Engagement ring delivered to incorrect address

Arnisdale

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Arnisdale said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

photome said:

unholyangel said:

29Passing of risk

(1)A sales contract is to be treated as including the following provisions as terms.

(2)The goods remain at the trader’s risk until they come into the physical possession of—

(a)the consumer, or

(b)a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.

Notice it doesn't say when delivered to the provided address, or anything like that. It says the consumer or a person identified by the consumer. 

That has not happened so goods are still at the traders risk

The person in (b) is the person who lives at the address the consumer gave , isnt it?

Not if the homeowner is Mr Smith and the package was addressed to Mr Jones.

My daughter has her parcels to delivered to my address in her name...she lives in a totally different county. Are you saying they shouldn't be delivered to me? Also Royal Mail deliver to addresses, not people.

Slightly different circumstances.  My point was that as I understand it, the goods remain at the seller's risk until they arrive in the intended recipient's possession, as unholyangel stated: a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.  In OP's case, the ring has gone to the "correct" address (correctly delivered, even though the address written was a mistake) but not to the correct person.  It was sent to Mr Smith at 123 Any Street but delivered to Mr Jones at 123 Any Street.  OP's partner doesn't even know Mr Jones, so certainly didn't identify Mr Jones as the person to take possession of the ring.

In your example with your daughter's parcels, the consumer (your daughter) has identified you as the person to take possession of the goods.  That's not what happened in OP's case.

I am not identified. Parcels are addressed to her at my address.

simonefox

I understand people saying it was ‘delivered’ to the provided address, but it seems like it was never actually delivered at all judging from the lack of evidence 

Aylesbury_Duck

Arnisdale said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Arnisdale said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

photome said:

unholyangel said:

29Passing of risk

(1)A sales contract is to be treated as including the following provisions as terms.

(2)The goods remain at the trader’s risk until they come into the physical possession of—

(a)the consumer, or

(b)a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.

Notice it doesn't say when delivered to the provided address, or anything like that. It says the consumer or a person identified by the consumer. 

That has not happened so goods are still at the traders risk

The person in (b) is the person who lives at the address the consumer gave , isnt it?

Not if the homeowner is Mr Smith and the package was addressed to Mr Jones.

My daughter has her parcels to delivered to my address in her name...she lives in a totally different county. Are you saying they shouldn't be delivered to me? Also Royal Mail deliver to addresses, not people.

Slightly different circumstances.  My point was that as I understand it, the goods remain at the seller's risk until they arrive in the intended recipient's possession, as unholyangel stated: a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.  In OP's case, the ring has gone to the "correct" address (correctly delivered, even though the address written was a mistake) but not to the correct person.  It was sent to Mr Smith at 123 Any Street but delivered to Mr Jones at 123 Any Street.  OP's partner doesn't even know Mr Jones, so certainly didn't identify Mr Jones as the person to take possession of the ring.

In your example with your daughter's parcels, the consumer (your daughter) has identified you as the person to take possession of the goods.  That's not what happened in OP's case.

I am not identified. Parcels are addressed to her at my address.

Yes, but she's deliberately done that, identifying/nominating/asking you to accept them for her.  OP's partner didn't do that to the stranger at 123 Any Street.  I accept the retailer wasnt to know that, but I think it's pertinent in this situation.  The item didn't end up in the possession of the intended recipient. It was either lost before delivery, stolen before delivery or kept unlawfully after delivery.

unholyangel

The retailer is liable to hand the goods over to the person who entered the contract or someone identified by that person. 

If the retailer then decides to engage a third party to fulfil their obligation of delivering the goods and that  party only deliver to an address, rather than a recipient....that is entirely their choice to make after weighing up the cost of ensuring it's delivered to the right person versus the cost of the occasional lost item by delivering to an address. But regardless of the choice they make, it's their risk/liability. 

Again, the legislation specifically says physical possession of the customer/person identified by them. That has a very distinct meaning because of the use of physical possession and person identified by the consumer. 

williamgriffin

simonefox said:

So I have the photo of the front door. It is closed and is actually taken from outside next doors front door and there is a gate separating the two front doors. So he wasn’t even at the correct front door when he took the photo. I have messaged DX on Facebook and they have said the photo should be taken of the parcel on the doorstep with the door open to prove it was accepted, and that the item wasn’t left on the doorstep. There is no parcel in the photo. So the delivery  man has literally taken a photo of a closed front door from behind a gate (not the gate leading to the property) a gate that seperates the delivery house from their next door neighbour. I’m baffled. 

The door must have been open at some point if the neighbour refused delivery. 

simonefox

williamgriffin said:

simonefox said:

So I have the photo of the front door. It is closed and is actually taken from outside next doors front door and there is a gate separating the two front doors. So he wasn’t even at the correct front door when he took the photo. I have messaged DX on Facebook and they have said the photo should be taken of the parcel on the doorstep with the door open to prove it was accepted, and that the item wasn’t left on the doorstep. There is no parcel in the photo. So the delivery  man has literally taken a photo of a closed front door from behind a gate (not the gate leading to the property) a gate that seperates the delivery house from their next door neighbour. I’m baffled. 

The door must have been open at some point if the neighbour refused delivery. 

Yes, but a DX member of staff has clearly stated the photo should show the door open with the parcel on the doorstep. The photo is of a closed front door so this in no way proves delivery, and clearly shows the delivery driver has not correctly followed the company procedure for contactless delivery. The Ernest Jones website states that the delivery will be signed for. It was not. 

m0bov

So what did EJ say when you asked for the refund?

simonefox

m0bov said:

So what did EJ say when you asked for the refund?

No response to the letter as apparently head office staff are working from home so post is back logged. I have sent an email to both EJ & DX this evening attaching the photo of the closed door, and further evidence I have collected such as a mentor of EJ staff telling me the delivery man signed for the parcel, and DX staff informing me of the correct contactless delivery procedures. I have requested a replacement or a refund. We would prefer the refund as I had had my heart set on this ring for over a year, it’s just a shame this is the first I’m hearing about my upcoming engagement! My partner was trying to sort it himself but he works 12 hours shifts for the NHS and just doesn’t have the time for the constant back and forth, so unfortunately needed my help. I will update you when I get a response, although I wouldn’t expect it any time soon as I am still awaiting a call back from a manager since Monday. 

simonefox

simonefox said:

m0bov said:

So what did EJ say when you asked for the refund?

No response to the letter as apparently head office staff are working from home so post is back logged. I have sent an email to both EJ & DX this evening attaching the photo of the closed door, and further evidence I have collected such as a mentor of EJ staff telling me the delivery man signed for the parcel, and DX staff informing me of the correct contactless delivery procedures. I have requested a replacement or a refund. We would prefer the refund as I had had my heart set on this ring for over a year, it’s just a shame this is the first I’m hearing about my upcoming engagement! My partner was trying to sort it himself but he works 12 hours shifts for the NHS and just doesn’t have the time for the constant back and forth, so unfortunately needed my help. I will update you when I get a response, although I wouldn’t expect it any time soon as I am still awaiting a call back from a manager since Monday. 

Sorry, we would prefer the replacement. Too much time typing emails ect my heads gone!

justworriedabit

simonefox said:

So I have the photo of the front door. It is closed and is actually taken from outside next doors front door and there is a gate separating the two front doors. So he wasn’t even at the correct front door when he took the photo. I have messaged DX on Facebook and they have said the photo should be taken of the parcel on the doorstep with the door open to prove it was accepted, and that the item wasn’t left on the doorstep. There is no parcel in the photo. So the delivery  man has literally taken a photo of a closed front door from behind a gate (not the gate leading to the property) a gate that seperates the delivery house from their next door neighbour. I’m baffled. 

That is good news in a way, IE they will have to admit it's never been delivered.
I have another question and forgive me if I've misunderstood.
It was a ring from EJ - could it not fit through the letter box?