Signed for neighbour's parcel, then burgled

TadleyBaggie

Duplicate thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5608034

DCFC79

simonb4779 wrote: »

Get on well with the neighbours. She said it was some dresses that she'd ordered to try on for her hen do. Pretty unfortunate timing!

Id be asking for some kind of proof that the dresses were delivered and she isnt trying to pull a fast 1.

London50

TadleyBaggie wrote: »

Duplicate thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5608034

Op; states on the first here that they were directed to post on this forum:)

bris

Op, liability les with you. By accepting the parcel it was in your care, nothing to do with negligence, just bad luck.

steampowered

I don't agree that the Op is liable.

In law, looking after someone's property for them is known as a "bailment".

When you accept a bailment, you are under a duty to take reasonable care of the property. But the risk of loss or damage to the property stays with the owner.

It sounds like the Op complied with his/her duty to take reasonable care of the parcel so I don't see how he/she could be liable for the fact it got stolen.

unholyangel

Really theres 2 issues here.

The neighbour has a claim under the consumer rights act as they haven't received goods they have ordered and goods remain at the traders risk until they come into possession of the buyer or someone identified by the buyer as being authorised to receive them. That means that irrespective of where the liability eventually falls, the retailer are liable to the buyer.

OPs father would have been under statutory duty of care but there doesn't seem to be anything suggesting negligence on his part so as long as he wasn't negligent, he hasn't breached his duty of care and its just tough luck on the retailer unless their contract with the courier allows compensation in the circumstances.

wealdroam

DCFC79 wrote: »

Id be asking for some kind of proof that the dresses were delivered and she isnt trying to pull a fast 1.

The OP's father-in-law signed for and accepted the package containing the dresses.

What further proof do you want?

Mr.Generous

I guess it would also depend on the nature of the burglary, if the door was left unlocked or the key under the mat then I'd say not reasonable care, if entry was forced then I'd say OP has no responsibility.

naedanger

simonb4779 wrote: »

Hi. Put this out on the insurance forum but was directed over here so hopefully someone can help.

Whilst on holiday last week, my father in law signed for a parcel for next door while he was around doing some plastering for us.

Later that evening after he had left we were burgled. They were after the car keys but didn't get them as the alarm scared them off, but on the way out they grabbed an Xbox, Wii and the neighbours parcel.

My insurance company said that the neighbour's parcel is not covered under our contents policy. ASOS say that as the parcel was delivered that it's no longer their problem. Does anyone have a clue where the liability lies? Is it a job for an insurer, or is it for ASOS or DPD to take responsibility?

Any help gratefully received.

Thanks

Simon

If your neighbour agreed with the retailer that the item could be delivered to your FIL, then it will be the neighbour's loss.

If the neighbour did not agree that the retailer could deliver the item to your FIL then it will be the retailer's loss.

In theory your FIL's neighbour/ the retailer (as appropriate) could try and sue your FIL for the loss but they would need to prove the FIL had been negligent. However I doubt they would succeed in proving negligence.

Kim_13

naedanger wrote: »

If your neighbour agreed with the retailer that the item could be delivered to your FIL, then it will be the neighbour's loss.

If the neighbour did not agree that the retailer could deliver the item to your FIL then it will be the retailer's loss.

In theory your FIL's neighbour/ the retailer (as appropriate) could try and sue your FIL for the loss but they would need to prove the FIL had been negligent. However I doubt they would succeed in proving negligence.

This. If FIL had left the alarm off when there was one available to use then that might be a different matter.

Worth a shot appealing to the insurers though. Have the policy documents been checked for any exclusions relating to other people's property in the house? If the neighbour loses out (though it may be their loss in law) relations could sour.

Did the neighbours pay for the dresses on a credit card? S75 is worth looking into if so.