We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
wrong address - have to pay return fees
Comments
-
unholyangel said:Parking_Eyerate said:Money_Grabber13579 said:longjohnjohnson said:Ergates said:Ergates said:Clearly that isn't going to apply where the consumer supplied the wrong address to the trader.
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.
The trader *did* deliver the goods, to the address specified by the customer within the agreed period.
In this instance that doesn't matter as the goods are being returned to sender so wasn't delivered anyway.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.
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.(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.
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)?
The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.0 -
Parking_Eyerate said:unholyangel said:Parking_Eyerate said:Money_Grabber13579 said:longjohnjohnson said:Ergates said:Ergates said:Clearly that isn't going to apply where the consumer supplied the wrong address to the trader.
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.
The trader *did* deliver the goods, to the address specified by the customer within the agreed period.
In this instance that doesn't matter as the goods are being returned to sender so wasn't delivered anyway.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.
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.(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.
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)?
The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
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 pieces0 -
Parking_Eyerate said:unholyangel said:Parking_Eyerate said:Money_Grabber13579 said:longjohnjohnson said:Ergates said:Ergates said:Clearly that isn't going to apply where the consumer supplied the wrong address to the trader.
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.
The trader *did* deliver the goods, to the address specified by the customer within the agreed period.
In this instance that doesn't matter as the goods are being returned to sender so wasn't delivered anyway.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.
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.(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.
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)?
The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
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.
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?
0 -
Parking_Eyerate said:Parking_Eyerate said:unholyangel said:Parking_Eyerate said:Money_Grabber13579 said:longjohnjohnson said:Ergates said:Ergates said:Clearly that isn't going to apply where the consumer supplied the wrong address to the trader.
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.
The trader *did* deliver the goods, to the address specified by the customer within the agreed period.
In this instance that doesn't matter as the goods are being returned to sender so wasn't delivered anyway.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.
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.(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.
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)?
The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
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.
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?
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 pieces0 -
Parking_Eyerate said:Parking_Eyerate said:unholyangel said:Parking_Eyerate said:Money_Grabber13579 said:longjohnjohnson said:Ergates said:Ergates said:Clearly that isn't going to apply where the consumer supplied the wrong address to the trader.
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.
The trader *did* deliver the goods, to the address specified by the customer within the agreed period.
In this instance that doesn't matter as the goods are being returned to sender so wasn't delivered anyway.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.
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.(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.
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)?
The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
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.
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?
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.
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?1 -
Parking_Eyerate said:Parking_Eyerate said:Parking_Eyerate said:unholyangel said:Parking_Eyerate said:Money_Grabber13579 said:longjohnjohnson said:Ergates said:Ergates said:Clearly that isn't going to apply where the consumer supplied the wrong address to the trader.
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.
The trader *did* deliver the goods, to the address specified by the customer within the agreed period.
In this instance that doesn't matter as the goods are being returned to sender so wasn't delivered anyway.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.
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.(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.
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)?
The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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 pieces0 -
Parking_Eyerate said:Parking_Eyerate said:Parking_Eyerate said:unholyangel said:Parking_Eyerate said:Money_Grabber13579 said:longjohnjohnson said:Ergates said:Ergates said:Clearly that isn't going to apply where the consumer supplied the wrong address to the trader.
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.
The trader *did* deliver the goods, to the address specified by the customer within the agreed period.
In this instance that doesn't matter as the goods are being returned to sender so wasn't delivered anyway.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.
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.(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.
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)?
The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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 Bride0 -
Parking_Eyerate said:Parking_Eyerate said:Parking_Eyerate said:unholyangel said:Parking_Eyerate said:Money_Grabber13579 said:longjohnjohnson said:Ergates said:Ergates said:Clearly that isn't going to apply where the consumer supplied the wrong address to the trader.
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.
The trader *did* deliver the goods, to the address specified by the customer within the agreed period.
In this instance that doesn't matter as the goods are being returned to sender so wasn't delivered anyway.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.
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.(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.
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)?
The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Which is what has effectively happened here, except DPD has done the back and forth on the trader's behalf.0 -
unholyangel said:Parking_Eyerate said:Parking_Eyerate said:Parking_Eyerate said:unholyangel said:Parking_Eyerate said:Money_Grabber13579 said:longjohnjohnson said:Ergates said:Ergates said:Clearly that isn't going to apply where the consumer supplied the wrong address to the trader.
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.
The trader *did* deliver the goods, to the address specified by the customer within the agreed period.
In this instance that doesn't matter as the goods are being returned to sender so wasn't delivered anyway.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.
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.(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.
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)?
The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.0 -
Parking_Eyerate said:Parking_Eyerate said:Parking_Eyerate said:Parking_Eyerate said:unholyangel said:Parking_Eyerate said:Money_Grabber13579 said:longjohnjohnson said:Ergates said:Ergates said:Clearly that isn't going to apply where the consumer supplied the wrong address to the trader.
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.
The trader *did* deliver the goods, to the address specified by the customer within the agreed period.
In this instance that doesn't matter as the goods are being returned to sender so wasn't delivered anyway.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.
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.(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.
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)?
The customer, in my experience, ordinarily confirms the appropriate address when proceeding with an order.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Which is what has effectively happened here, except DPD has done the back and forth on the trader's behalf.
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 pieces0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

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