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
1246789

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. 
    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)? 


    I have no idea if the name was right or wrong, presumably it was the right name since there is no mentiion that it was incorrect. However, since the retailer has no way of ensuring whether an addressee is a real person habitually or temporarily resident at a particular address or not, i fail to see why that matters. If  the person nominated by the customer doesn't exist the retailer cannot be at fault for failing to deliver to a person that doesn"t exist.

    The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
  • 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 8 November 2021 at 3:56PM
    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)? 


    I have no idea if the name was right or wrong, presumably it was the right name since there is no mentiion that it was incorrect. However, since the retailer has no way of ensuring whether an addressee is a real person habitually or temporarily resident at a particular address or not, i fail to see why that matters. If  the person nominated by the customer doesn't exist the retailer cannot be at fault for failing to deliver to a person that doesn"t exist.

    The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
    The issue is that it is the trader that must deliver the goods but in a lot of cases they use a third party to do so.

    If you order with AO from example they'll call you after you place your order, whilst it's usually to sell you an extended warranty, as part of the call they'll confirm the address for the delivery, seems a sensible thing to do before delivering something that is very expensive to cart back and forth. 

    With regards to the person at the address being the consumer, the trader or the third party they use for delivery could request ID. This may sound ridiculous but it is only because we are used to different system which could no doubt be viewed as just as ridiculous in other aspects which we accept as being normal.  
    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?
    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)? 


    I have no idea if the name was right or wrong, presumably it was the right name since there is no mentiion that it was incorrect. However, since the retailer has no way of ensuring whether an addressee is a real person habitually or temporarily resident at a particular address or not, i fail to see why that matters. If  the person nominated by the customer doesn't exist the retailer cannot be at fault for failing to deliver to a person that doesn"t exist.

    The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
    The issue is that it is the trader that must deliver the goods but in a lot of cases they use a third party to do so.

    If you order with AO from example they'll call you after you place your order, whilst it's usually to sell you an extended warranty, as part of the call they'll confirm the address for the delivery, seems a sensible thing to do before delivering something that is very expensive to cart back and forth. 

    With regards to the person at the address being the consumer, the trader or the third party they use for delivery could request ID. This may sound ridiculous but it is only because we are used to different system which could no doubt be viewed as just as ridiculous in other aspects which we accept as being normal.  
    The issue is whether it is reasonable for a retailer to act on information provided by a customer. I believe it is (see below for some examples why) but you appear to disagree.

    I have never once received a phone call after placing an online order, even when ordering large electrical goods and, frankly, I think I would find it annoying if that happened. Considering the point, however, what if, in such a situation, a customer misheard a house number (thought 90 was 19 or similar) and the retailer still had the wrong address? Would you then still say that the retailer was liable? What if a customer had hand-typed in the delivery address but made a typo, what would you expect the retailer to do then?

    When ordering something expensive I believe it is more sensible to ensure that details are correct.

    With regard to checking ID, I have to say that to me it does sound ridiculous. What form of ID would be acceptable? Photo ID with proof of address only? Not everyone has a driving licence. Proof of address? The recipient might still not be the named person. What about if you want something delivered to your place of work or an Air BnB you are renting for a week, what form of ID would be ok then? Is it ok to exclude consumers that don’t have the necessary ID from buying online? Should delivery personnel be allowed to take photos of ID and, if so, what about people that don’t want to expose their personal data unnecessarily?

  • 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 8 November 2021 at 9:00PM
    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)? 


    I have no idea if the name was right or wrong, presumably it was the right name since there is no mentiion that it was incorrect. However, since the retailer has no way of ensuring whether an addressee is a real person habitually or temporarily resident at a particular address or not, i fail to see why that matters. If  the person nominated by the customer doesn't exist the retailer cannot be at fault for failing to deliver to a person that doesn"t exist.

    The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
    The issue is that it is the trader that must deliver the goods but in a lot of cases they use a third party to do so.

    If you order with AO from example they'll call you after you place your order, whilst it's usually to sell you an extended warranty, as part of the call they'll confirm the address for the delivery, seems a sensible thing to do before delivering something that is very expensive to cart back and forth. 

    With regards to the person at the address being the consumer, the trader or the third party they use for delivery could request ID. This may sound ridiculous but it is only because we are used to different system which could no doubt be viewed as just as ridiculous in other aspects which we accept as being normal.  
    The issue is whether it is reasonable for a retailer to act on information provided by a customer. I believe it is (see below for some examples why) but you appear to disagree.

    I have never once received a phone call after placing an online order, even when ordering large electrical goods and, frankly, I think I would find it annoying if that happened. Considering the point, however, what if, in such a situation, a customer misheard a house number (thought 90 was 19 or similar) and the retailer still had the wrong address? Would you then still say that the retailer was liable? What if a customer had hand-typed in the delivery address but made a typo, what would you expect the retailer to do then?

    When ordering something expensive I believe it is more sensible to ensure that details are correct.

    With regard to checking ID, I have to say that to me it does sound ridiculous. What form of ID would be acceptable? Photo ID with proof of address only? Not everyone has a driving licence. Proof of address? The recipient might still not be the named person. What about if you want something delivered to your place of work or an Air BnB you are renting for a week, what form of ID would be ok then? Is it ok to exclude consumers that don’t have the necessary ID from buying online? Should delivery personnel be allowed to take photos of ID and, if so, what about people that don’t want to expose their personal data unnecessarily?

    And all those questions about ID are why the trader chooses not to request it, they make the process as convenient as possible so that you buy as much as possible which is profitable for them. In turn they run the risk that they occasionally face claims where the goods show as delivered but the consumer claims they haven't received them. 

    Is a phone call more annoying than getting in a car, on a bus or going for a walk to get to a shop in hope of finding what you need as everyone used to do? Again it's only a case what we are accustomed to and that has become convenience, this convenience nets retailers big profits as we consume more than we otherwise would, which can on occasion come with a cost when things don't run smoothly, the legislation protects the consumer in such instances.
    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?
    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)? 


    I have no idea if the name was right or wrong, presumably it was the right name since there is no mentiion that it was incorrect. However, since the retailer has no way of ensuring whether an addressee is a real person habitually or temporarily resident at a particular address or not, i fail to see why that matters. If  the person nominated by the customer doesn't exist the retailer cannot be at fault for failing to deliver to a person that doesn"t exist.

    The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
    The issue is that it is the trader that must deliver the goods but in a lot of cases they use a third party to do so.

    If you order with AO from example they'll call you after you place your order, whilst it's usually to sell you an extended warranty, as part of the call they'll confirm the address for the delivery, seems a sensible thing to do before delivering something that is very expensive to cart back and forth. 

    With regards to the person at the address being the consumer, the trader or the third party they use for delivery could request ID. This may sound ridiculous but it is only because we are used to different system which could no doubt be viewed as just as ridiculous in other aspects which we accept as being normal.  
    The issue is whether it is reasonable for a retailer to act on information provided by a customer. I believe it is (see below for some examples why) but you appear to disagree.

    I have never once received a phone call after placing an online order, even when ordering large electrical goods and, frankly, I think I would find it annoying if that happened. Considering the point, however, what if, in such a situation, a customer misheard a house number (thought 90 was 19 or similar) and the retailer still had the wrong address? Would you then still say that the retailer was liable? What if a customer had hand-typed in the delivery address but made a typo, what would you expect the retailer to do then?

    When ordering something expensive I believe it is more sensible to ensure that details are correct.

    With regard to checking ID, I have to say that to me it does sound ridiculous. What form of ID would be acceptable? Photo ID with proof of address only? Not everyone has a driving licence. Proof of address? The recipient might still not be the named person. What about if you want something delivered to your place of work or an Air BnB you are renting for a week, what form of ID would be ok then? Is it ok to exclude consumers that don’t have the necessary ID from buying online? Should delivery personnel be allowed to take photos of ID and, if so, what about people that don’t want to expose their personal data unnecessarily?

    And all those questions about ID are why the trader chooses not to request it, they make the process as convenient as possible so that you buy as much as possible which is profitable for them. In turn they run the risk that they occasionally face claims where the goods show as delivered but the consumer claims they haven't received them. 

    Is a phone call more annoying than getting in a car, on a bus or going for a walk to get to a shop in hope of finding what you need as everyone used to do? Again it's only a case what we are accustomed to and that has become convenience, this convenience nets retailers big profits as we consume more than we otherwise would, which can on occasion come with a cost when things don't run smoothly, the legislation protects the consumer in such instances.
    None of which addresses relevant questions.

    If a retailer is informed of delivery details by a customer, why do you think the retailer is not entitled to act on those details in good faith? What if the customer confirms a wrong address during a phone call? 
  • 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)? 


    I have no idea if the name was right or wrong, presumably it was the right name since there is no mentiion that it was incorrect. However, since the retailer has no way of ensuring whether an addressee is a real person habitually or temporarily resident at a particular address or not, i fail to see why that matters. If  the person nominated by the customer doesn't exist the retailer cannot be at fault for failing to deliver to a person that doesn"t exist.

    The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
    The issue is that it is the trader that must deliver the goods but in a lot of cases they use a third party to do so.

    If you order with AO from example they'll call you after you place your order, whilst it's usually to sell you an extended warranty, as part of the call they'll confirm the address for the delivery, seems a sensible thing to do before delivering something that is very expensive to cart back and forth. 

    With regards to the person at the address being the consumer, the trader or the third party they use for delivery could request ID. This may sound ridiculous but it is only because we are used to different system which could no doubt be viewed as just as ridiculous in other aspects which we accept as being normal.  
    The issue is whether it is reasonable for a retailer to act on information provided by a customer. I believe it is (see below for some examples why) but you appear to disagree.

    I have never once received a phone call after placing an online order, even when ordering large electrical goods and, frankly, I think I would find it annoying if that happened. Considering the point, however, what if, in such a situation, a customer misheard a house number (thought 90 was 19 or similar) and the retailer still had the wrong address? Would you then still say that the retailer was liable? What if a customer had hand-typed in the delivery address but made a typo, what would you expect the retailer to do then?

    When ordering something expensive I believe it is more sensible to ensure that details are correct.

    With regard to checking ID, I have to say that to me it does sound ridiculous. What form of ID would be acceptable? Photo ID with proof of address only? Not everyone has a driving licence. Proof of address? The recipient might still not be the named person. What about if you want something delivered to your place of work or an Air BnB you are renting for a week, what form of ID would be ok then? Is it ok to exclude consumers that don’t have the necessary ID from buying online? Should delivery personnel be allowed to take photos of ID and, if so, what about people that don’t want to expose their personal data unnecessarily?

    And all those questions about ID are why the trader chooses not to request it, they make the process as convenient as possible so that you buy as much as possible which is profitable for them. In turn they run the risk that they occasionally face claims where the goods show as delivered but the consumer claims they haven't received them. 

    Is a phone call more annoying than getting in a car, on a bus or going for a walk to get to a shop in hope of finding what you need as everyone used to do? Again it's only a case what we are accustomed to and that has become convenience, this convenience nets retailers big profits as we consume more than we otherwise would, which can on occasion come with a cost when things don't run smoothly, the legislation protects the consumer in such instances.
    None of which addresses relevant questions.

    If a retailer is informed of delivery details by a customer, why do you think the retailer is not entitled to act on those details in good faith? What if the customer confirms a wrong address during a phone call? 
    If the trader goes to deliver the goods but the consumer doesn't reside at the address supplied the trader simply returns back with the goods still in their possession. 

    Which is what has effectively happened here, except DPD has done the back and forth on the trader's behalf. 
    In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces
  • 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)? 


    I have no idea if the name was right or wrong, presumably it was the right name since there is no mentiion that it was incorrect. However, since the retailer has no way of ensuring whether an addressee is a real person habitually or temporarily resident at a particular address or not, i fail to see why that matters. If  the person nominated by the customer doesn't exist the retailer cannot be at fault for failing to deliver to a person that doesn"t exist.

    The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
    The issue is that it is the trader that must deliver the goods but in a lot of cases they use a third party to do so.

    If you order with AO from example they'll call you after you place your order, whilst it's usually to sell you an extended warranty, as part of the call they'll confirm the address for the delivery, seems a sensible thing to do before delivering something that is very expensive to cart back and forth. 

    With regards to the person at the address being the consumer, the trader or the third party they use for delivery could request ID. This may sound ridiculous but it is only because we are used to different system which could no doubt be viewed as just as ridiculous in other aspects which we accept as being normal.  
    The issue is whether it is reasonable for a retailer to act on information provided by a customer. I believe it is (see below for some examples why) but you appear to disagree.

    I have never once received a phone call after placing an online order, even when ordering large electrical goods and, frankly, I think I would find it annoying if that happened. Considering the point, however, what if, in such a situation, a customer misheard a house number (thought 90 was 19 or similar) and the retailer still had the wrong address? Would you then still say that the retailer was liable? What if a customer had hand-typed in the delivery address but made a typo, what would you expect the retailer to do then?

    When ordering something expensive I believe it is more sensible to ensure that details are correct.

    With regard to checking ID, I have to say that to me it does sound ridiculous. What form of ID would be acceptable? Photo ID with proof of address only? Not everyone has a driving licence. Proof of address? The recipient might still not be the named person. What about if you want something delivered to your place of work or an Air BnB you are renting for a week, what form of ID would be ok then? Is it ok to exclude consumers that don’t have the necessary ID from buying online? Should delivery personnel be allowed to take photos of ID and, if so, what about people that don’t want to expose their personal data unnecessarily?

    And all those questions about ID are why the trader chooses not to request it, they make the process as convenient as possible so that you buy as much as possible which is profitable for them. In turn they run the risk that they occasionally face claims where the goods show as delivered but the consumer claims they haven't received them. 

    Is a phone call more annoying than getting in a car, on a bus or going for a walk to get to a shop in hope of finding what you need as everyone used to do? Again it's only a case what we are accustomed to and that has become convenience, this convenience nets retailers big profits as we consume more than we otherwise would, which can on occasion come with a cost when things don't run smoothly, the legislation protects the consumer in such instances.
    None of which addresses relevant questions.

    If a retailer is informed of delivery details by a customer, why do you think the retailer is not entitled to act on those details in good faith? What if the customer confirms a wrong address during a phone call? 
    Well strictly speaking, as per my previous post, the details provided by the customer were possibly no more than the door number and post code. 

    However, putting that to one side....why is it reasonable for the retailer to place reliance on the details provided the consumer (or perhaps more accurately, their software's interpretation of the details provided by the consumer), but not for the consumer to place a reliance on the tools used by/provided by the retailer? 
    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
  • 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)? 


    I have no idea if the name was right or wrong, presumably it was the right name since there is no mentiion that it was incorrect. However, since the retailer has no way of ensuring whether an addressee is a real person habitually or temporarily resident at a particular address or not, i fail to see why that matters. If  the person nominated by the customer doesn't exist the retailer cannot be at fault for failing to deliver to a person that doesn"t exist.

    The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
    The issue is that it is the trader that must deliver the goods but in a lot of cases they use a third party to do so.

    If you order with AO from example they'll call you after you place your order, whilst it's usually to sell you an extended warranty, as part of the call they'll confirm the address for the delivery, seems a sensible thing to do before delivering something that is very expensive to cart back and forth. 

    With regards to the person at the address being the consumer, the trader or the third party they use for delivery could request ID. This may sound ridiculous but it is only because we are used to different system which could no doubt be viewed as just as ridiculous in other aspects which we accept as being normal.  
    The issue is whether it is reasonable for a retailer to act on information provided by a customer. I believe it is (see below for some examples why) but you appear to disagree.

    I have never once received a phone call after placing an online order, even when ordering large electrical goods and, frankly, I think I would find it annoying if that happened. Considering the point, however, what if, in such a situation, a customer misheard a house number (thought 90 was 19 or similar) and the retailer still had the wrong address? Would you then still say that the retailer was liable? What if a customer had hand-typed in the delivery address but made a typo, what would you expect the retailer to do then?

    When ordering something expensive I believe it is more sensible to ensure that details are correct.

    With regard to checking ID, I have to say that to me it does sound ridiculous. What form of ID would be acceptable? Photo ID with proof of address only? Not everyone has a driving licence. Proof of address? The recipient might still not be the named person. What about if you want something delivered to your place of work or an Air BnB you are renting for a week, what form of ID would be ok then? Is it ok to exclude consumers that don’t have the necessary ID from buying online? Should delivery personnel be allowed to take photos of ID and, if so, what about people that don’t want to expose their personal data unnecessarily?

    And all those questions about ID are why the trader chooses not to request it, they make the process as convenient as possible so that you buy as much as possible which is profitable for them. In turn they run the risk that they occasionally face claims where the goods show as delivered but the consumer claims they haven't received them. 

    Is a phone call more annoying than getting in a car, on a bus or going for a walk to get to a shop in hope of finding what you need as everyone used to do? Again it's only a case what we are accustomed to and that has become convenience, this convenience nets retailers big profits as we consume more than we otherwise would, which can on occasion come with a cost when things don't run smoothly, the legislation protects the consumer in such instances.
    None of which addresses relevant questions.

    If a retailer is informed of delivery details by a customer, why do you think the retailer is not entitled to act on those details in good faith? What if the customer confirms a wrong address during a phone call? 
    If the trader goes to deliver the goods but the consumer doesn't reside at the address supplied the trader simply returns back with the goods still in their possession. 

    Which is what has effectively happened here, except DPD has done the back and forth on the trader's behalf. 
    Yes, that appears to be what happened here but you are not addressing the point of what would be the legal situation if the goods had been delivered to the address as requested by the consumer. It sounds as if the goods were bulky in this instance but what if the purchase could have been posted through the letterbox indicated by the consumer? Why would the retailer be liable if goods were delivered in accordance with delivery information supplied by a customer?
  • 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)? 


    I have no idea if the name was right or wrong, presumably it was the right name since there is no mentiion that it was incorrect. However, since the retailer has no way of ensuring whether an addressee is a real person habitually or temporarily resident at a particular address or not, i fail to see why that matters. If  the person nominated by the customer doesn't exist the retailer cannot be at fault for failing to deliver to a person that doesn"t exist.

    The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
    The issue is that it is the trader that must deliver the goods but in a lot of cases they use a third party to do so.

    If you order with AO from example they'll call you after you place your order, whilst it's usually to sell you an extended warranty, as part of the call they'll confirm the address for the delivery, seems a sensible thing to do before delivering something that is very expensive to cart back and forth. 

    With regards to the person at the address being the consumer, the trader or the third party they use for delivery could request ID. This may sound ridiculous but it is only because we are used to different system which could no doubt be viewed as just as ridiculous in other aspects which we accept as being normal.  
    The issue is whether it is reasonable for a retailer to act on information provided by a customer. I believe it is (see below for some examples why) but you appear to disagree.

    I have never once received a phone call after placing an online order, even when ordering large electrical goods and, frankly, I think I would find it annoying if that happened. Considering the point, however, what if, in such a situation, a customer misheard a house number (thought 90 was 19 or similar) and the retailer still had the wrong address? Would you then still say that the retailer was liable? What if a customer had hand-typed in the delivery address but made a typo, what would you expect the retailer to do then?

    When ordering something expensive I believe it is more sensible to ensure that details are correct.

    With regard to checking ID, I have to say that to me it does sound ridiculous. What form of ID would be acceptable? Photo ID with proof of address only? Not everyone has a driving licence. Proof of address? The recipient might still not be the named person. What about if you want something delivered to your place of work or an Air BnB you are renting for a week, what form of ID would be ok then? Is it ok to exclude consumers that don’t have the necessary ID from buying online? Should delivery personnel be allowed to take photos of ID and, if so, what about people that don’t want to expose their personal data unnecessarily?

    And all those questions about ID are why the trader chooses not to request it, they make the process as convenient as possible so that you buy as much as possible which is profitable for them. In turn they run the risk that they occasionally face claims where the goods show as delivered but the consumer claims they haven't received them. 

    Is a phone call more annoying than getting in a car, on a bus or going for a walk to get to a shop in hope of finding what you need as everyone used to do? Again it's only a case what we are accustomed to and that has become convenience, this convenience nets retailers big profits as we consume more than we otherwise would, which can on occasion come with a cost when things don't run smoothly, the legislation protects the consumer in such instances.
    None of which addresses relevant questions.

    If a retailer is informed of delivery details by a customer, why do you think the retailer is not entitled to act on those details in good faith? What if the customer confirms a wrong address during a phone call? 
    Well strictly speaking, as per my previous post, the details provided by the customer were possibly no more than the door number and post code. 

    However, putting that to one side....why is it reasonable for the retailer to place reliance on the details provided the consumer (or perhaps more accurately, their software's interpretation of the details provided by the consumer), but not for the consumer to place a reliance on the tools used by/provided by the retailer? 
    I am not absolutely clear which tool of the retailer you are talking about but I presume that it is the postcode look-up system. That being the case, in what way does a consumer rationally rely completely on such a tool and not check the output? The forms you fill in online ask for delivery details and to try and make things a bit quicker/easier there are postcode checking systems for addresses. I don't think it's any more complicated than that. I don't think provision of a postcode checker means it isn't incumbent in the purchaser to ensure the they select the appropriate output or otherwise enter the address themselves. Accordingly I don't think a reasonable consumer would think that provision of a postcode checker means that they don't need to check (and confirm) that the address is correct. When an order is placed the purchaser is effectively confirming that the details on the forms are appropriate.

    Also, on postcode checkers, in my experience if you put in a postcode and number and there are multiple possibilities then a drop down list appears with the 'hits' and the appropriate address can be selected. It is then auto-completed in the relevant boxes and you can read it to check that it is correct. Further, if the desired address doesn't appear then you can type the address yourself - i don't recall having come across a form where there is an obligation to use the postcode checker.
  • 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)? 


    I have no idea if the name was right or wrong, presumably it was the right name since there is no mentiion that it was incorrect. However, since the retailer has no way of ensuring whether an addressee is a real person habitually or temporarily resident at a particular address or not, i fail to see why that matters. If  the person nominated by the customer doesn't exist the retailer cannot be at fault for failing to deliver to a person that doesn"t exist.

    The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
    The issue is that it is the trader that must deliver the goods but in a lot of cases they use a third party to do so.

    If you order with AO from example they'll call you after you place your order, whilst it's usually to sell you an extended warranty, as part of the call they'll confirm the address for the delivery, seems a sensible thing to do before delivering something that is very expensive to cart back and forth. 

    With regards to the person at the address being the consumer, the trader or the third party they use for delivery could request ID. This may sound ridiculous but it is only because we are used to different system which could no doubt be viewed as just as ridiculous in other aspects which we accept as being normal.  
    The issue is whether it is reasonable for a retailer to act on information provided by a customer. I believe it is (see below for some examples why) but you appear to disagree.

    I have never once received a phone call after placing an online order, even when ordering large electrical goods and, frankly, I think I would find it annoying if that happened. Considering the point, however, what if, in such a situation, a customer misheard a house number (thought 90 was 19 or similar) and the retailer still had the wrong address? Would you then still say that the retailer was liable? What if a customer had hand-typed in the delivery address but made a typo, what would you expect the retailer to do then?

    When ordering something expensive I believe it is more sensible to ensure that details are correct.

    With regard to checking ID, I have to say that to me it does sound ridiculous. What form of ID would be acceptable? Photo ID with proof of address only? Not everyone has a driving licence. Proof of address? The recipient might still not be the named person. What about if you want something delivered to your place of work or an Air BnB you are renting for a week, what form of ID would be ok then? Is it ok to exclude consumers that don’t have the necessary ID from buying online? Should delivery personnel be allowed to take photos of ID and, if so, what about people that don’t want to expose their personal data unnecessarily?

    And all those questions about ID are why the trader chooses not to request it, they make the process as convenient as possible so that you buy as much as possible which is profitable for them. In turn they run the risk that they occasionally face claims where the goods show as delivered but the consumer claims they haven't received them. 

    Is a phone call more annoying than getting in a car, on a bus or going for a walk to get to a shop in hope of finding what you need as everyone used to do? Again it's only a case what we are accustomed to and that has become convenience, this convenience nets retailers big profits as we consume more than we otherwise would, which can on occasion come with a cost when things don't run smoothly, the legislation protects the consumer in such instances.
    None of which addresses relevant questions.

    If a retailer is informed of delivery details by a customer, why do you think the retailer is not entitled to act on those details in good faith? What if the customer confirms a wrong address during a phone call? 
    If the trader goes to deliver the goods but the consumer doesn't reside at the address supplied the trader simply returns back with the goods still in their possession. 

    Which is what has effectively happened here, except DPD has done the back and forth on the trader's behalf. 
    Yes, that appears to be what happened here but you are not addressing the point of what would be the legal situation if the goods had been delivered to the address as requested by the consumer. It sounds as if the goods were bulky in this instance but what if the purchase could have been posted through the letterbox indicated by the consumer? Why would the retailer be liable if goods were delivered in accordance with delivery information supplied by a customer?
    That was answered in page 2, the goods remain at the trader's risk until they come in to physical possession of the consumer or a person identified by them.

    An address or place is not a person, if the trader chooses to leave the goods in a place or with different person that is not the consumer or 
    a person identified by them then this is at the trader's risk. 
    In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces
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.