Signed for neighbour's parcel, then burgled

Undervalued

iammumtoone wrote: »

I see your point, going to have to check my insurance policy.

I do know one thing. I am never taking in a neighbours parcel again!

The complicated bit here is who he is liable to.

The neighbour's claim is against the supplier unless he specifically agreed to delivery to a nearby house. If he didn't then they have not fulfilled the contract.

boliston

Undervalued wrote: »

That is a matter of degree. Clearly he didn't take sufficient care as to prevent it being stolen! .....

Perhaps the answer is he should have never left the house until the neighbour had collected the goods. Even staying in the house and going to sleep could potentially put the goods at risk.

Undervalued

boliston wrote: »

Perhaps the answer is he should have never left the house until the neighbour had collected the goods. Even staying in the house and going to sleep could potentially put the goods at risk.

Indeed.

As I keep saying he is responsible for its safe keeping. I am surprised his insurance doesn't provide some cover and it may be they are wrongly denying the claim. But ultimately insurance, if you choose to have it, covers your liabilities. Just because you are not insured doesn't mean your liability goes away.

custardy

My view is ASOS need to fulfil their contract with their customer (unless the customer specifically selected neighbour as a delivery point) and can chase the OP for the goods/cost if they wish.

boliston

Undervalued wrote: »

Indeed.

As I keep saying he is responsible for its safe keeping. I am surprised his insurance doesn't provide some cover and it may be they are wrongly denying the claim. But ultimately insurance, if you choose to have it, covers your liabilities. Just because you are not insured doesn't mean your liability goes away.

So you are saying that you can still be liable without any form of negligence?

Gavin83

Undervalued wrote: »

That is a matter of degree. Clearly he didn't take sufficient care as to prevent it being stolen! Maybe his security was better than average and he was unlucky to be targeted by very determined thieves or maybe he had a flimsy door, a hairpin lock or an open window.

Ultimately if you have custody of somebody else's goods you are responsible for their safekeeping.

I don't agree, I don't think the OP is responsible. However this is a complicated case and would ultimately be up to a judge to decide should it go that far. Ultimately it would be up to the OP to prove they hadn't stolen it or acted in a negligent way. I think this would be easily done.

It's a really weird situation in that no one is technically at fault. I am curious in this case who'll be the party who will ultimately lose out as someone will have to pay for it.

Highlights a reason why taking in parcels for a neighbour is a bad idea!

Undervalued

boliston wrote: »

So you are saying that you can still be liable without any form of negligence?

Yes. By taking it in he took responsibility for its safe keeping. As I said, just the same as if he had borrowed the item from its owner.

Anyway, define negligence in this situation?

Had the OP's house been more secure it would have been less likely to have been stolen. Had he had a more comprehensive insurance policy (assuming the insurance company are correct) then it would have been covered. But any insurance would only cover his liability as he was not the owner of the goods.

steampowered

Undervalued wrote: »

Ultimately if you have custody of somebody else's goods you are responsible for their safekeeping.

When you accept someone else's goods your legal responsibility is to take the same care as a reasonable person would take of their own property. No more, no less.

I can't agree with the suggestion that the fact the Op got burgled suggests the Op didn't take reasonable care. Unless you live in a nuclear bunker without windows, anyone can get burgled.

takman

Undervalued wrote: »

Indeed.

As I keep saying he is responsible for its safe keeping. I am surprised his insurance doesn't provide some cover and it may be they are wrongly denying the claim. But ultimately insurance, if you choose to have it, covers your liabilities. Just because you are not insured doesn't mean your liability goes away.

I dont see how the OP can be responsible for the parcels safekeeping. He wasn't at his house at all that day and the parcel was signed for and left in his house by someone who doesn't even live there.

So what your saying is that if I come to your house and sign for a parcel in my name and leave it in your hallway all responsibility for the parcel is yours because it is in your house ?. I don't see how anyone can be responsible for an item they didn't choose to look after and probably didn't even know existed until after it was stolen.

unholyangel

Undervalued wrote: »

That is a matter of degree. Clearly he didn't take sufficient care as to prevent it being stolen! Maybe his security was better than average and he was unlucky to be targeted by very determined thieves or maybe he had a flimsy door, a hairpin lock or an open window.

Ultimately if you have custody of somebody else's goods you are responsible for their safekeeping.

FIL was under a duty of care sure, but thats not the only element you need to prove if trying to hold someone liable in such circumstances.

You need to satisfy all of the following steps (fail on one and your claim fails in its entirety):
1. That a duty of care was owed by FIL
2. That FIL was in breach of that duty.
3. That the breach of duty caused the loss/damage.
4. That the loss/damage was not too remote.

FIL only has to meet the standard of a reasonable/average person - it does not expect him to meet the same standard that a trained tower guard protecting the crown jewels would. If he meets that standard, he is not negligent and the claim fails. Even if he is negligent, unless that negligence caused the loss (even contributory), the claim fails as he is not liable.

The purpose of a duty of care is not to make you their insurer in every eventuality. Its merely to protect the owners benefit/interest in the property from your negligence.