Wrongly delivered parcel, any liability?

jw80

A parcel was delivered to our home about 4 weeks ago but had somebody elses name on the delivery note which was in one of the 'documents enclosed' things. Not expecting a parcel and not wanting to hang around waiting for them to send a courier to collect she stuck the return address on the parcel and sent it back herself via the post office.

Fast forward 4 weeks an invoice arrives for the parcel (not sure why they sent it out without payment though). Addressed to 'The Householder' this time demanding immediate payment for parcel.

At this point she emailed them and said we haven't ordered from them, the named person on the parcel does not live at the address and told them she has returned it -- attaching a copy of the receipt from the post office. Then asked them not to contact us again.

Well they have replied telling us we are liable for the parcel as we had a duty of care once we took receipt of it. And further telling us they will file court proceedings and report us to the police for fraud if it isn't paid.

Value £90 and some oddment.


Does anything they say have any substance?

(If they ever send us anything else I won't be doing them any favours! Straight in the loft it'll go until they contact us!)

Optimist

You returned it to them you even have proof of posting, your duty of care ends there. Tell them you look forward to seeing them in court..If they are stupid enough to continue they have to come to your local court depending on where they are it will cost a lot more than £90 plus the judge is more likely to find in your favour than theirs.

Police, forget it you have proof you returned the item I can not see them bothering that much if at all.

I am assuming at some point between you returning the item and getting the invoice you were in contact to tell them you returned the item. If not it seems rather iffy, and if you hadn't been in contact you can point them in the direction of The Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971 and the small matter that it is an offence to demand payment for goods known to be unsolicited.

Hintza

Tell them to bring it on. This could be fun.

vikingaero

Name and shame these retards.

bris

Why are they retards? They sent an item to a name and address, do they know ity's not the person living there. As far as they are concerened the householder has taken the goods with no intension of paying for them, using the "no one with that name lives here", then the item gets lost in the post, very conveinient for the op but not so beleivable for the retailer.
There is still a duty of care for the goods so they would have a good chance in court, if it were to go that far.

OP please note I don't think any of the above applies in this case, but you have to also look at the retailers point of view on this.

chewmylegoff

bris wrote: »

Why are they retards? They sent an item to a name and address, do they know ity's not the person living there. As far as they are concerened the householder has taken the goods with no intension of paying for them, using the "no one with that name lives here", then the item gets lost in the post, very conveinient for the op but not so beleivable for the retailer.
There is still a duty of care for the goods so they would have a good chance in court, if it were to go that far.

OP please note I don't think any of the above applies in this case, but you have to also look at the retailers point of view on this.

well except it's backed up with proof of postage. they wouldn't have a hope in hell in court!

zzzLazyDaisy

It is interesting that the parcel had a name and address, but the bill was addressed to 'the householder'. How did they know that the person living in the house was not the person to whom they had sent the parcel - unless they have received the parcel back?

Also, you need a name to start court proceedings - they cannot simply sue 'the householder'. So unless OP has told them their name, court proceedings seem unlikely.

Edited to add - the police will not be interested. This is a demand for an unpaid bill - it is a civil matter. It might be a criminal matter if OP had taken the goods for their own use, but they have a proof of postage, so the police are unlikely to be interested.

George_Michael

bris wrote: »

Why are they retards? They sent an item to a name and address,
do they know ity's not the person living there.
Maybe not, but this is nothing to do with the OP.
As far as they are concerened the householder has taken the goods with no intension of paying for them, using the "no one with that name lives here", then the item gets lost in the post, very conveinient for the op but not so beleivable for the retailer.
You seem to have mised the bit where it was stated that the goods have been returned and a certificate of posting obtained and a copy of this certificate forwarded to the company concerned.

There is still a duty of care for the goods so they would have a good chance in court, if it were to go that far.
And the duty of care has been complied with if it can be proven that the goods were returned to the correct address and by using a reputable courier.

OP please note I don't think any of the above applies in this case, but you have to also look at the retailers point of view on this.

As far as the law is concerned, the OP has done everything by the book and it is the company who sent the goods that has acted illegally by demanding payment for unsolicited goods.

vax2002

Now !
have you given them a name ?
They are fishing for a contract, a contract needs a PERSON to represent the contract, No name = no person = no contract.
so WOOOOOOAHHHH !
Do not tell them who the "householder is that claims to have handled the parcel "
Reply as "the householder"
communicate as "the householder"
but NO NAMES.
They are looking for Joinder ( attachment of contract to persons) , do not give them it !

jascrawf

We had a notice in our local newspaper about this from the police, apparently it's rife at the moment.

abi-em-mum83

Is this a large well done company? maybe the type of company is indicative of whether they are just trying it on or if its likely to be bad communications between departments!