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
1356789

Comments

  • 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.

    Once again the key word being consumer, not address, and goods remain at the trader's risk until they come into physical possession of the consumer. 

    If the trader wishes to use a third party to deliver the goods they accept the risks that come with this. If they choose not to verify the address they run the risk it's incorrect, if they choose to deliver to an address without verifying the person who accepts them at the door is not the consumer they run the risks of this too. 

    If the goods had been delivered the OP should attempt to recover them IMHO as they are obligated to mitigate their losses for any small claim but as the goods were not delivered in this instance then well they haven't been delivered. 

    The goods will be returned to the trader who should refund in full, they will lose the outward shipping cost but they'd lose this under normal circumstances if the consumer cancelled their contract. 
    In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces
  • Ergates said:
    Clearly that isn't going to apply where the consumer supplied the wrong address to the trader.


    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?
    Worth a note their policy advises 14 days from the day you receive your goods but the minimum period is 14 days beginning the day after (the goods come into physical possession) so the extended cancellation period would apply. 

    They mention reducing the refund for diminished value but aren't able to due to the incorrect cancellation period. 

    They do mention collecting unwanted items with the costs which I think covers their requirement to advise on the cost of return for items which can't be returned by normal post but it all depends upon what they provided via durable means. 

    They also mention the hygiene limit and although debatable what it actually applies to if the goods aren't opened they can still be cancelled.  

    I may have missed it but it isn't clear from the OP whether the address on the order has the correct postcode, so does the order have correct house number and postcode with an incorrect middle or is the postcode incorrect as well.

    I don't know what address look up the site uses but if you use the Royal Mail address checker it isn't looking specifically for the postcode. It looks for whatever you type so if you put Edward in it does bring up addresses such as Edward Road but the first result appears to be a building called Edward. 

    If you mistype the postcode or enter one that doesn't exist the results will still show the nearest thing, so for example if the OP missed a keystroke the site may have defaulted to the nearest address. 

    Their terms do go into details on charges for returned items for non-delivery but I don't see how these can be applied when the consumer has the right to treat the contract at an end if the goods are not delivered. 
    In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces
  • biscan25
    biscan25 Posts: 452 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    I think some of the responses are overcomplicating things.
    Goods have been returned to sender.
    So they have the goods, DPD don't charge for returns. So if OP exercises statutory rights to cancel, they must be refunded the cost of goods, plus the original delivery charge (zero). Any deduction from this is unlawful.
    Yes they would normally be responsible for returning the goods at their cost, but this has already been done for free.
    Pensions actuary, Runner, Dog parent, Homeowner
  • Alderbank
    Alderbank Posts: 3,896 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    biscan25 said:
    I think some of the responses are overcomplicating things.
    Goods have been returned to sender.
    So they have the goods, DPD don't charge for returns. So if OP exercises statutory rights to cancel, they must be refunded the cost of goods, plus the original delivery charge (zero). Any deduction from this is unlawful.
    Yes they would normally be responsible for returning the goods at their cost, but this has already been done for free.
    To be fair, the OP's question wasn't about cancelling or cost of returning goods, but about the redelivery charge of £40 which the retailer has asked for.
  • Jenni_D
    Jenni_D Posts: 5,430 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    The solution is easy - cancel the order (for a full refund) and then reorder (if the seller still wishes to do business with the OP).
    Jenni x
  • GrumpyDil
    GrumpyDil Posts: 2,037 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    And back to the original post where the OP says they are being charged 40. 00 for either a refund or redelivery. 
  • 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.

    Once again the key word being consumer, not address, and goods remain at the trader's risk until they come into physical possession of the consumer. 

    If the trader wishes to use a third party to deliver the goods they accept the risks that come with this. If they choose not to verify the address they run the risk it's incorrect, if they choose to deliver to an address without verifying the person who accepts them at the door is not the consumer they run the risks of this too. 

    If the goods had been delivered the OP should attempt to recover them IMHO as they are obligated to mitigate their losses for any small claim but as the goods were not delivered in this instance then well they haven't been delivered. 

    The goods will be returned to the trader who should refund in full, they will lose the outward shipping cost but they'd lose this under normal circumstances if the consumer cancelled their contract. 
    Whilst this might be what the legislation could be read as saying, it can’t be what was intended and I can’t imagine that any judge would support this view.  If they did, it would open the door for anyone to say that the goods weren’t received every time they were to be delivered to a different address from that of the purchaser, for example, when being purchased as a gift and delivered directly to that person.
    Northern Ireland club member No 382 :j
  • 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.

    Once again the key word being consumer, not address, and goods remain at the trader's risk until they come into physical possession of the consumer. 

    If the trader wishes to use a third party to deliver the goods they accept the risks that come with this. If they choose not to verify the address they run the risk it's incorrect, if they choose to deliver to an address without verifying the person who accepts them at the door is not the consumer they run the risks of this too. 

    If the goods had been delivered the OP should attempt to recover them IMHO as they are obligated to mitigate their losses for any small claim but as the goods were not delivered in this instance then well they haven't been delivered. 

    The goods will be returned to the trader who should refund in full, they will lose the outward shipping cost but they'd lose this under normal circumstances if the consumer cancelled their contract. 
    Whilst this might be what the legislation could be read as saying, it can’t be what was intended and I can’t imagine that any judge would support this view.  If they did, it would open the door for anyone to say that the goods weren’t received every time they were to be delivered to a different address from that of the purchaser, for example, when being purchased as a gift and delivered directly to that person.
    The legislation is, to my view, intended as portrayed and also very clear, I don't dee how it can be taken any other way:

    (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


    If they are being delivered as a gift this would be classed as "a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods" and passing of risk would occur when the person the gift was for had the goods in their physical possession. 

    I presume this clause exists so that the consumer is not responsible for the goods until they rest in their hands, otherwise the consumer would be responsible for instances where, for example, goods are left on their door step or delivered to a neighbour, or indeed companies would no doubt attempt to say things like lost and damaged in transit are the consumer's problem. 

    To close the door on goods claimed as not being received when they actually were the trader can of course take steps to ensure they are only handed to the consumer and no one else, it's just that in most instances this doesn't occur because we've accepted a system of low cost and convenience. Whether consumers demand or companies dictate is a different debate altogether but the current system is obviously profitable otherwise it would change.

    Yes there is the risk of abuse just as there is the risk of say shoplifting in a traditional retail store environment, these are overheads that companies will do their best to limit within a certain cost. 
    In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces
  • 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.

    Once again the key word being consumer, not address, and goods remain at the trader's risk until they come into physical possession of the consumer. 

    If the trader wishes to use a third party to deliver the goods they accept the risks that come with this. If they choose not to verify the address they run the risk it's incorrect, if they choose to deliver to an address without verifying the person who accepts them at the door is not the consumer they run the risks of this too. 

    If the goods had been delivered the OP should attempt to recover them IMHO as they are obligated to mitigate their losses for any small claim but as the goods were not delivered in this instance then well they haven't been delivered. 

    The goods will be returned to the trader who should refund in full, they will lose the outward shipping cost but they'd lose this under normal circumstances if the consumer cancelled their contract. 
    Whilst this might be what the legislation could be read as saying, it can’t be what was intended and I can’t imagine that any judge would support this view.  If they did, it would open the door for anyone to say that the goods weren’t received every time they were to be delivered to a different address from that of the purchaser, for example, when being purchased as a gift and delivered directly to that person.
    The legislation is, to my view, intended as portrayed and also very clear, I don't dee how it can be taken any other way:

    (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


    If they are being delivered as a gift this would be classed as "a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods" and passing of risk would occur when the person the gift was for had the goods in their physical possession. 

    I presume this clause exists so that the consumer is not responsible for the goods until they rest in their hands, otherwise the consumer would be responsible for instances where, for example, goods are left on their door step or delivered to a neighbour, or indeed companies would no doubt attempt to say things like lost and damaged in transit are the consumer's problem. 

    To close the door on goods claimed as not being received when they actually were the trader can of course take steps to ensure they are only handed to the consumer and no one else, it's just that in most instances this doesn't occur because we've accepted a system of low cost and convenience. Whether consumers demand or companies dictate is a different debate altogether but the current system is obviously profitable otherwise it would change.

    Yes there is the risk of abuse just as there is the risk of say shoplifting in a traditional retail store environment, these are overheads that companies will do their best to limit within a certain cost. 
    Rationally, any details which the consumer has input could presumably qualify as ‘a person identified by the consumer’. If a customer has provided details it is illogical to say that the retailer should be considered to be put in a position to act contrary to the instructions specifically provided. Would a retailer be expected to guess the correct address?
  • unholyangel
    unholyangel Posts: 16,866 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    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.

    Once again the key word being consumer, not address, and goods remain at the trader's risk until they come into physical possession of the consumer. 

    If the trader wishes to use a third party to deliver the goods they accept the risks that come with this. If they choose not to verify the address they run the risk it's incorrect, if they choose to deliver to an address without verifying the person who accepts them at the door is not the consumer they run the risks of this too. 

    If the goods had been delivered the OP should attempt to recover them IMHO as they are obligated to mitigate their losses for any small claim but as the goods were not delivered in this instance then well they haven't been delivered. 

    The goods will be returned to the trader who should refund in full, they will lose the outward shipping cost but they'd lose this under normal circumstances if the consumer cancelled their contract. 
    Whilst this might be what the legislation could be read as saying, it can’t be what was intended and I can’t imagine that any judge would support this view.  If they did, it would open the door for anyone to say that the goods weren’t received every time they were to be delivered to a different address from that of the purchaser, for example, when being purchased as a gift and delivered directly to that person.
    The legislation is, to my view, intended as portrayed and also very clear, I don't dee how it can be taken any other way:

    (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


    If they are being delivered as a gift this would be classed as "a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods" and passing of risk would occur when the person the gift was for had the goods in their physical possession. 

    I presume this clause exists so that the consumer is not responsible for the goods until they rest in their hands, otherwise the consumer would be responsible for instances where, for example, goods are left on their door step or delivered to a neighbour, or indeed companies would no doubt attempt to say things like lost and damaged in transit are the consumer's problem. 

    To close the door on goods claimed as not being received when they actually were the trader can of course take steps to ensure they are only handed to the consumer and no one else, it's just that in most instances this doesn't occur because we've accepted a system of low cost and convenience. Whether consumers demand or companies dictate is a different debate altogether but the current system is obviously profitable otherwise it would change.

    Yes there is the risk of abuse just as there is the risk of say shoplifting in a traditional retail store environment, these are overheads that companies will do their best to limit within a certain cost. 
    Rationally, any details which the consumer has input could presumably qualify as ‘a person identified by the consumer’. If a customer has provided details it is illogical to say that the retailer should be considered to be put in a position to act contrary to the instructions specifically provided. Would a retailer be expected to guess the correct address?
    Was the name wrong too? Otherwise I don't see giving a different delivery address as authorising someone identified by the consumer. 

    What I will say though is that if the address look up works the way of most I've encountered, technically the OP did not input an incorrect address. They gave a (presumably correct) house number and postcode, for which the system (that the retailer chose to place a reliance on) then input/returned an incorrect address. Is failing to correct someone else's mistake (which could have prevented the loss from occurring) the same in law as making the mistake yourself (which caused the loss to occur)? 


    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
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.