We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

wrong address - have to pay return fees

Options
2456789

Comments

  • the_lunatic_is_in_my_head
    the_lunatic_is_in_my_head Posts: 9,270 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 5 November 2021 at 12:07PM
    Ergates said:
    Clearly that isn't going to apply where the consumer supplied the wrong address to the trader.
    Which part of the legislation are you relying on to make this statement? 

    The trader has the opportunity to confirm the address details with the consumer, if they choose not to do so, which is understandable as it isn't practical, then the run the risk that such instances will occur. 
    In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces
  • Alderbank
    Alderbank Posts: 3,896 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Ergates said:
    Clearly that isn't going to apply where the consumer supplied the wrong address to the trader.
    Which part of the legislation are you relying on to make this statement? 


    I think Ergates is referring to regulation 20 of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013:

    Defence of due diligence

    20.—(1) In any proceedings against a person (A) for an offence under regulation 19 it is a defence for A to prove—
    (a)that the commission of the offence was due to—
    (i)the act or default of another, or
    (ii)reliance on information given by another, and
    (b)that A took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by A or any person under A's control.

    In non-legal language that says that it's not the seller's fault if he relied on information given by someone else (i.e. the buyer giving his correct address) provided the buyer is able to check the information before he submits it. Seems sensible to me.

    If the buyer selects to use autofill he is presented with the proposed address and must click a button to approve and continue. The OP admits they just clicked the button without reading the address.


  • Ergates said:
    Clearly that isn't going to apply where the consumer supplied the wrong address to the trader.

    Although I'm usually in agreement with the _lunatic_is_in_my_head, I'm inclined to agree that s42 shouldn't apply where the OP has supplied the wrong address to the retailer.  It would seem to defy common sense - not that all aspects of legislation always make sense!

    tourist4ever - do you live on a new estate or a new development or something, and is it possible that the Royal Mail database doesn't include you yet?  (I'm sure there have been examples of this on these boards before).  If that is the case, it's likely to happen again.  And again...

    What happens when you put your postcode into this?  Postcode Finder - Find an address | Royal Mail Group Ltd

    (NB - When I separate my post code into two bits like AAN naa it won't find my address, but does find it if I input it with no space like AANnaa  Ignore my use of upper and lower case - I'm just distinguishing the two parts of the code)

    You say the address you found when ordering was "similar" so you did not realise it was wrong.  How similar was it and how far away is that address from your address?

    If you had noticed the error could you manually override it?



    I also note that although their returns policy acknowledges the consumer's 14 day right to return a "distance sale", it says  that on hygiene grounds mattresses can't be returned.  There's a European Court case that says that isn't the case - for mattresses - so I wonder if it could possibly be argued that their T&Cs are misleading consumers as to their rights?  I'm not sure if that might be helpful or not?
  • Alderbank said:
    Ergates said:
    Clearly that isn't going to apply where the consumer supplied the wrong address to the trader.
    Which part of the legislation are you relying on to make this statement? 


    I think Ergates is referring to regulation 20 of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013:

    Defence of due diligence

    20.—(1) In any proceedings against a person (A) for an offence under regulation 19 it is a defence for A to prove—
    (a)that the commission of the offence was due to—
    (i)the act or default of another, or
    (ii)reliance on information given by another, and
    (b)that A took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by A or any person under A's control.

    In non-legal language that says that it's not the seller's fault if he relied on information given by someone else (i.e. the buyer giving his correct address) provided the buyer is able to check the information before he submits it. Seems sensible to me.

    If the buyer selects to use autofill he is presented with the proposed address and must click a button to approve and continue. The OP admits they just clicked the button without reading the address.


    That clause refers specifically to Regulation 19 which refers to not providing the required information and specifically relates to the trader.

    19.—(1) A trader is guilty of an offence if the trader enters into an off-premises contract to which regulation 10 applies but fails to give the consumer the information listed in paragraph (l), (m) or (n) of Schedule 2 in accordance with that regulation.
    In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces
  • Jumblebumble
    Jumblebumble Posts: 1,993 Forumite
    Sixth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 5 November 2021 at 1:15PM
    Ergates said:
    Hi,

    i'm hoping someone can help. 

    I ordered from online4baby and DPD could not deliver due to not finding the address. They are now resending the package back to the sender. I have just received a call as it looks like the address was wrong, however it looks like this is due to their automated address search, so when you put in a door number and postcode it came up with a different address (Slightly similar still though) as I rechecked by going to check out and entering those details again.

    Now i understand I should have checked but at the same time it's just a bit annoying as they are now saying I will have to pay £40 (it's a big order so four boxes) for the delivery (this is the case whether i want a redelivery or a refund). I feel just gutted as I really feel it's partly their fault as well! 

    Companies don't build their own post-code search functions in the online shops, they buy that functionality in.  The address lookup are based on data from the post-office.   So it sounds like your address is wrong in the data from the post-office.  I don't think it is reasonable to to expect a 3rd party business to know this - they should be able to rely on this data, ergo I don't think you can hold them responsible - especially as you acknowledge you should have checked.

    I expect you'll find the same issue on other sites too.
    You cannot assume this

    For years we have seen postcode checkers mess up our address contradicting the post office files
    Our address was up to 4 years ago
    99 The XXXX
    YYY Way

    The post office removed the YYY Way as it was causing confusion
    Organisations such as TFL and Santander and Openreach   used someones post code checker which was incorrect as it put gave our address as 
    99 YYYWay which does exist but is 400 meters from us and has a different postcode

    Fortunately whoever was selling the wrong data or implementing it on websites wrongly has corrected it now

    I also got some jackass from TFL telling me I had obviously  entered it in wrongly  it was my fault and I apparantly did not know where I live 





  • Ergates
    Ergates Posts: 3,037 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Ergates said:
    Clearly that isn't going to apply where the consumer supplied the wrong address to the trader.
    Which part of the legislation are you relying on to make this statement? 

    The trader has the opportunity to confirm the address details with the consumer, if they choose not to do so, which is understandable as it isn't practical, then the run the risk that such instances will occur. 
    "(5) Paragraphs (6) and (7) apply if the trader does not deliver the goods in accordance with paragraph (3) or at the agreed time or within the agreed period."

    The trader *did* deliver the goods, to the address specified by the customer within the agreed period.
  • the_lunatic_is_in_my_head
    the_lunatic_is_in_my_head Posts: 9,270 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 5 November 2021 at 10:23PM
    Ergates said:
    Ergates said:
    Clearly that isn't going to apply where the consumer supplied the wrong address to the trader.
    Which part of the legislation are you relying on to make this statement? 

    The trader has the opportunity to confirm the address details with the consumer, if they choose not to do so, which is understandable as it isn't practical, then the run the risk that such instances will occur. 
    "(5) Paragraphs (6) and (7) apply if the trader does not deliver the goods in accordance with paragraph (3) or at the agreed time or within the agreed period."

    The trader *did* deliver the goods, to the address specified by the customer within the agreed period.
    The trader has to deliver the goods to the consumer, not to an address, passing of risk occurs when the goods come in to physical possession of the consumer or a person (not a place) identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.

    In this instance that doesn't matter as the goods are being returned to sender so wasn't delivered anyway.
    In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces
  • GrumpyDil
    GrumpyDil Posts: 2,037 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Tend to agree that the OP should not be charged as the goods were not delivered. Do feel it's a little unfair on the company as they did attempt  delivery to the address they had been given. 
  • Ergates said:
    Ergates said:
    Clearly that isn't going to apply where the consumer supplied the wrong address to the trader.
    Which part of the legislation are you relying on to make this statement? 

    The trader has the opportunity to confirm the address details with the consumer, if they choose not to do so, which is understandable as it isn't practical, then the run the risk that such instances will occur. 
    "(5) Paragraphs (6) and (7) apply if the trader does not deliver the goods in accordance with paragraph (3) or at the agreed time or within the agreed period."

    The trader *did* deliver the goods, to the address specified by the customer within the agreed period.
    The trader has to deliver the goods to the consumer, not to an address, passing of risk occurs when the goods come in to physical possession of the consumer or a person (not a place) identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.

    In this instance that doesn't matter as the goods are being returned to sender so wasn't delivered anyway.
    The fairly obvious argument being that the seller and consumer agreed to the goods being sent to an alternate address, as per

    2) Unless the trader and the consumer have agreed otherwise, the contract is to be treated as including a term that the trader must deliver the goods to the consumer.

  • Much as I usually lean in favour of the consumer, I'm not convinced they have a great case here.

    I can't help but feel that if this ever got to court (hopefully not) the judge would ask themselves whether it was really likely to be the intention of Parliament to make the seller responsible for delivering goods into the physical possession of the consumer even where the consumer has supplied - wittingly or unwittingly - the wrong delivery address?

    I'm not going to go way out on a limb and say it's impossible that that's what Parliament intended (they are idiots after all) or that it's impossible that a judge would conclude that that was the effect of the legislation - but it seems pretty unfair and pretty unlikely to me.

    The real question is what does the OP want?  I presume they want the +£500 of baby clothes etc or they want all their money back.  In either case I fear they will end up "losing" £40.  But I'd suggest they need to try to negotiate some sort of settlement with the supplier.  (Split the difference?)

    What might be helpful to know from the OP is answers to the questions I asked earlier.  In particular how far away the "similar" but wrong address is.  Only the other week I gave directions to a courier who was confused that his satnav didn't appear to fit the road configuration.  I understood where he needed to get to and how he'd got where he was because I knew the area.  It was a simple and straightforward solution but not if you didn't know it!  I'd be interested to know how much effort the courier put into trying to find the correct address.  (No texts or phone calls?).

    Also, the OP needs to try to find out why this has happened - otherwise it's likely to happen again...
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.