Help! Signed for package now missing

ALSmith

My partner was working at home and in a meeting so signed for a package which was for his address but for someone who no longer lived there. The person it was addressed to came two weeks later but my partner could not find the package - his two flat mates claim to never have seen the package and helped us search the entire house for it, but we’d can’t find it. The man returned a week later, again asking for the package & understandably became annoyed when we said we couldn’t find it.
The man explained that he did not change his return eBay address & he lived there last year. He said the package contained an expensive watch.
My partner is sick with worry as he signed for this package and is concerned he could be taken to court or sued etc.
Can anyone help explain what could happen? How can we know the value and contents of the package if he is made to pay for it?
We already asked the police what to do as the man was a bit threatening. Please can anyone help?

Aylesbury_Duck

What have the police said? Presumably the package is either lost somewhere at your partner's address or one of him or his housemates has stolen it. There isn't really another explanation. You may not be the only ones contacting the police, it's possible the third party has done so already.

Just let the police deal with it if the third party becomes threatening.

soolin

The timing doesn't sound right ...but...there is a known scam that relies on packages going to the wrong address. Scammer hacks an account, gets items sent to wrong address, collects item and then when real owner of hacked account realises they claim their money back from their credit card and original seller who is now out of pocket pursues the person at the address the parcel went to.

I've explained that very badly, sorry, It used to be a fairly common scam- but of course relied on speed, which is one thing this scenario doesn't have.

OP, assuming this is legit I would do nothing at the moment, if the parcel has gone then so be it you can't magic it back. Wait to see if 'buyer' goes down a legal route and then get legal advice. As it stands the buyer has no redress via his card or paypal as item shows delivered to the address he supplied, but whether he can legally persue you for the item - especially as signatures are never clear anyway, is not clear.

soolin

This thread explains the scam better than I did!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5687467/unexpected-parcel-sure-its-dodgy

pinkshoes

ALSmith wrote: »

My partner was working at home and in a meeting so signed for a package which was for his address but for someone who no longer lived there. The person it was addressed to came two weeks later but my partner could not find the package - his two flat mates claim to never have seen the package and helped us search the entire house for it, but we’d can’t find it. The man returned a week later, again asking for the package & understandably became annoyed when we said we couldn’t find it.
The man explained that he did not change his return eBay address & he lived there last year. He said the package contained an expensive watch.
My partner is sick with worry as he signed for this package and is concerned he could be taken to court or sued etc.
Can anyone help explain what could happen? How can we know the value and contents of the package if he is made to pay for it?
We already asked the police what to do as the man was a bit threatening. Please can anyone help?

What COULD happen is that the owner of the parcel contacts the police and reports it missing/stolen, then your partner and his housemates are interviewed by the police to establish who stole it.

This parcel has gone missing, and your partner had a duty of care to look after it as it was clearly delivered in error.

On the other hand, this person has paid for an item to be sent to your partner's address, and it has arrived. 100% their mistake. I can't really see the police doing anything other than giving the guy a crime reference number. They will probably state it is a civil matter.

In which case, the parcel owner will have to take your partner to court.

Mr_Singleton

Why would the police get involved in such a petty incident..... surely this is a civil matter?

agrinnall

I don't really understand why your partner didn't simply refuse to accept the package when a signature was asked for. But having signed for it he should have taken care of it. I think he should either be making more effort to find it or start taking steps to get the money to pay back the rightful owner (having been given acceptable proof of the cost first, of course).

shaun_from_Africa

soolin wrote: »

The timing doesn't sound right ...but...there is a known scam that relies on packages going to the wrong address. Scammer hacks an account, gets items sent to wrong address,

I don't think that the scam you describe was attempted here as from what the OP describes, the person who wanted to collect the package was not the buyer but the seller.

ALSmith wrote: »

The man explained that he did not change his return eBay address & he lived there last year. He said the package contained an expensive watch.

It appears that he sold the watch on ebay and for one reason or another, the buyer returned it to the seller but the wrong address was still showing on their account.

Getting proof of what the package contained shouldn't prove too difficult as the sale and the subsequent return (along with tracking details) should be accessible on the sellers ebay account.

ALSmith

Thank you all for your help. We’ll see what happens and perhaps post again for other people in the same situation.

cassTL

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

Why would the police get involved in such a petty incident..... surely this is a civil matter?

The police would have no choice, it doesn't become an "incident" for an incident number to be issued, It's a potential crime of fraud or theft. At the minimum his household is suspected of being committed:
Postal Services Act 2000

• with...84 Interfering with the mail: general.E+W+S+N.I.(1)A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he—
  (a)intentionally delays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, or
  (b)intentionally opens a mail-bag.
  (2)Subsections (2) to (5) of section 83 apply to subsection (1) above as they apply to subsection (1) of that section.
  (3)A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.
  (4)Subsections (2) and (3) of section 83 (so far as they relate to the opening of postal packets) apply to subsection (3) above as they apply to subsection (1) of that section.
  (5)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

So at the least there is a suspicion of crime police have investigate upon being reported. Then if it turns out that the partner didn't do nothing wrong, the roommates/housmates will be looked at for potential Theft by finding covered under the Theft Act 1968.

davidmcn

cassTL wrote: »

Postal Services Act 2000

• with...84 Interfering with the mail: general.E+W+S+N.I.(1)A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he—
  (a)intentionally delays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, or
  (b)intentionally opens a mail-bag.
  (2)Subsections (2) to (5) of section 83 apply to subsection (1) above as they apply to subsection (1) of that section.
  (3)A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.
  (4)Subsections (2) and (3) of section 83 (so far as they relate to the opening of postal packets) apply to subsection (3) above as they apply to subsection (1) of that section.
  (5)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

This legislation isn't relevant. The item has been correctly delivered i.e. to the address stated on it. There may of course still be theft though.