Item not signed for!

shaun_from_Africa

deethebee wrote: »

It would also be more beneficial for both parties of the OP made a claim if the item was lost. Royal mail will refund in full what she paid for the item, but they will only refund the seller what it cost them to acquire it. So if it's left to the seller to make the claim, they will lose any profit they made and any potential profit from being able to resell it.

But if the seller gets back the price the item cost them, all they have to is to buy another item, resell it and they have their profit back.

Regarding the risk of sending goods back.
As unholyangel stated, there is nothing in the CCR's that cover this but under the old legislation (Distance selling regulations), all the consumer had to do was to ensure that goods were correctly packaged and addressed and sent by a suitable method of return then their risk ended when they handed the goods to the courier or postal operator.
I realise that this legislation no longer applies but if it ever came to legal action, it's possible that a judge might consider that as it was okay for the DSR's to state this, the same will apply to the CCR's

deethebee

Lillymae wrote: »

No I didn’t only tell her yesterday, I told her the day I sent the item back!

I told her again when she contacted me last night to ask about washing the item and she also said for me to send it back, no idea what she is playing at to be honest?

Oh OK, sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought you only just told her last night. I couldn't say what she's playing at either - doesn't sound very professional. I guess then you have the law behind you as others have advised but as for the item and Royal Mail, all you can do is to ask them to investigate. Clarify with them if the seller can claim for the item if it's lost and if it comes back to you then arrange with the seller to send it back at their cost.

deethebee

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Personally, I think the seller may be trying to pull a fast one here.
They know that the OP sent it back 3 weeks ago, they say that they haven't received it so why, 3 weeks later would they:


It may well have been delivered or collected from the collection office and the system not updated hence the reason for it now being untraceable.

Although she said the tracking states it's in Ireland so that seems to suggest it wasn't collected. I don't think it's untraceable, just that the OP doesn't know what to make of the tracking information.

deethebee

unholyangel wrote: »

Its not covered within CCRs. It covers whether its the traders liability to collect or the buyers to send them back, when the trader needs to refund by and where the goods should be returned to, but thats about it.

The above section 34 quoted by myself and shaun is likely there to stop traders rejecting returns just so they don't have to refund.

So this is where it gets confusing then - who is responsible for claiming the costs back of the item goes missing after being sent back? It's not covered in legislation and Royal Mail seem to put the responsibility on the sender. That is a really confusing one. Can anyone advise?

Even though Royal Mail say that either party can make a claim, when dealing with them they have only accepted a claim from the sender. I don't know why, but they can be a nightmare as they don't do half of what they say in their terms. Maybe I've just dealt with some terrible Royal Mail staff.

EDIT: Sorry, but can someone also answer this for me - if the liability is on the trader when sending the goods to the buyer (unless is is sent by someone commissioned by the buyer), why would the same not apply once the goods were in the possession of the buyer? What is it that makes the goods the trader's responsibility when the buyer sends the goods back by their chosen method? This is really confusing me and I think would be helpful to understand.

deethebee

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

But if the seller gets back the price the item cost them, all they have to is to buy another item, resell it and they have their profit back.

Regarding the risk of sending goods back.
As unholyangel stated, there is nothing in the CCR's that cover this but under the old legislation (Distance selling regulations), all the consumer had to do was to ensure that goods were correctly packaged and addressed and sent by a suitable method of return then their risk ended when they handed the goods to the courier or postal operator.
I realise that this legislation no longer applies but if it ever came to legal action, it's possible that a judge might consider that as it was okay for the DSR's to state this, the same will apply to the CCR's

Yes true, if there were no costs involved other than buying it from a manufacturer. Either way the OP can get her money back and it saves arguments. But thinking about it, as she hasn't paid for it, it makes more sense for the credit agreement to be cancelled and seller to claim refund from RM if they can.

Thanks for that further information. Still unclear but at least the OP can use that to her advantage. I wonder why it's not in the CCR. That section I quoted does seem to suggest it's the consumer's responsibility once the goods are in their possession without differentiating between what this applies to, but if you say not then I will have to take your word for it.

As a side note, please keep things respectful and on topic. Your opinions of me are irrelevant and don't give you the right to be nasty to me or make unkind accusations to put me down. Correcting information is one thing, having a go at me for saying something that may not be 100% correct is another. And I did say at the beginning that I was offering advice based on sending things through the mail and that other more knowledgeable people on here could help more. I am also here to learn and discuss - not to be bullied. End of.

hollydays

deethebee wrote: »

Yes true, if there were no costs involved other than buying it from a manufacturer. Either way the OP can get her money back and it saves arguments. But thinking about it, as she hasn't paid for it, it makes more sense for the credit agreement to be cancelled and seller to claim refund from RM if they can.

Thanks for that further information. Still unclear but at least the OP can use that to her advantage. I wonder why it's not in the CCR. That section I quoted does seem to suggest it's the consumer's responsibility once the goods are in their possession without differentiating between what this applies to, but if you say not then I will have to take your word for it.

As a side note, please keep things respectful and on topic. Your opinions of me are irrelevant and don't give you the right to be nasty to me or make unkind accusations to put me down. Correcting information is one thing, having a go at me for saying something that may not be 100% correct is another. And I did say at the beginning that I was offering advice based on sending things through the mail and that other more knowledgeable people on here could help more. I am also here to learn and discuss - not to be bullied. End of.

He really hasn't been nasty to you.
Bearing in mind ops come here for information, I'm of the opinion this isn't the right forum for you to learn, or at least not by posting law.

hollydays

Perhaps there could be a thread for people like deethebee who arent very Knowledgeable about the law but are keen to find guidance or resources on how to learn more?

deethebee

hollydays wrote: »

Perhaps there could be a thread for people like deethebee who arent very Knowledgeable about the law but are keen to find guidance or resources on how to learn more?

That sounds like a cool idea. I wouldn't say I'm not knowledgeable at all, I do know a fair bit but I don't have a legal background and there's a lot to learn. I'm certainly not as knowledgeable as others on here though, I won't argue with that. One thing that would be nice would be somewhere to have proper discussions about it because I've said things and provided evidence to back them up and then I get no real response to it, so how can I really come to an alternative conclusion if no one wants to discuss it properly? It would be great if more people could post in the spirit of the forum, which is to work together and share knowledge and discuss without nasty comments or judgement. After all, I'm just a consumer like everyone else trying to share experiences and anything I feel may help. Hopefully people can see that and be respectful of it, as I always try to be to others.

hollydays

deethebee wrote: »

That sounds like a cool idea. I wouldn't say I'm not knowledgeable at all, I do know a fair bit but I don't have a legal background and there's a lot to learn. I'm certainly not as knowledgeable as others on here though, I won't argue with that. One thing that would be nice would be somewhere to have proper discussions about it because I've said things and provided evidence to back them up and then I get no real response to it, so how can I really come to an alternative conclusion if no one wants to discuss it properly? It would be great if more people could post in the spirit of the forum, which is to work together and share knowledge and discuss without nasty comments or judgement. After all, I'm just a consumer like everyone else trying to share experiences and anything I feel may help. Hopefully people can see that and be respectful of it, as I always try to be to others.

Well it would be good, to see a new group of people who can thrash out legal stuff( not really my area I'm afraid dtb!):)
Perhaps someone could start a thread on the discussion board, I don't really know what you could call it?
I think respect is something that is earned, through debate and discussion , but discussion does get lost on these boards, which does seem a shame.

deethebee

hollydays wrote: »

Well it would be good, to see a new group of people who can thrash out legal stuff( not really my area I'm afraid dtb!):)
Perhaps someone could start a thread on the discussion board, I don't really know what you could call it?
I think respect is something that is earned, through debate and discussion , but it does get lost on these boards, which does seem a shame.

I appreciate the helpful attitude holly, just being nice goes a long way. I don't think speaking respectfully to a stranger needs to be earned and that's what I'm talking about, just common decency towards each other. Thank you for the suggestion and I hope others are open to it too and also not so judgemental of another person's opinion or offerings of help.