Yodel courier forged my signature

naedanger

usefulmale wrote: »

If the seller calls the buyers bluff (as I would in this situation) then the buyer may have to travel to a court close to the seller, if the seller asks for it.

The T&Cs of Yodel (never used them personally ) probably state 'A signature is obtained'. Doesn't have to be the buyer themselves. The seller, via Yodel, will supply the "!!!!!! scribble" that the OP has already seen.

There is no proof the OP can offer to prove the item has not been delivered.

I agree, if the OP is genuine, that it is a poor position to be in. An INR in reverse almost, which sellers have to suck up all the time, but I don't think the OP helped themselves by jumping in and start banging on about consequential loss

The buyer is not bound by Yodel's terms and conditions.

Unless the op agreed that the item could be delivered to a neighbour then I would expect a court to decide in the op's favour unless the seller can prove (on the balance of probability) that the item was delivered to the op, or at least the op's address. So a scribble without any explanation as to whose signature it is supposed to be will be unlikely to be sufficient for the seller to win. Especially if the scribble is supposed to be the op's signature and they can show that it does not match their signature and they were at work when the item was delivered.

daytona0

usefulmale wrote: »

If the seller calls the buyers bluff (as I would in this situation) then the buyer may have to travel to a court close to the seller, if the seller asks for it.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that OP may have to travel to a court? Links to CAB/GOV websites? Opinion is hardly evidence

The T&Cs of Yodel (never used them personally ) probably state 'A signature is obtained'. Doesn't have to be the buyer themselves. The seller, via Yodel, will supply the "!!!!!! scribble" that the OP has already seen.

Why are you guessing at what the Ts and Cs "probably" state?

There is no proof the OP can offer to prove the item has not been delivered.

I am in no doubt that the item HAS been delivered The question is; where?

OP potentially has evidence of non-delivery to THEM, as they were (I believe) in work at the time.

So there's a platform to start with Add in the fact that a signature is not proof that the item was delivered to OP, only that it was delivered!

I agree with you that there is quite a bit of "evidence" against the OP, but it is not conclusive in any way. A small claims court would need to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that OP did not receive the item as instructed. It could go either way in fairness.

I agree, if the OP is genuine, that it is a poor position to be in. An INR in reverse almost, which sellers have to suck up all the time, but I don't think the OP helped themselves by jumping in and start banging on about consequential loss

I fully agree with you. Consequential loss is counter-productive in these types of situations. OP just needs to exclude that from the communication.

Bottom line is that OP is perfectly entitled to go the way of small claims, and also ask the bank to do a chargeback/S75 (if applicable). That's the action you take if you feel that the contract has been breached.

unholyangel

usefulmale wrote: »

If the seller calls the buyers bluff (as I would in this situation) then the buyer may have to travel to a court close to the seller, if the seller asks for it.

The T&Cs of Yodel (never used them personally ) probably state 'A signature is obtained'. Doesn't have to be the buyer themselves. The seller, via Yodel, will supply the "!!!!!! scribble" that the OP has already seen.

There is no proof the OP can offer to prove the item has not been delivered.

I agree, if the OP is genuine, that it is a poor position to be in. An INR in reverse almost, which sellers have to suck up all the time, but I don't think the OP helped themselves by jumping in and start banging on about consequential loss

But its not for the OP to prove the item has not been delivered - in fact, I'd be quite interested to hear how you think proving such a thing would be possible.

Statute dictates when risk passes. In this case it passes when the goods come into the physical possession of the buyer or the person identified as the buyer as being authorised to receive the goods.

That means that unless the seller can prove the goods game into the physical possession of the consumer/someone authorised to receive it, the risk (and liability) remains with them.

usefulmale

daytona0 wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that OP may have to travel to a court? Links to CAB/GOV websites? Opinion is hardly evidence .

A defendant has the right to request that the case be heard in a court local to them (See 'Which court deals with the case').

EDIT - Upon reading the link below, it is not just a right, the transfer is automatic.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-rights/legal-system/taking-legal-action/small-claims/

daytona0 wrote: »

Why are you guessing at what the Ts and Cs "probably" state?

Because I don't use Yodel. I use Royal Mail. However, no courier is going to insist that the signature is the person named on the package. How would the delivery driver verify the details of who is signing?

Personally, I would not want to be in the OP shoes if I were taking this to court. Same as no-one who is on the receiving end of an INR would take the buyer to court, even if the buyer posts a photo of them with the item on Facebook.

usefulmale

unholyangel wrote: »

But its not for the OP to prove the item has not been delivered - in fact, I'd be quite interested to hear how you think proving such a thing would be possible.

Statute dictates when risk passes. In this case it passes when the goods come into the physical possession of the buyer or the person identified as the buyer as being authorised to receive the goods.

That means that unless the seller can prove the goods game into the physical possession of the consumer/someone authorised to receive it, the risk (and liability) remains with them.

If the buyer is taking the matter to court, it is for the plaintiff to prove their case. The signature would count as proof of delivery and it would be a herculean task to prove otherwise.

Thats why taking this to court is really a non-starter. Just like a seller taking a INR buyer to court. The seller, in that scenario, cannot prove non-delivery and the buyer doesn't have to say a word in defence.

DoaM

usefulmale wrote: »

A defendant has the right to request that the case be heard in a court local to them (See 'Which court deals with the case').

EDIT - Upon reading the link below, it is not just a right, the transfer is automatic.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-rights/legal-system/taking-legal-action/small-claims/

What I suspect you're missing is that when one party is a company and the other an unrepresented individual (e.g. consumer) then the consumer gets choice of court. (3rd bullet).

chanz4

They have gps in their handsets, ask them to check it

unholyangel

usefulmale wrote: »

If the buyer is taking the matter to court, it is for the plaintiff to prove their case. The signature would count as proof of delivery and it would be a herculean task to prove otherwise.

Thats why taking this to court is really a non-starter. Just like a seller taking a INR buyer to court. The seller, in that scenario, cannot prove non-delivery and the buyer doesn't have to say a word in defence.

Unless they have a handwriting sample from OP & have a handwriting analyst willing to say "yes, that signature and sample were written by the same person" that signature is not proof that the OP signed for any delivery, much less that the contracted goods were transferred into their physical possession.


As I said above, that is the important part. The risk does not pass until they are in the physical possession of the buyer or someone identified by the buyer. That is part of statute so there is no getting around it.

Do you know how insanely difficult (sometimes impossible) it is to prove a negative? No? Well thats okay, because the courts do.


Look at it this way, did OP identify anyone as being authorised to receive their goods? No. OP can prove they were at work so they couldnt have come into the physical possession of the buyer either. therefore risk did not pass and whatever happened to the goods is the retailers liability - not the OPs.

A signature is not proof of identity.

bris

It doesn't need to be the OP that signs for the parcel, it's considered delivered when signed for by anyone.


Can you imagine all the fraudulent claims if delivery companies had to get the addressee signature, never going to happen, for one thing millions of parcels would not get delivered every day.


Look at the scenario, I buy a 2 grand telly, get my brother to sign for it then claim I never received it, you think this is going to work? Of course not, all this nonsense about it must be the addressee signing for it is exactly that nonsense. The fact is the courts will consider it delivered if the delivery driver says so, there is no way the OP can counter that.

daytona0

bris wrote: »

It doesn't need to be the OP that signs for the parcel, it's considered delivered when signed for by anyone.

Including the delivery driver? Can he sign for it, put it in his living room and get away with it?

Hypothetical, of course, but as you said "it's considered delivered when signed for by anyone."

Can you imagine all the fraudulent claims if delivery companies had to get the addressee signature, never going to happen, for one thing millions of parcels would not get delivered every day.

The overwhelming majority of parcels are delivered to the correct person. Only a small minority are either fruadulent, or unlucky (and genuine).

Look at the scenario, I buy a 2 grand telly, get my brother to sign for it then claim I never received it, you think this is going to work? Of course not,

In fairness it *might* work, but a 2k TV is wholly different to OP's situation. I've worked in the industry and they take a lot more precautions with electronic items especially those of higher value. At the very minimum they'd have a picture of your front door and probably a video recording of your brother.

They may also pass over your information to the police. They probably wouldn't be that bothered in OP's case.

BUT also, you'd be mightily peeved if that 2k TV legitimately had not arrived! Would you be posting on here? If so, could we just call you a thief and discount your thread (or just say "tough luck lad, that's how the cookie crumbles")? You'd be a bit peeved about that I imagine...?

all this nonsense about it must be the addressee signing for it is exactly that nonsense.

Nobody has said that

The fact is the courts will consider it delivered if the delivery driver says so, there is no way the OP can counter that.

Delivered to whom?