We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
wrong address - have to pay return fees
Comments
-
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.
If the legislation drafters/parliament had meant for the consumer rights act to undermine delivery systems used for decades (or, in the case of envelopes through the post, over a century), then i consider it would have been made explicitly clear in the legislation that delivery convention was being upended (and a retailer could only fulfil their obligations by requiring the purchaser to upload an up-to-date photo of the named recipient and for that specific person to be present at the time of delivery). Practically, however, if a customer has nominated a recipient that is wrong or doesn't exist that is unfortunate but it is not the retailer's fault, and I do not believe that the legislation was intended to compel retailers to refund or despatch duplicate orders where a first was delivered as instructed by a customer. A retailer has no way of ensuring whether a person is to be found at a particular address or not, that obligation logically rests on the customer's shoulders.
The interpretation you are proposing is also problematic because it could, in effect, facilitate crime (e.g. someone deliberately trying to obtain multiple items for the price of one). If a reasonable interpretation that avoids facilitating crime were possible (which i believe would be the case if the purchaser were accepted to be responsible for the accuracy of delivery details), then I consider that a judge would be somewhat unlikely to find in favour of an interpretation that facilitates crime.
Moreover, if a customer tried to bring a court claim on the basis of the consumer rights act despite having given incorrect details, then I consider that the retailer would be well within its rights to counter-sue the purchaser for any resulting loss/damage associated with the misdelivery. I also consider that if a customer had indeed provided incorrect details (or had negligently not checked details) then a judge would be very likely to find in favour of the retailer. So, even if the consumer rights act were to be interpreted as you suggest, I consider that under civil law the purchaser would nevertheless be liable for additional costs associated with any misdirected delivery.
So, either way, I do not agree that the retailer unambiguously has the responsibilities that you suggest and that a purchaser can effectively give any details they like without jeopardy, and I consider that constantly asserting that is the case could potentially (unintentionally) mislead people.
2 -
Normally the checkout page shows the delivery address. Did the OP not check that?0
-
Parking_Eyerate said: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.
If the legislation drafters/parliament had meant for the consumer rights act to undermine delivery systems used for decades (or, in the case of envelopes through the post, over a century), then i consider it would have been made explicitly clear in the legislation that delivery convention was being upended (and a retailer could only fulfil their obligations by requiring the purchaser to upload an up-to-date photo of the named recipient and for that specific person to be present at the time of delivery). Practically, however, if a customer has nominated a recipient that is wrong or doesn't exist that is unfortunate but it is not the retailer's fault, and I do not believe that the legislation was intended to compel retailers to refund or despatch duplicate orders where a first was delivered as instructed by a customer. A retailer has no way of ensuring whether a person is to be found at a particular address or not, that obligation logically rests on the customer's shoulders.
The interpretation you are proposing is also problematic because it could, in effect, facilitate crime (e.g. someone deliberately trying to obtain multiple items for the price of one). If a reasonable interpretation that avoids facilitating crime were possible (which i believe would be the case if the purchaser were accepted to be responsible for the accuracy of delivery details), then I consider that a judge would be somewhat unlikely to find in favour of an interpretation that facilitates crime.
Moreover, if a customer tried to bring a court claim on the basis of the consumer rights act despite having given incorrect details, then I consider that the retailer would be well within its rights to counter-sue the purchaser for any resulting loss/damage associated with the misdelivery. I also consider that if a customer had indeed provided incorrect details (or had negligently not checked details) then a judge would be very likely to find in favour of the retailer. So, even if the consumer rights act were to be interpreted as you suggest, I consider that under civil law the purchaser would nevertheless be liable for additional costs associated with any misdirected delivery.
So, either way, I do not agree that the retailer unambiguously has the responsibilities that you suggest and that a purchaser can effectively give any details they like without jeopardy, and I consider that constantly asserting that is the case could potentially (unintentionally) mislead people.
The legislation doesn't consider delivery systems regardless of how old they may be. If you sell alcohol or certain bladed items it is illegal to sell these to people under the age of 18. The consequences of doing so are more severe than the issue we are talking about in this thread. Are you suggesting that because delivery systems work as they do and have done for years then there is no need for traders to carry out age verification when delivering such items? If so why do they create a barrier to the consumer plus go to such trouble and expense if there's no need to because in your view the legislation governing the sale of such items is undermining the age old delivery systems and as such this surpasses anything actually written in the legislation itself?
Facilitating crime would be the trader's actions not the wording of the legislation, the trader's failure to only hand the goods to the consumer is what would potentially permit a crime to occur.
Maybe they would, I don't know and haven't said otherwise, but as per the topic and my first post, the legislation states if the goods are not delivered the consumer is entitled to a full refund. If the trader didn't deliver and then didn't refund in full leading the consumer to raise a small claim to recover the rest it is not equally fair that the judge takes a dim view of the trader's actions by ignoring a clause in the legislation which, to my view, is black and white?
Probably half the posts on this board contain incorrect information, such is life as none of us are claiming to be experts here but instead are offering our advice and opinions with the aim helping others sort out their issues, occasionally it's interesting to have a debate. I'm always happy to be corrected, ideally with a source, others constantly asserting otherwise could equally misleadIn the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces0 -
I frequently for convenience order goods and get them delivered to my mother-in-laws address. Moreover I deliberately use her daughters maiden name as the recipient so MIL can easily identify that the parcel is not for her. Are people really saying that I as the consumer can claim a refund for non delivery to me ?4
-
diinozzo said:I frequently for convenience order goods and get them delivered to my mother-in-laws address. Moreover I deliberately use her daughters maiden name as the recipient so MIL can easily identify that the parcel is not for her. Are people really saying that I as the consumer can claim a refund for non delivery to me ?
If your MIL receives the goods and then refuses to give them to you it is the trader that has suffered the loss of the goods rather than yourself, the trader should recover their losses against your MIL.
If you amend the name then the person nominated is taking the goods on your behalf and if they fail to give them to you that is your loss to suffer and down to you to recover any losses from the nominated person.
If the name is a mix and doesn't really exist or your MIL doesn't intend to pass the goods on to you, then the point being made is that the trader should take steps to ensure they only hand the goods to the person who should receive them thus avoiding giving goods to people that "don't exist" or who won't pass them on.
If people come up with some convoluted system to intentionally use this to take goods from the trader without payment (by seeking a refund) they would be guilty of theft.In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces0 -
Parking_Eyerate said: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.
If the legislation drafters/parliament had meant for the consumer rights act to undermine delivery systems used for decades (or, in the case of envelopes through the post, over a century), then i consider it would have been made explicitly clear in the legislation that delivery convention was being upended (and a retailer could only fulfil their obligations by requiring the purchaser to upload an up-to-date photo of the named recipient and for that specific person to be present at the time of delivery). Practically, however, if a customer has nominated a recipient that is wrong or doesn't exist that is unfortunate but it is not the retailer's fault, and I do not believe that the legislation was intended to compel retailers to refund or despatch duplicate orders where a first was delivered as instructed by a customer. A retailer has no way of ensuring whether a person is to be found at a particular address or not, that obligation logically rests on the customer's shoulders.
The interpretation you are proposing is also problematic because it could, in effect, facilitate crime (e.g. someone deliberately trying to obtain multiple items for the price of one). If a reasonable interpretation that avoids facilitating crime were possible (which i believe would be the case if the purchaser were accepted to be responsible for the accuracy of delivery details), then I consider that a judge would be somewhat unlikely to find in favour of an interpretation that facilitates crime.
Moreover, if a customer tried to bring a court claim on the basis of the consumer rights act despite having given incorrect details, then I consider that the retailer would be well within its rights to counter-sue the purchaser for any resulting loss/damage associated with the misdelivery. I also consider that if a customer had indeed provided incorrect details (or had negligently not checked details) then a judge would be very likely to find in favour of the retailer. So, even if the consumer rights act were to be interpreted as you suggest, I consider that under civil law the purchaser would nevertheless be liable for additional costs associated with any misdirected delivery.
So, either way, I do not agree that the retailer unambiguously has the responsibilities that you suggest and that a purchaser can effectively give any details they like without jeopardy, and I consider that constantly asserting that is the case could potentially (unintentionally) mislead people.
The legislation doesn't consider delivery systems regardless of how old they may be. If you sell alcohol or certain bladed items it is illegal to sell these to people under the age of 18. The consequences of doing so are more severe than the issue we are talking about in this thread. Are you suggesting that because delivery systems work as they do and have done for years then there is no need for traders to carry out age verification when delivering such items? If so why do they create a barrier to the consumer plus go to such trouble and expense if there's no need to because in your view the legislation governing the sale of such items is undermining the age old delivery systems and as such this surpasses anything actually written in the legislation itself?
Facilitating crime would be the trader's actions not the wording of the legislation, the trader's failure to only hand the goods to the consumer is what would potentially permit a crime to occur.
Maybe they would, I don't know and haven't said otherwise, but as per the topic and my first post, the legislation states if the goods are not delivered the consumer is entitled to a full refund. If the trader didn't deliver and then didn't refund in full leading the consumer to raise a small claim to recover the rest it is not equally fair that the judge takes a dim view of the trader's actions by ignoring a clause in the legislation which, to my view, is black and white?
Probably half the posts on this board contain incorrect information, such is life as none of us are claiming to be experts here but instead are offering our advice and opinions with the aim helping others sort out their issues, occasionally it's interesting to have a debate. I'm always happy to be corrected, ideally with a source, others constantly asserting otherwise could equally mislead
Regarding selling alcohol or knives, I do not think your comment is analogous and, regardless, it is my understanding that age does not need to be checked for home deliveries of alcohol (section 151(6) of the licensing act 2003). For knives, yes it is possible for legislation to be much stricter but for an item that you are likely to only buy occasionally (I don't know about you but i have never bought kitchen knives online), then it is reasonable for there to be more stringent checks and as a customer it would be acceptable on a rare occasion. Contrastingly, i do not think that consumers would appreciate the impact of your interpretation of the law in any way if it meant that they always had to be in and had to show ID to receive deliveries, even of goods in envelopes. The convenience of online shopping would be unacceptably compromised.
Facilitating crime would be a result of the legislation if it meant that it was easier for a person to commit a crime. Trying to argue that a customer can provide erroneous information without consequence quite simply makes it easier for people to try and commit fraud. Further, since ID can be faked and you haven't indicated what form of ID checking you consider would be acceptable in law before the retailer would be considered to have fulfilled their obligations, then even if ID were to be checked it is still possible that a consumer could claim they did not receive goods.
It appears to me that much of your opinion rests on the fact that you consider it is feasible for a retailer to categorically confirm that they only ever deliver to the named recipient. So, since you are making that as a positive assertion then I ask you how you see that operating in practice. You previously brushed over all queries relating to ID and what would be necessary but you are arguing that a retailer can fulfil obligations by checking ID, so you logically must have a view on what that checking would have to look like in order for the legal requirements to be satisfied. So, please clarify - what level of ID checking do you envisage and how does that fit with the various delivery circumstances that occur (e.g. workplaces, holiday rentals, gifts, nicknames, initials, short names etc etc)? If you are advising people that ID needs to be checked as a current matter of law in order for the retailer's burden to be discharged then there ought to be context as to what that ID checking entails.
Again, i don't think the clause in the legislation is in any way black and white and a judge could equally say that it would be a waste of court's time for a retailer to refund under the consumer rights act and then pursue action for loss/damages incurred as a result of the misdelivery. I believe that a judge would be less impressed by wasting the court's time than questioning the untested interpretation of the consumer rights act.
Indeed, you are absolutely right that anyone could inadvertently mislead and I certainly accept that my interpretation could be wrong 🙂. However, one thing I do not think is reasonable to advise is that there is no question that a retailer would definitely be considered not to have fulfilled its consumer rights act obligations in circumstances where it acted in good faith on information provided by a consumer.
0 -
Parking_Eyerate said:Parking_Eyerate said: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.
If the legislation drafters/parliament had meant for the consumer rights act to undermine delivery systems used for decades (or, in the case of envelopes through the post, over a century), then i consider it would have been made explicitly clear in the legislation that delivery convention was being upended (and a retailer could only fulfil their obligations by requiring the purchaser to upload an up-to-date photo of the named recipient and for that specific person to be present at the time of delivery). Practically, however, if a customer has nominated a recipient that is wrong or doesn't exist that is unfortunate but it is not the retailer's fault, and I do not believe that the legislation was intended to compel retailers to refund or despatch duplicate orders where a first was delivered as instructed by a customer. A retailer has no way of ensuring whether a person is to be found at a particular address or not, that obligation logically rests on the customer's shoulders.
The interpretation you are proposing is also problematic because it could, in effect, facilitate crime (e.g. someone deliberately trying to obtain multiple items for the price of one). If a reasonable interpretation that avoids facilitating crime were possible (which i believe would be the case if the purchaser were accepted to be responsible for the accuracy of delivery details), then I consider that a judge would be somewhat unlikely to find in favour of an interpretation that facilitates crime.
Moreover, if a customer tried to bring a court claim on the basis of the consumer rights act despite having given incorrect details, then I consider that the retailer would be well within its rights to counter-sue the purchaser for any resulting loss/damage associated with the misdelivery. I also consider that if a customer had indeed provided incorrect details (or had negligently not checked details) then a judge would be very likely to find in favour of the retailer. So, even if the consumer rights act were to be interpreted as you suggest, I consider that under civil law the purchaser would nevertheless be liable for additional costs associated with any misdirected delivery.
So, either way, I do not agree that the retailer unambiguously has the responsibilities that you suggest and that a purchaser can effectively give any details they like without jeopardy, and I consider that constantly asserting that is the case could potentially (unintentionally) mislead people.
The legislation doesn't consider delivery systems regardless of how old they may be. If you sell alcohol or certain bladed items it is illegal to sell these to people under the age of 18. The consequences of doing so are more severe than the issue we are talking about in this thread. Are you suggesting that because delivery systems work as they do and have done for years then there is no need for traders to carry out age verification when delivering such items? If so why do they create a barrier to the consumer plus go to such trouble and expense if there's no need to because in your view the legislation governing the sale of such items is undermining the age old delivery systems and as such this surpasses anything actually written in the legislation itself?
Facilitating crime would be the trader's actions not the wording of the legislation, the trader's failure to only hand the goods to the consumer is what would potentially permit a crime to occur.
Maybe they would, I don't know and haven't said otherwise, but as per the topic and my first post, the legislation states if the goods are not delivered the consumer is entitled to a full refund. If the trader didn't deliver and then didn't refund in full leading the consumer to raise a small claim to recover the rest it is not equally fair that the judge takes a dim view of the trader's actions by ignoring a clause in the legislation which, to my view, is black and white?
Probably half the posts on this board contain incorrect information, such is life as none of us are claiming to be experts here but instead are offering our advice and opinions with the aim helping others sort out their issues, occasionally it's interesting to have a debate. I'm always happy to be corrected, ideally with a source, others constantly asserting otherwise could equally mislead
Regarding selling alcohol or knives, I do not think your comment is analogous and, regardless, it is my understanding that age does not need to be checked for home deliveries of alcohol (section 151(6) of the licensing act 2003). For knives, yes it is possible for legislation to be much stricter but for an item that you are likely to only buy occasionally (I don't know about you but i have never bought kitchen knives online), then it is reasonable for there to be more stringent checks and as a customer it would be acceptable on a rare occasion. Contrastingly, i do not think that consumers would appreciate the impact of your interpretation of the law in any way if it meant that they always had to be in and had to show ID to receive deliveries, even of goods in envelopes. The convenience of online shopping would be unacceptably compromised.
Facilitating crime would be a result of the legislation if it meant that it was easier for a person to commit a crime. Trying to argue that a customer can provide erroneous information without consequence quite simply makes it easier for people to try and commit fraud. Further, since ID can be faked and you haven't indicated what form of ID checking you consider would be acceptable in law before the retailer would be considered to have fulfilled their obligations, then even if ID were to be checked it is still possible that a consumer could claim they did not receive goods.
It appears to me that much of your opinion rests on the fact that you consider it is feasible for a retailer to categorically confirm that they only ever deliver to the named recipient. So, since you are making that as a positive assertion then I ask you how you see that operating in practice. You previously brushed over all queries relating to ID and what would be necessary but you are arguing that a retailer can fulfil obligations by checking ID, so you logically must have a view on what that checking would have to look like in order for the legal requirements to be satisfied. So, please clarify - what level of ID checking do you envisage and how does that fit with the various delivery circumstances that occur (e.g. workplaces, holiday rentals, gifts, nicknames, initials, short names etc etc)? If you are advising people that ID needs to be checked as a current matter of law in order for the retailer's burden to be discharged then there ought to be context as to what that ID checking entails.
Again, i don't think the clause in the legislation is in any way black and white and a judge could equally say that it would be a waste of court's time for a retailer to refund under the consumer rights act and then pursue action for loss/damages incurred as a result of the misdelivery. I believe that a judge would be less impressed by wasting the court's time than questioning the untested interpretation of the consumer rights act.
Indeed, you are absolutely right that anyone could inadvertently mislead and I certainly accept that my interpretation could be wrong 🙂. However, one thing I do not think is reasonable to advise is that there is no question that a retailer would definitely be considered not to have fulfilled its consumer rights act obligations in circumstances where it acted in good faith on information provided by a consumer.
Just a note on the alcohol, whilst I don't think it is an offence to deliver to someone under the age of 18 those governing the licensing may still wish to see some due diligence in place to seek to prevent alcohol falling into the hands of people under 18, particularly if complaints arise.
In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces0 -
Parking_Eyerate said:Well, I disagree and consider that if the consumer has provided delivery details then they have effectively identified a person at the given address, whether or not that person is the correct person or indeed exists. I can't find any reference that backs-up your assertion that following the instructions of a consumer is at the retailer's risk and, as I believe was pointed out by another poster, I very much doubt that a judge would interpret the law in the way you suggest. To me, if a retailer provides a delivery in accordance with the details provided by a customer then it has logically fulfilled its obligations.
If the legislation drafters/parliament had meant for the consumer rights act to undermine delivery systems used for decades (or, in the case of envelopes through the post, over a century), then i consider it would have been made explicitly clear in the legislation that delivery convention was being upended (and a retailer could only fulfil their obligations by requiring the purchaser to upload an up-to-date photo of the named recipient and for that specific person to be present at the time of delivery). Practically, however, if a customer has nominated a recipient that is wrong or doesn't exist that is unfortunate but it is not the retailer's fault, and I do not believe that the legislation was intended to compel retailers to refund or despatch duplicate orders where a first was delivered as instructed by a customer. A retailer has no way of ensuring whether a person is to be found at a particular address or not, that obligation logically rests on the customer's shoulders.
The interpretation you are proposing is also problematic because it could, in effect, facilitate crime (e.g. someone deliberately trying to obtain multiple items for the price of one). If a reasonable interpretation that avoids facilitating crime were possible (which i believe would be the case if the purchaser were accepted to be responsible for the accuracy of delivery details), then I consider that a judge would be somewhat unlikely to find in favour of an interpretation that facilitates crime.
Moreover, if a customer tried to bring a court claim on the basis of the consumer rights act despite having given incorrect details, then I consider that the retailer would be well within its rights to counter-sue the purchaser for any resulting loss/damage associated with the misdelivery. I also consider that if a customer had indeed provided incorrect details (or had negligently not checked details) then a judge would be very likely to find in favour of the retailer. So, even if the consumer rights act were to be interpreted as you suggest, I consider that under civil law the purchaser would nevertheless be liable for additional costs associated with any misdirected delivery.
So, either way, I do not agree that the retailer unambiguously has the responsibilities that you suggest and that a purchaser can effectively give any details they like without jeopardy, and I consider that constantly asserting that is the case could potentially (unintentionally) mislead people.(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, as you suggest, they wanted it to pass when it was delivered to an address.....then why include the parts in bold? Why not just say risk passes when it is delivered to the nominated address?
As for facilitating crime, you're being ridiculous. If my car is damaged, the law gives me the right to claim for that damage. But if i make a false representation which I know/should reasonably know to be false with a view to profiting/causing another a loss then I would be committing fraud. Just as it would be fraud to claim to not receive a parcel you did receive.
As for countersuing.....for what? The cost of delivery was not caused by the breach. It was a cost they would incur regardless of whether any alleged breach happened or not. They can't even claim loss of profit in most circumstances as they still have the goods and the consumer would have had the right to cancel anyway. The delivery cost is simply an overhead of distance selling, the same way rent is for high street. They would also need to demonstrate negligence. Making a mistake doesn't necessarily make you negligent and (as my earlier post alluded to) there's no doubt the retailer have at least some of the liability because the original cause stems from their software (there can be mutiple "causes" to a loss, concurrent, successive etc).
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride1 -
unholyangel said:Parking_Eyerate said:Well, I disagree and consider that if the consumer has provided delivery details then they have effectively identified a person at the given address, whether or not that person is the correct person or indeed exists. I can't find any reference that backs-up your assertion that following the instructions of a consumer is at the retailer's risk and, as I believe was pointed out by another poster, I very much doubt that a judge would interpret the law in the way you suggest. To me, if a retailer provides a delivery in accordance with the details provided by a customer then it has logically fulfilled its obligations.
If the legislation drafters/parliament had meant for the consumer rights act to undermine delivery systems used for decades (or, in the case of envelopes through the post, over a century), then i consider it would have been made explicitly clear in the legislation that delivery convention was being upended (and a retailer could only fulfil their obligations by requiring the purchaser to upload an up-to-date photo of the named recipient and for that specific person to be present at the time of delivery). Practically, however, if a customer has nominated a recipient that is wrong or doesn't exist that is unfortunate but it is not the retailer's fault, and I do not believe that the legislation was intended to compel retailers to refund or despatch duplicate orders where a first was delivered as instructed by a customer. A retailer has no way of ensuring whether a person is to be found at a particular address or not, that obligation logically rests on the customer's shoulders.
The interpretation you are proposing is also problematic because it could, in effect, facilitate crime (e.g. someone deliberately trying to obtain multiple items for the price of one). If a reasonable interpretation that avoids facilitating crime were possible (which i believe would be the case if the purchaser were accepted to be responsible for the accuracy of delivery details), then I consider that a judge would be somewhat unlikely to find in favour of an interpretation that facilitates crime.
Moreover, if a customer tried to bring a court claim on the basis of the consumer rights act despite having given incorrect details, then I consider that the retailer would be well within its rights to counter-sue the purchaser for any resulting loss/damage associated with the misdelivery. I also consider that if a customer had indeed provided incorrect details (or had negligently not checked details) then a judge would be very likely to find in favour of the retailer. So, even if the consumer rights act were to be interpreted as you suggest, I consider that under civil law the purchaser would nevertheless be liable for additional costs associated with any misdirected delivery.
So, either way, I do not agree that the retailer unambiguously has the responsibilities that you suggest and that a purchaser can effectively give any details they like without jeopardy, and I consider that constantly asserting that is the case could potentially (unintentionally) mislead people.(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, as you suggest, they wanted it to pass when it was delivered to an address.....then why include the parts in bold? Why not just say risk passes when it is delivered to the nominated address?
As for facilitating crime, you're being ridiculous. If my car is damaged, the law gives me the right to claim for that damage. But if i make a false representation which I know/should reasonably know to be false with a view to profiting/causing another a loss then I would be committing fraud. Just as it would be fraud to claim to not receive a parcel you did receive.
As for countersuing.....for what? The cost of delivery was not caused by the breach. It was a cost they would incur regardless of whether any alleged breach happened or not. They can't even claim loss of profit in most circumstances as they still have the goods and the consumer would have had the right to cancel anyway. The delivery cost is simply an overhead of distance selling, the same way rent is for high street. They would also need to demonstrate negligence. Making a mistake doesn't necessarily make you negligent and (as my earlier post alluded to) there's no doubt the retailer have at least some of the liability because the original cause stems from their software (there can be mutiple "causes" to a loss, concurrent, successive etc).
I have looked at the word choice thanks and I still do not think it is as clear cut as you suggest. For example, if the drafting was considered so carefully then why does clause 2(a) refer to "a" person rather than "the" person? If a consumer can only nominate an individual whom should then be the unique permitted destination for the goods it should logically say "the" person nominated rather than "a", but it doesn't. I'm sure you'll accuse me of being ridiculous but that's just one example of how drafting legislation is not necessarily straightforward. Further, more broadly, it is simply possible that the drafters made an error of judgement and did not consider the potential consequences of particular wording. It would certainly not be the first example of badly drafted legislation. Regarding why they didn't use the term 'address', I think that was likely to try and guard against instances of a delivery being left outside and stolen etc., I am doubtful that it was any more complicated than that.I am not clear what the point is that you think you are making about your car, but I will point out that I did say facilitating rather than cause, and the situation queried by 'diinozzo' and the ensuing comments by 'the lunatic is in my head' are very apt examples of how crime could be facilitated.As for being ridiculous well, to me, allowing the situation described by 'diinozzo' and further elucidated by 'the lunatic is in my head' would be ridiculous. If a consumer were to have an item delivered in their own name to their MIL's house but they fell out so the MIL didn't hand it over then the delivery would apparently not be complete and the retailer would be liable, whereas if, for exactly the same order on the same day, the name used by the consumer had instead been the MIL's name (again at her house) then the delivery would be considered to be complete. Do you really not think that outcome would be somewhat preposterous?Regarding countersuing, how about the cost of redelivery and/or loss related to the value of goods in circumstances where they are lost as a consequence of misdelivery? Depending on the goods redelivery itself could potentially be fairly expensive.Lastly, I disagree with your statement that 'there is no doubt the retailer has at least some of the liability because the original cause stems from their software'. I really do not see that that is definitely the case and your characterisation doesn't accord with my experience of online forms and postcode checkers. Moreover, such a point would be for a judge to decide after hearing all the evidence.
0 -
Parking_Eyerate said:unholyangel said:Parking_Eyerate said:Well, I disagree and consider that if the consumer has provided delivery details then they have effectively identified a person at the given address, whether or not that person is the correct person or indeed exists. I can't find any reference that backs-up your assertion that following the instructions of a consumer is at the retailer's risk and, as I believe was pointed out by another poster, I very much doubt that a judge would interpret the law in the way you suggest. To me, if a retailer provides a delivery in accordance with the details provided by a customer then it has logically fulfilled its obligations.
If the legislation drafters/parliament had meant for the consumer rights act to undermine delivery systems used for decades (or, in the case of envelopes through the post, over a century), then i consider it would have been made explicitly clear in the legislation that delivery convention was being upended (and a retailer could only fulfil their obligations by requiring the purchaser to upload an up-to-date photo of the named recipient and for that specific person to be present at the time of delivery). Practically, however, if a customer has nominated a recipient that is wrong or doesn't exist that is unfortunate but it is not the retailer's fault, and I do not believe that the legislation was intended to compel retailers to refund or despatch duplicate orders where a first was delivered as instructed by a customer. A retailer has no way of ensuring whether a person is to be found at a particular address or not, that obligation logically rests on the customer's shoulders.
The interpretation you are proposing is also problematic because it could, in effect, facilitate crime (e.g. someone deliberately trying to obtain multiple items for the price of one). If a reasonable interpretation that avoids facilitating crime were possible (which i believe would be the case if the purchaser were accepted to be responsible for the accuracy of delivery details), then I consider that a judge would be somewhat unlikely to find in favour of an interpretation that facilitates crime.
Moreover, if a customer tried to bring a court claim on the basis of the consumer rights act despite having given incorrect details, then I consider that the retailer would be well within its rights to counter-sue the purchaser for any resulting loss/damage associated with the misdelivery. I also consider that if a customer had indeed provided incorrect details (or had negligently not checked details) then a judge would be very likely to find in favour of the retailer. So, even if the consumer rights act were to be interpreted as you suggest, I consider that under civil law the purchaser would nevertheless be liable for additional costs associated with any misdirected delivery.
So, either way, I do not agree that the retailer unambiguously has the responsibilities that you suggest and that a purchaser can effectively give any details they like without jeopardy, and I consider that constantly asserting that is the case could potentially (unintentionally) mislead people.(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, as you suggest, they wanted it to pass when it was delivered to an address.....then why include the parts in bold? Why not just say risk passes when it is delivered to the nominated address?
As for facilitating crime, you're being ridiculous. If my car is damaged, the law gives me the right to claim for that damage. But if i make a false representation which I know/should reasonably know to be false with a view to profiting/causing another a loss then I would be committing fraud. Just as it would be fraud to claim to not receive a parcel you did receive.
As for countersuing.....for what? The cost of delivery was not caused by the breach. It was a cost they would incur regardless of whether any alleged breach happened or not. They can't even claim loss of profit in most circumstances as they still have the goods and the consumer would have had the right to cancel anyway. The delivery cost is simply an overhead of distance selling, the same way rent is for high street. They would also need to demonstrate negligence. Making a mistake doesn't necessarily make you negligent and (as my earlier post alluded to) there's no doubt the retailer have at least some of the liability because the original cause stems from their software (there can be mutiple "causes" to a loss, concurrent, successive etc).
then why does clause 2(a) refer to "a" person rather than "the" person?In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces1
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