Goods delivered in error

mije1983

rhinestonemaiden wrote: »

DoAM you have not provided proof in the form of legislation, just a couple of Moneysavingexpert threads (and we know how much value is in those, not much lol). .

You say this, yet you have used wikipedia as a reference to back you up :rotfl:

rhinestonemaiden wrote: »

Easiest way for those of you interested is to check the legislation wording as shown on Wikipedia.

Can you link to legislation that says these goods ARE unsolicited?

Marliepanda has linked to the relevant legislation.

rhinestonemaiden wrote: »

I have to say that since coming on to this Consumer Section of the forum I am shocked by the negativity and the willingness and readiness of some regular contributors on here to denigrate people's complaints

This is a consumer rights forum, not a consumer wants forum. Not all threads are going to have a happy ending!

rhinestonemaiden wrote: »

I can safely say, I never saw the company that was stupid enough to fight the customer, actually win.

Actually, the main reasons companies don't fight these small amounts is due to costs. It does not make business sense to fight a case that would cost them more than they would win (mostly).

George_Michael

rhinestonemaiden wrote: »

Easiest way for those of you interested is to check the legislation wording as shown on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia, that bastion of knowledge that is so sure of what they post that they state:

Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields

Silvertabby

Regardless of what the law says or doesn't say, if this were me I'd feel morally obliged to arrange for the item to be returned to it's owner rather than take advantage of someone's mistake.

Do as you would wish to be done unto.

pinkshoes

rhinestonemaiden wrote: »

Neil and Doam. Prove I am wrong with actual quotes from the legislation. No good saying you "believe" I am wrong. The goods are clearly unsolicited

Could you please quote the legislation that proves they are unsolicited?

(Wikipedia is not legislation...)

I'm thinking the 1971 unsolicited goods legislation:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/30

The OP had viewed the goods and commited to buy they (albeit in error) so the contract had been formed.

Although it was cancelled, the goods were then sent in ERROR, so the OP has a duty of care to look after them until they are collected.

takman

rhinestonemaiden wrote: »

I have to say that since coming on to this Consumer Section of the forum I am shocked by the negativity and the willingness and readiness of some regular contributors on here to denigrate people's complaints. It is why I am weighing in here. On principle. It makes me wonder if these naysayers have a hidden agenda trying perhaps to put people off bringing genuine complaints to the Ombudsmen or to court. As I have said elsewhere, we have greater protection for consumers in the UK than almost anywhere else in the world. So great is that protection, that a court will bend over backwards to help consumers against bad companies, even where this consumers are ignorant of the law that applies. I have appeared in court many times with reference to consumer issues and I can safely say, I never saw the company that was stupid enough to fight the customer, actually win. In this thread these were unsolicited goods and any demand for repayment by the retailer is now a criminal offence in the magistrates court. Still waiting for your legislation quotes DoAM, otherwise hold your tongue. And naysayers with an agenda, also please do the same.

If your making claims then the onus is on your to link to the relevant legislation and which bit backs up what your saying. Maybe if you did spend some time reading legislation rather than Wikipedia you might learn something!.

The fact that you seem to think people on here have hidden agendas and that a court will always side with a consumer makes you sound very naive.

bris

rhinestonemaiden wrote: »

Neil and Doam. Prove I am wrong with actual quotes from the legislation. No good saying you "believe" I am wrong. The goods are clearly unsolicited

Nonsense it's you who really needs to stop posting.


The goods were bought by a buy it now, probably the OP or someone on their households fault because buy it now doesn't just happen.


So I am saying I know you are wrong.

bris

rhinestonemaiden wrote: »

Neil and Doam. Prove I am wrong with actual quotes from the legislation. No good saying you "believe" I am wrong. The goods are clearly unsolicited

Unsolicited goods are in actual fact a thing of the past, it was a long time ago when the law changed on this and killed the practice overnight.

DoaM

rhinestonemaiden wrote: »

DoAM you have not provided proof in the form of legislation

Actually, you're the one going against the majority opinion, thus it's for you to prove your point not I.

rhinestonemaiden wrote: »

And it is you, one of the naysayers on this forum, who is being destructive of people's hopes, not I.

As I said earlier ... telling people what they want to hear is NOT helping them. Building up their hopes with false promises does them more harm than telling them the truth.

As I said on another thread ... you really should just quietly go away as you obviously know very little and are not helping anyone at all.

its_all_over

rhinestonemaiden wrote: »

Mije1983 you are wrong I am afraid. You need to read up on your law before posting. It is clear from the post that the goods are unsolicited. The receiver does not have to do anything and can dispose of the goods as he or she wishes. In this case he/she has already been in touch with the retailer and done all that he could and still the retailer delivered, for whatever reason, it does not matter.

So, hard luck on the retailer. Easiest way for those of you interested is to check the legislation wording as shown on Wikipedia. The consumer has more protection than ever before nowadays in this area. Unsolicited goods used to be a blooming nuisance for the consumer, but no longer, thank the Lord

They are right and you are wrong, I'm afraid.

Goods arriving from cancelled orders is one of the examples given by CAB for what does not constitute unsolicited goods.

The OP has to take care of the goods and advise the retailer that they have received the goods in error.

DCFC79

Oh dear not rhinestonemaiden again, I wonder if they are someone else in disguise.