@all - thanks lots for your varied advice! I'll try and add some more clarity.

1: whether or not it is good practice to capture more than just a signature at delivery is irrelevant. The issue is that the RM stated that they would deliver to 'anyone' at an address, which in the case of a block of flats is actually several addresses. This could be a neighbour, a visitor to another flat, a workman on the scene etc etc. Not good enough. Where is the validation that the person that the parcel was handed over to has anything to do with the address, or even addresses within the block?! This is the basis of any gripe, and therefore claim, against RM.

2: you have the full story - I am not hiding anything here. The item may well have been delivered somewhere, to someone, but NOT to me or to my address. Simples. The signature captured by RM is not mine - I can obviously prove that.

3: I hear both arguments re the seller being responsible for the item and the seller actually having delivered their side of the contract. They do have proof that the item was posted to my address - I have seen this. I did buy the item in the knowledge that it would be sent Recorded. However, the item hasn't arrived, so I don't see why I should be the one taking the hit here?

I am uncertain whether the best course of action here is a complaint to RM, in collaboration with the seller, with the hope of getting greater than the standard compensation for Recorded, or a small claim against the seller. The seller has been 100% cooperative and I'd rather see RM pay out then them.

It's starting to look life a £350 write-off, but to be honest I am prepared to kick off with RM about this for the rest of existence as I see it as their responsibility to deliver their element of this process. Given the quote from RM about handing the item over to 'anyone' (see point 1), surely I stand to get somewhere?

Thanks again everyone.

S

somethingcorporate

You have no issue with RM, your entire issue is with the seller. You bought their goods and they failed to get them to you. The fact they under-insured is also not your problem.

If you have a look on the ebay forums there are a number of examples of where the poster has been in the sellers position and been out of luck for being stupid for not insuring it for enough, it is their responsibility to get it to you. If RM have failed to do that that is a failure of a contract between the sender and RM and nothing to do with you (the buyer).

I cannot understand why Ebay have not found in your favour. I would repost this on the ebay forums and ask Soolin's advice. They are an expert in all things ebay and there is no way you should be out of pocket here. The seller (even if the fault lies with RM) is ultimately responsible for getting the goods to you.

Goater, I completely understand what you are saying but if the OP can prove that the signature is not theirs then the sender is still ultimately responsible to complete their side of the contract.