DHL missing parcel

visidigi

daytona0 wrote: »

Really don't understand visidigi's viewpoint..

I've just had the exact same issue with an equivalently sized courier, where I made the decision to redirect and the terms and conditions of the action made the transfer of responsibility clear.

Couriers of that size rarely have a different legal department viewpoint.

Think about it for a second...

That's like saying I ask for a date definitive delivery. And during transit I ask the courier to deliver it on a later date and then I go back and claim from the shipper as they didn't deliver on the date they were originally contracted. Its not the shippers fault. I made the choice....

Likewise...My email account gets compromised. My shipment gets redirected by the fraudster using data they got from my mail account, redirecting the shipment to another address. the courier moves it to this address. Do you really think the courier are going to cover that because they didn't complete delivery to me?

No chance...redirection services such as this put a risk on the shipper to which they should not be held accountable. If the shipment is sent to the address the shipper defines fine, but they cannot account for redirection, nor should they be liable, as long as the courier delivers the shipment to where they have been asked.

Therefore, I agree DHL have a problem here, but I do not believe the OP has a case with the shipper anymore.

visidigi

unholyangel wrote: »

You can't have a contract without consideration.

IMO its still under the original contract. The retailer has an obligation to deliver the goods to the consumer (unless agreed otherwise at time of sale). Being able to pick it up from a depot/collection point just makes the delivery obligations easier to fulfil.

The contract is an agreement based on the point of shipping to move the package from the origin on the label to the destination on the label as applied to the shipment by the shipper - its not to an individual person, but to the address. Unless you specifically contract direct delivery to the named recipient (which the likes of UPS, DHL and FedEx don't do).

If the customer chooses to redirect that shipment to a different address then the original contract is no longer in play as the contracted address is no longer the destination, therefore as the point of requesting a new delivery location a new commitment is established, replacing the original defined at the point of shipping.

unholyangel

daytona0 wrote: »

It must be under the original contract, surely?

The seller paid DHL to deliver the parcel to OP. This hasn't happened, therefore seller has to sort it out with DHL.

The OP could have chosen any address in the UK for the item to be delivered. They can also change their mind whilst the item is in transit (though not always actioned). That's how orders work!

Really don't understand visidigi's viewpoint..

Thats what I was saying basically.

When the CRA/CCRs make reference to delivery - it does not specifically mean sending the goods by courier to the consumers home address. Its literally just saying that the trader is under an obligation to ensure the goods pass into the consumers possession - in a shop this might be by handing them over the counter at time of sale, or arranging delivery to the consumers home.

A separate section exists which determines when risk passes - when the goods come into the possession of the consumer or someone identified by the consumer - the only exception to this is where the goods are delivered to a carrier commissioned by the consumer AND is not a carrier the trader named as an option for the consumer.

There are no further exceptions listed. Now if the CRA will keep the risk with the trader even where the courier is commissioned by the consumer if its a courier the trader offers as an option, I have very little doubt if any that it would keep the risk with the trader where the consumer opts to collect the parcel from the courier.

Them allowing redelivery at a time convenient to you, allowing pick up from depots/collection points etc are just alternative ways of enabling them to fulfil the delivery obligations of the retailer.

visidigi

unholyangel wrote: »

Thats what I was saying basically.

When the CRA/CCRs make reference to delivery - it does not specifically mean sending the goods by courier to the consumers home address. Its literally just saying that the trader is under an obligation to ensure the goods pass into the consumers possession - in a shop this might be by handing them over the counter at time of sale, or arranging delivery to the consumers home.

A separate section exists which determines when risk passes - when the goods come into the possession of the consumer or someone identified by the consumer - the only exception to this is where the goods are delivered to a carrier commissioned by the consumer AND is not a carrier the trader named as an option for the consumer.

There are no further exceptions listed. Now if the CRA will keep the risk with the trader even where the courier is commissioned by the consumer if its a courier the trader offers as an option, I have very little doubt if any that it would keep the risk with the trader where the consumer opts to collect the parcel from the courier.

Them allowing redelivery at a time convenient to you, allowing pick up from depots/collection points etc are just alternative ways of enabling them to fulfil the delivery obligations of the retailer.

International Courier, International Order, not necessarily a CRA/CCR case?

unholyangel

visidigi wrote: »

International Courier, International Order, not necessarily a CRA/CCR case?

If its anywhere in the EU, the same will still apply.

Granted it might not apply to a non-eu seller (depending on what their national law was) - but if that were the case then I'd have expected DHL to be asking for custom charges + handling fee.

daytona0

unholyangel wrote: »

Thats what I was saying basically.

I know! My post was about reiterating what you said, I'm just a bit confused bout visidigi's viewpoint!

unholyangel

visidigi wrote: »

The contract is an agreement based on the point of shipping to move the package from the origin on the label to the destination on the label as applied to the shipment by the shipper - its not to an individual person, but to the address. Unless you specifically contract direct delivery to the named recipient (which the likes of UPS, DHL and FedEx don't do).

If the customer chooses to redirect that shipment to a different address then the original contract is no longer in play as the contracted address is no longer the destination, therefore as the point of requesting a new delivery location a new commitment is established, replacing the original defined at the point of shipping.

Missed this post of yours as I was replying.

Any terms or agreement between the supplier and a third party has absolutely no bearing on the terms or agreement between the consumer & supplier.

The CRA applies by default to the contract between the consumer & supplier but not to the contract between the supplier & courier (but it not applying to the latter doesn't stop it applying to the former). The courier is there to carry out the suppliers obligations on the suppliers behalf (if they don't have their own delivery team/department). Nothing more.

As I said, you cannot have a contract without consideration - even if T&C's say anything to the contrary.

wealdroam

unholyangel wrote: »

- when the goods come into the possession of the consumer or someone identified by the consumer -

Isn't that significant?

The OP's sister elected to have the package delivered to a DHL Service Point.

Perhaps the DHL Service Point could be seen as "a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods".

If that's the case, once the goods are delivered to the DHL Service Point, risk has passed to the consumer.

angryparcel

and at a service point parcel could be just thrown into a corner of the backroom or just shoved under the counter as the OP states

she elected to have it delivered to a DHL Service Point (a cornershop style store)

so most likely no real service area, so if they have it then it could be anywhere. I know i use a UPS access point ( which is the same setup) in a convenience store and all they use is a plastic box behind the counter

unholyangel

wealdroam wrote: »

Isn't that significant?

The OP's sister elected to have the package delivered to a DHL Service Point.

Perhaps the DHL Service Point could be seen as "a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods".

If that's the case, once the goods are delivered to the DHL Service Point, risk has passed to the consumer.

Except that they're not a person identified by the consumer. Its a company arguably identified by the supplier/their agent. But again, you cannot have a legally binding contract without consideration. There can be no contract between the consumer & the collection point.

Plus....

Liability that cannot be excluded or restricted

(1)A term of a contract to supply goods is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would exclude or restrict the trader's liability arising under any of these provisions—

(k)section 29 (passing of risk).