We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
wrong address - have to pay return fees
Options
Comments
-
@unholyangel Great to have you back
I guess two straightforward(ish) questions would be 1) if the goods aren't delivered may the consumer treat the contract at an end without penalty regardless of what the reason for them not being delivered is?
In this example the trader wants to charge £40 for the return costs, some companies selling say dumpy bags of garden stone typically state there are fees for nondelivery, does the trader have any right to recover such fees (assuming they are direct loses) from the consumer?
2) I order something with my previous address in Cornwall on the order but have actually moved to Yorkshire since I last ordered with that site and forgotten to change the address, the retailer (or their agent) delivers the goods to the Cornwall address, what happens?In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces0 -
Well ordinarily unless delivery at an agreed time is essential (and the retailer was aware of this) the consumer wouldn't have the right to treat the contract as at an end until they'd given a further reasonable period to deliver. Unless it was a distance contract (and all the jazz that goes along with it, provision of information on durable medium etc) of course.@unholyangel Great to have you back
I guess two straightforward questions would be 1) if the goods aren't delivered may the consumer treat the contract at an end without penalty regardless of what the reason for them not being delivered is?
In this example the trader wants to charge £40 for the return costs, some companies selling say dumpy bags of garden stone typically state there are fees for nondelivery, does the trader have any right to recover such fees (assuming they are direct loses) from the consumer?
2) I order something with my previous address in Cornwall on the order but have actually moved to Yorkshire since I last ordered with that site and forgotten to change the address, the retailer (or their agent) delivers the goods to the Cornwall address, what happens?
I would also presume for 2 you're not actually asking what happens (as there are too many variables and not enough crystal balls) and instead are asking who would have liability. By the letter of the law, that is the retailer.They could take action against whomever did receive the parcel (involuntary bailee, remember?) if they refused to make them available but consumer rights makes the retailer liable. Unless you contracted with a courier not offered by the retailer of course.
ETA: Also thank you....just realised I got a bit sidetracked and didn't acknowledge it. I was still reading the occasional post. Just wasn't able to post replies until MSE reset my email address.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride1 -
Never trust Post Office postcodes. Always stick with the Royal mail ones.....Jumblebumble said:
You cannot assume thisErgates said:tourist4ever said:Hi,
i'm hoping someone can help.
I ordered from online4baby and DPD could not deliver due to not finding the address. They are now resending the package back to the sender. I have just received a call as it looks like the address was wrong, however it looks like this is due to their automated address search, so when you put in a door number and postcode it came up with a different address (Slightly similar still though) as I rechecked by going to check out and entering those details again.
Now i understand I should have checked but at the same time it's just a bit annoying as they are now saying I will have to pay £40 (it's a big order so four boxes) for the delivery (this is the case whether i want a redelivery or a refund). I feel just gutted as I really feel it's partly their fault as well!
Companies don't build their own post-code search functions in the online shops, they buy that functionality in. The address lookup are based on data from the post-office. So it sounds like your address is wrong in the data from the post-office. I don't think it is reasonable to to expect a 3rd party business to know this - they should be able to rely on this data, ergo I don't think you can hold them responsible - especially as you acknowledge you should have checked.
I expect you'll find the same issue on other sites too.
For years we have seen postcode checkers mess up our address contradicting the post office files
Our address was up to 4 years ago
99 The XXXX
YYY Way
The post office removed the YYY Way as it was causing confusion
Organisations such as TFL and Santander and Openreach used someones post code checker which was incorrect as it put gave our address as
99 YYYWay which does exist but is 400 meters from us and has a different postcode
Fortunately whoever was selling the wrong data or implementing it on websites wrongly has corrected it now
I also got some jackass from TFL telling me I had obviously entered it in wrongly it was my fault and I apparantly did not know where I live0 -
So if the consumer identifies multiple individuals how is the correct endpoint decided? Is the retailer permitted to choose at random? How is the correct identity of the recipient then to be confirmed in order to satisfy the legal obligations as you see them?unholyangel said:
Yes it is the case that one uniquely identifiable person can be the correct end point, if the consumer does not identify any other individual/s who are authorised to receive it.Parking_Eyerate said:unholyangel said:
As above, the person indicates there is only one and that a third party needs to be identified. A person means there could be more than one and that there's no requirement to name a third party. You're asking why they chose a rather than the, simply because of correct use of the language.Parking_Eyerate said:unholyangel said:
Oh they meant it. Look at their word choice.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.
As for the lawmakers, the EU (who wrote the law which we then transposed into UK law) provided guidance. And that guidance says:Where the consumer has never taken physical possession of the goods, e.g. by refusing to take delivery, either without any explicit statement or with a statement to the trader about withdrawal from the contract, the trader would continue bearing the risk of loss or damage since no transfer of risk to the consumer will have taken place according to Article 20.
and article 20 is:In contracts where the trader dispatches the goods to the consumer, the risk of loss of or damage to the goods shall pass to the consumer when he or a third party indicated by the consumer and other than the carrier has acquired the physical possession of the goods. However, the risk shall pass to the consumer upon delivery to the carrier if the carrier was commissioned by the consumer to carry the goods and that choice was not offered by the trader, without prejudice to the rights of the consumer against the carrier
What we're saying may seem "out there" to you, but if you understand other principles of law, it makes sense. For example the law considers you can only have liability for something within your control. Likewise with agency, you can only assign rights (and can only assign rights you actually have) and cannot assign an obligation. The way the act is written, it balances the risk between both parties and makes each responsible for the goods while the goods are in their physical possessin or the possession of a third party chosen by them (for example the courier hired by the retailer or a person identified by the consumer). Who has control over the delivery procedures (how deliver is made, when it is made, who makes the delivery and who they deliver the goods to) and over the goods themselves? THAT is why risk passes only on physical possession.
Just as the consumer agrees to give the consideration to the retailer, the retailer agrees to give consideration to the consumer. Pretty sure no retailer would consider they have received the sums if they were left outside their premises or delivered to a neighbour or just a random person who happened to be at the address when the money was delivered.....why should they then be allowed to do a 180 when the shoe is on the other foot?
If traders want the benefit of having low cost delivery, they need to be prepared to accept the risks too. They can't just cherry pick the benefits and disclaim liability for the problems created by their choices.
As for countersuing.....if the OP cancels then there is no cost of redelivery. And they can't sue for loss where they were misdelivered because the goods remain at their risk until they enter the physical possession of the consumer! Strictly speaking, in that situation the loss was not caused by the consumer giving the wrong information but the retailer (or their agent) being negligent and giving the goods to someone not authorised to receive them (no different to them just handing the parcel to a stranger passing on the street). The retailer may be able to take action against the person it WAS delivered to, but not the consumer. Again, it's within the retailer's control therefore the law (not just the CRA) supports them retaining liability.So if more than one person can be nominated by a consumer it is presumably not the case that only one unique natural person can be the correct end-point for the goods to be delivered; already that suggests more flexibility than has previously been suggested and is but one example of there being, in my view, potential ambiguity in the Act. Whether it be the EU or parliament, it is always possible that legislation was quite simply badly drafted, and a judge could come to a different conclusion to that of people on the internet (myself included).
As for the lawmakers, interestingly Article 18 (which concerns delivery) of the relevant EU Directive (2011/83/EU) in fact states “1. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise on the time of delivery, the trader shall deliver the goods by transferring the physical possession or control of the goods to the consumer without undue delay, but not later than 30 days from the conclusion of the contract.”. Now it appears that the term “or control” was for some reason not transposed into the UK Act, but to me this explicitly shows that the legislation drafters did in fact consider that it would be inappropriate to require goods to be physically delivered only to a named and verified person, despite what multiple posters have consistently claimed. So, in my view, even though you avoided the direct question I consider that this helps address Diinozzo’s (and my) query about circumstances such as having goods delivered in your own name to another person’s address. Rationally, ‘physical possession’ in such circumstances could be interpreted to include relevant ‘control’, and so if you had goods delivered to your MIL’s house but directed to yourself or a fake name, it would still be considered delivered. To me this is one of few ways that sense can prevail in possible circumstances which, otherwise (e.g. under the interpretation proposed by you and ‘the lunatic is in my head’), would frankly be quite ludicrous (and hence unlikely to be judged appropriate).
Regarding your comment concerning consideration - they are not popular now but apparently people used to be able to pay for mail order goods by cheque and postal order and, though I have never shopped that way, I believe that they could be sent by post and addressed to (and received and opened) by businesses, not just natural persons, postmen didn’t require to see ID and businesses used to accept them as valid payment.
It is more likely primarily consumers rather than retailers that want the benefit of low cost delivery. If retailers’ costs were to increase as a consequence of legislation I think it is somewhat naïve to believe that cost would not be passed on to consumers.
This leaves the issue of the provision of a wrong address and, on balance, if a more reasonable interpretation is indeed possible in circumstances relating to using addresses of convenience (e.g. your MIL’s house or a workplace), I am more inclined to consider that goods delivered to a mistakenly wrong address would likely not be deemed to be in control/possession of the consumer and so would not be considered to be delivered. This said, I do not in any way agree with your opinion on the viability of a retailer being able to sue a consumer if they were to cause loss/damage to the retailer by negligently providing incorrect details. If I cross the road it is at my risk but other road users still owe me a duty of care (and I them) not to increase the dangers involved. Accordingly, even if goods were to remain at a retailer’s risk until such a time as they were considered to be in control of the consumer, I do not see why that means the consumer does not owe a duty of care to the retailer regarding the appropriateness of the details provided. On the contrary, a trader is putting its goods at risk following the instructions of the consumer and so I believe such a duty of care nevertheless does exist, and hence if any loss/damage were to be caused to the retailer by virtue of the provision of misinformation by a consumer then I do not see why the retailer would be unable to take legal action to seek redress. Though it would, of course, be for a judge to decide, I consider that there would be a very good argument that the consumer was at least contributorily negligent.
Article 18 refers to the period for performance/time for delivery, not the passing of risk (passing of risk is determined by article 20). You're also still not grasping the importance of being able to exercise control in order to be liable. It is not saying delivery does not have to be made to a person. It is saying (for example) that if a consumer contracts their own courier, the trader is still under an obligation to "deliver" those goods to the consumer's courier within 30 days (unless another time is agreed, in which case within the agreed time). As the courier are an agent of the consumer's, they are within the control of the consumer. Therefore when the goods are passed to them, so too does the risk (because again, liability follows who has control).
As for the consideration/cheques...you''re missing the point. If the cheque was delivered by mistake to their neighbour, or was handed to a random person in the building (not an employee, as employees are agents of the company/business), do you think the retailer would consider the consumer had met their obligation (in paying what was agreed to be paid)? Do you think the retailer would do the leg work in chasing their neighbour or tracking the random? Or do you think the retailer would advise the consumer to cancel the cheque and resend because it's the consumers obligation to ensure the funds reach them?
Again, making a mistake does not make you negligent. And nor did I say the consumer can be negligent with impunity. Just that the argument that the customer would be liable because a mistake made by the retailer (since the software is within their control) was repeated by them is not quite the "ah ha! gotcha!" that you seem to think it is. The retailer would have to prove negligence. I'd find it quite enjoyable to listen to a retailer try to argue the consumer is 100% liable for mistakes made by the retailer's software merely because the consumer didn't notice the mistake. So making the mistake isn't negligence, but someone else failing to correct your mistake is? Also, if the retailer is carrying out their obligation with reasonable care and skill, there is no risk to the goods. Not unless the retailer fails to ensure they're delivering to the right person (which actually puts the goods at risk irrespective of whether the address is right or not, hence why it's caused by the retailers failure rather than the incorrect address).Article 18 certainly discusses time periods but it is simply entitled ‘delivery’, not ‘time period for performance/delivery’. I can’t see why it is therefore inappropriate to say that it relates to delivery.I do understand the importance of being able to exercise control I just don’t agree with your interpretation of the law. ‘Control’ is clearly mentioned in Article 18 but notably not Article 20 and notably is not defined in the definition section of the regulation. I therefore do not agree that the use of the term ‘control’ in Article 18 only relates to, or necessarily has anything to do with, a consumer contracting their own courier. Were that the case then I consider that the term ‘control’ would have been used in Article 20.As for cheques and postal orders, I don’t understand what point you are trying to make. I have never said that delivery to the wrong building etc when the correct details have been provided by a consumer would be the consumer’s problem. When I have referred to a misdelivery I thought it was clear that it was in the context of the wrong details being entered. Maybe I needed to spell that out.Making a mistake could in fact potentially make you negligent if it is not a mistake that a reasonable person would make. In this instance, and I mean no personal offence to the OP, I think the relevant question would be whether a reasonable person would not check the drop down menu from the postcode checker and/or would not check over all details before confirming an order. I have to say I think the answer is ‘no’ and I think your attempt to assert that the retailer’s software definitely made a mistake is quite absurd. We have no idea if the retailer’s software ‘made’ any mistake or not and I struggle to see what a software ‘mistake’ would even look like in the context of a consumer being asked to provide address details. Further, I fundamentally disagree that the retailer has to necessarily check ID in order to be considered to have carried out a delivery with reasonable care and skill. In my opinion that would very much depend on numerous circumstantial questions such as the nature of the goods, the size of the package, any delivery instructions indicated by the consumer (e.g. whether ok to leave with a neighbour or in a safe place) and the address in question. In short, I think there are numerous variables and your confidence in blaming software is ambitious at best. Let’s not forget innumerable people provide address details correctly every day and the only person capable of providing correct details is the consumer.In view of our lack of agreement on numerous points I think that we will again simply have to agree to disagree, however given your unquestioning steadfastness in a position which, as indicated above, I think is highly doubtful, I yet again ask how it can rationally be said that if a consumer uses his/her own name for a delivery to their MIL’s house but then falls out with the MIL, so she does not pass the goods on, that the goods would not be considered to be delivered; whereas if, for exactly the same order, the consumer had used the MIL’s name (again at her house) it would be considered delivered. That is, to me, quite an absurd proposition and you are effectively proposing that the domestic relationships of a consumer could be a retailer’s problem.I am also genuinely curious, though I doubt that you or Lunatic will answer, what would you say the legal situation is if a consumer uses an entirely fictional name as recipient? Something like Voldemort, Dracula, Frankenstein or Santa Claus etc.I am not just making up a hypothetical scenario for the sake of it here, I have seen it done in practice. How would the retailer be able to confirm the correct recipient by exercising your purported due diligence in such a situation? Should the consumer be prohibited from using fake names?In general it appears to me that your interpretation is too simplistic and doesn’t take any account of what happens in reality.0 -
Parking_Eyerate said:
Not so much that the retailer can choose, just simply if any of the nominated people take possession of the goods then risk has passed.
So if the consumer identifies multiple individuals how is the correct endpoint decided? Is the retailer permitted to choose at random? How is the correct identity of the recipient then to be confirmed in order to satisfy the legal obligations as you see them?unholyangel said:
Yes it is the case that one uniquely identifiable person can be the correct end point, if the consumer does not identify any other individual/s who are authorised to receive it.Parking_Eyerate said:unholyangel said:
As above, the person indicates there is only one and that a third party needs to be identified. A person means there could be more than one and that there's no requirement to name a third party. You're asking why they chose a rather than the, simply because of correct use of the language.Parking_Eyerate said:unholyangel said:
Oh they meant it. Look at their word choice.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.
As for the lawmakers, the EU (who wrote the law which we then transposed into UK law) provided guidance. And that guidance says:Where the consumer has never taken physical possession of the goods, e.g. by refusing to take delivery, either without any explicit statement or with a statement to the trader about withdrawal from the contract, the trader would continue bearing the risk of loss or damage since no transfer of risk to the consumer will have taken place according to Article 20.
and article 20 is:In contracts where the trader dispatches the goods to the consumer, the risk of loss of or damage to the goods shall pass to the consumer when he or a third party indicated by the consumer and other than the carrier has acquired the physical possession of the goods. However, the risk shall pass to the consumer upon delivery to the carrier if the carrier was commissioned by the consumer to carry the goods and that choice was not offered by the trader, without prejudice to the rights of the consumer against the carrier
What we're saying may seem "out there" to you, but if you understand other principles of law, it makes sense. For example the law considers you can only have liability for something within your control. Likewise with agency, you can only assign rights (and can only assign rights you actually have) and cannot assign an obligation. The way the act is written, it balances the risk between both parties and makes each responsible for the goods while the goods are in their physical possessin or the possession of a third party chosen by them (for example the courier hired by the retailer or a person identified by the consumer). Who has control over the delivery procedures (how deliver is made, when it is made, who makes the delivery and who they deliver the goods to) and over the goods themselves? THAT is why risk passes only on physical possession.
Just as the consumer agrees to give the consideration to the retailer, the retailer agrees to give consideration to the consumer. Pretty sure no retailer would consider they have received the sums if they were left outside their premises or delivered to a neighbour or just a random person who happened to be at the address when the money was delivered.....why should they then be allowed to do a 180 when the shoe is on the other foot?
If traders want the benefit of having low cost delivery, they need to be prepared to accept the risks too. They can't just cherry pick the benefits and disclaim liability for the problems created by their choices.
As for countersuing.....if the OP cancels then there is no cost of redelivery. And they can't sue for loss where they were misdelivered because the goods remain at their risk until they enter the physical possession of the consumer! Strictly speaking, in that situation the loss was not caused by the consumer giving the wrong information but the retailer (or their agent) being negligent and giving the goods to someone not authorised to receive them (no different to them just handing the parcel to a stranger passing on the street). The retailer may be able to take action against the person it WAS delivered to, but not the consumer. Again, it's within the retailer's control therefore the law (not just the CRA) supports them retaining liability.So if more than one person can be nominated by a consumer it is presumably not the case that only one unique natural person can be the correct end-point for the goods to be delivered; already that suggests more flexibility than has previously been suggested and is but one example of there being, in my view, potential ambiguity in the Act. Whether it be the EU or parliament, it is always possible that legislation was quite simply badly drafted, and a judge could come to a different conclusion to that of people on the internet (myself included).
As for the lawmakers, interestingly Article 18 (which concerns delivery) of the relevant EU Directive (2011/83/EU) in fact states “1. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise on the time of delivery, the trader shall deliver the goods by transferring the physical possession or control of the goods to the consumer without undue delay, but not later than 30 days from the conclusion of the contract.”. Now it appears that the term “or control” was for some reason not transposed into the UK Act, but to me this explicitly shows that the legislation drafters did in fact consider that it would be inappropriate to require goods to be physically delivered only to a named and verified person, despite what multiple posters have consistently claimed. So, in my view, even though you avoided the direct question I consider that this helps address Diinozzo’s (and my) query about circumstances such as having goods delivered in your own name to another person’s address. Rationally, ‘physical possession’ in such circumstances could be interpreted to include relevant ‘control’, and so if you had goods delivered to your MIL’s house but directed to yourself or a fake name, it would still be considered delivered. To me this is one of few ways that sense can prevail in possible circumstances which, otherwise (e.g. under the interpretation proposed by you and ‘the lunatic is in my head’), would frankly be quite ludicrous (and hence unlikely to be judged appropriate).
Regarding your comment concerning consideration - they are not popular now but apparently people used to be able to pay for mail order goods by cheque and postal order and, though I have never shopped that way, I believe that they could be sent by post and addressed to (and received and opened) by businesses, not just natural persons, postmen didn’t require to see ID and businesses used to accept them as valid payment.
It is more likely primarily consumers rather than retailers that want the benefit of low cost delivery. If retailers’ costs were to increase as a consequence of legislation I think it is somewhat naïve to believe that cost would not be passed on to consumers.
This leaves the issue of the provision of a wrong address and, on balance, if a more reasonable interpretation is indeed possible in circumstances relating to using addresses of convenience (e.g. your MIL’s house or a workplace), I am more inclined to consider that goods delivered to a mistakenly wrong address would likely not be deemed to be in control/possession of the consumer and so would not be considered to be delivered. This said, I do not in any way agree with your opinion on the viability of a retailer being able to sue a consumer if they were to cause loss/damage to the retailer by negligently providing incorrect details. If I cross the road it is at my risk but other road users still owe me a duty of care (and I them) not to increase the dangers involved. Accordingly, even if goods were to remain at a retailer’s risk until such a time as they were considered to be in control of the consumer, I do not see why that means the consumer does not owe a duty of care to the retailer regarding the appropriateness of the details provided. On the contrary, a trader is putting its goods at risk following the instructions of the consumer and so I believe such a duty of care nevertheless does exist, and hence if any loss/damage were to be caused to the retailer by virtue of the provision of misinformation by a consumer then I do not see why the retailer would be unable to take legal action to seek redress. Though it would, of course, be for a judge to decide, I consider that there would be a very good argument that the consumer was at least contributorily negligent.
Article 18 refers to the period for performance/time for delivery, not the passing of risk (passing of risk is determined by article 20). You're also still not grasping the importance of being able to exercise control in order to be liable. It is not saying delivery does not have to be made to a person. It is saying (for example) that if a consumer contracts their own courier, the trader is still under an obligation to "deliver" those goods to the consumer's courier within 30 days (unless another time is agreed, in which case within the agreed time). As the courier are an agent of the consumer's, they are within the control of the consumer. Therefore when the goods are passed to them, so too does the risk (because again, liability follows who has control).
As for the consideration/cheques...you''re missing the point. If the cheque was delivered by mistake to their neighbour, or was handed to a random person in the building (not an employee, as employees are agents of the company/business), do you think the retailer would consider the consumer had met their obligation (in paying what was agreed to be paid)? Do you think the retailer would do the leg work in chasing their neighbour or tracking the random? Or do you think the retailer would advise the consumer to cancel the cheque and resend because it's the consumers obligation to ensure the funds reach them?
Again, making a mistake does not make you negligent. And nor did I say the consumer can be negligent with impunity. Just that the argument that the customer would be liable because a mistake made by the retailer (since the software is within their control) was repeated by them is not quite the "ah ha! gotcha!" that you seem to think it is. The retailer would have to prove negligence. I'd find it quite enjoyable to listen to a retailer try to argue the consumer is 100% liable for mistakes made by the retailer's software merely because the consumer didn't notice the mistake. So making the mistake isn't negligence, but someone else failing to correct your mistake is? Also, if the retailer is carrying out their obligation with reasonable care and skill, there is no risk to the goods. Not unless the retailer fails to ensure they're delivering to the right person (which actually puts the goods at risk irrespective of whether the address is right or not, hence why it's caused by the retailers failure rather than the incorrect address).Article 18 certainly discusses time periods but it is simply entitled ‘delivery’, not ‘time period for performance/delivery’. I can’t see why it is therefore inappropriate to say that it relates to delivery.I do understand the importance of being able to exercise control I just don’t agree with your interpretation of the law. ‘Control’ is clearly mentioned in Article 18 but notably not Article 20 and notably is not defined in the definition section of the regulation. I therefore do not agree that the use of the term ‘control’ in Article 18 only relates to, or necessarily has anything to do with, a consumer contracting their own courier. Were that the case then I consider that the term ‘control’ would have been used in Article 20.As for cheques and postal orders, I don’t understand what point you are trying to make. I have never said that delivery to the wrong building etc when the correct details have been provided by a consumer would be the consumer’s problem. When I have referred to a misdelivery I thought it was clear that it was in the context of the wrong details being entered. Maybe I needed to spell that out.Making a mistake could in fact potentially make you negligent if it is not a mistake that a reasonable person would make. In this instance, and I mean no personal offence to the OP, I think the relevant question would be whether a reasonable person would not check the drop down menu from the postcode checker and/or would not check over all details before confirming an order. I have to say I think the answer is ‘no’ and I think your attempt to assert that the retailer’s software definitely made a mistake is quite absurd. We have no idea if the retailer’s software ‘made’ any mistake or not and I struggle to see what a software ‘mistake’ would even look like in the context of a consumer being asked to provide address details. Further, I fundamentally disagree that the retailer has to necessarily check ID in order to be considered to have carried out a delivery with reasonable care and skill. In my opinion that would very much depend on numerous circumstantial questions such as the nature of the goods, the size of the package, any delivery instructions indicated by the consumer (e.g. whether ok to leave with a neighbour or in a safe place) and the address in question. In short, I think there are numerous variables and your confidence in blaming software is ambitious at best. Let’s not forget innumerable people provide address details correctly every day and the only person capable of providing correct details is the consumer.In view of our lack of agreement on numerous points I think that we will again simply have to agree to disagree, however given your unquestioning steadfastness in a position which, as indicated above, I think is highly doubtful, I yet again ask how it can rationally be said that if a consumer uses his/her own name for a delivery to their MIL’s house but then falls out with the MIL, so she does not pass the goods on, that the goods would not be considered to be delivered; whereas if, for exactly the same order, the consumer had used the MIL’s name (again at her house) it would be considered delivered. That is, to me, quite an absurd proposition and you are effectively proposing that the domestic relationships of a consumer could be a retailer’s problem.I am also genuinely curious, though I doubt that you or Lunatic will answer, what would you say the legal situation is if a consumer uses an entirely fictional name as recipient? Something like Voldemort, Dracula, Frankenstein or Santa Claus etc.I am not just making up a hypothetical scenario for the sake of it here, I have seen it done in practice. How would the retailer be able to confirm the correct recipient by exercising your purported due diligence in such a situation? Should the consumer be prohibited from using fake names?In general it appears to me that your interpretation is too simplistic and doesn’t take any account of what happens in reality.If the fictional name is obvious then the trader can choose to decline the sale, if the name isn't then we go back to ensuring the goods are only handed to the correct person, which I know is followed by how is this achieved and round we go
Under your viewpoint if there happens to be a guy standing in my porch then the trader can give him the goods, the fact he didn't disclose that he isn't John Smith but instead is delivering takeaway leaflets isn't for consideration.In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces0 -
Sorry just to confirm if, as per the OP, delivery fails in the first instance, for whatever reason, the consumer then agrees a period for delivery which doesn't happen specifically because the trader is demanding extra payment and refusing to perform delivery again without that payment, is there any consideration for those extra costs, assuming they occurred, or can the contract be treated at an end with a full refund?unholyangel said:
Well ordinarily unless delivery at an agreed time is essential (and the retailer was aware of this) the consumer wouldn't have the right to treat the contract as at an end until they'd given a further reasonable period to deliver. Unless it was a distance contract (and all the jazz that goes along with it, provision of information on durable medium etc) of course.@unholyangel Great to have you back
I guess two straightforward questions would be 1) if the goods aren't delivered may the consumer treat the contract at an end without penalty regardless of what the reason for them not being delivered is?
In this example the trader wants to charge £40 for the return costs, some companies selling say dumpy bags of garden stone typically state there are fees for nondelivery, does the trader have any right to recover such fees (assuming they are direct loses) from the consumer?
2) I order something with my previous address in Cornwall on the order but have actually moved to Yorkshire since I last ordered with that site and forgotten to change the address, the retailer (or their agent) delivers the goods to the Cornwall address, what happens?
I would also presume for 2 you're not actually asking what happens (as there are too many variables and not enough crystal balls) and instead are asking who would have liability. By the letter of the law, that is the retailer.They could take action against whomever did receive the parcel (involuntary bailee, remember?) if they refused to make them available but consumer rights makes the retailer liable. Unless you contracted with a courier not offered by the retailer of course.
ETA: Also thank you....just realised I got a bit sidetracked and didn't acknowledge it. I was still reading the occasional post. Just wasn't able to post replies until MSE reset my email address.
I guess basically the question is are there any situations (such as the Cornwall/Yorkshire example) where the trader has any rights to claim their costs that were incurred?
With question 2 that's my viewpoint as well.
Good to hear you are well, there's been a few debated topics where your input was missed In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces0 -
I've just been going through this thread again because although I understand the arguments of unholyangel and the_lunatic based on the wording of the legislation, it just doesn't seem right to me. The following exchange strikes me as relevant:Parking_Eyerate said:
Yes, that appears to be what happened here but you are not addressing the point of what would be the legal situation if the goods had been delivered to the address as requested by the consumer. It sounds as if the goods were bulky in this instance but what if the purchase could have been posted through the letterbox indicated by the consumer? Why would the retailer be liable if goods were delivered in accordance with delivery information supplied by a customer?
If the trader goes to deliver the goods but the consumer doesn't reside at the address supplied the trader simply returns back with the goods still in their possession.Parking_Eyerate said:
None of which addresses relevant questions.
And all those questions about ID are why the trader chooses not to request it, they make the process as convenient as possible so that you buy as much as possible which is profitable for them. In turn they run the risk that they occasionally face claims where the goods show as delivered but the consumer claims they haven't received them.Parking_Eyerate said:
The issue is whether it is reasonable for a retailer to act on information provided by a customer. I believe it is (see below for some examples why) but you appear to disagree.
The issue is that it is the trader that must deliver the goods but in a lot of cases they use a third party to do so.Parking_Eyerate said:
I have no idea if the name was right or wrong, presumably it was the right name since there is no mentiion that it was incorrect. However, since the retailer has no way of ensuring whether an addressee is a real person habitually or temporarily resident at a particular address or not, i fail to see why that matters. If the person nominated by the customer doesn't exist the retailer cannot be at fault for failing to deliver to a person that doesn"t exist.unholyangel said:
Was the name wrong too? Otherwise I don't see giving a different delivery address as authorising someone identified by the consumer.Parking_Eyerate said:
Rationally, any details which the consumer has input could presumably qualify as ‘a person identified by the consumer’. If a customer has provided details it is illogical to say that the retailer should be considered to be put in a position to act contrary to the instructions specifically provided. Would a retailer be expected to guess the correct address?
The legislation is, to my view, intended as portrayed and also very clear, I don't dee how it can be taken any other way:Money_Grabber13579 said:
Whilst this might be what the legislation could be read as saying, it can’t be what was intended and I can’t imagine that any judge would support this view. If they did, it would open the door for anyone to say that the goods weren’t received every time they were to be delivered to a different address from that of the purchaser, for example, when being purchased as a gift and delivered directly to that person.
Once again the key word being consumer, not address, and goods remain at the trader's risk until they come into physical possession of the consumer.longjohnjohnson said:
The fairly obvious argument being that the seller and consumer agreed to the goods being sent to an alternate address, as per
The trader has to deliver the goods to the consumer, not to an address, passing of risk occurs when the goods come in to physical possession of the consumer or a person (not a place) identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.Ergates said:
"(5) Paragraphs (6) and (7) apply if the trader does not deliver the goods in accordance with paragraph (3) or at the agreed time or within the agreed period."
Which part of the legislation are you relying on to make this statement?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.
That was answered in page 2, the goods remain at the trader's risk until they come in to physical possession of the consumer or a person identified by them.Parking_Eyerate said:
Yes, that appears to be what happened here but you are not addressing the point of what would be the legal situation if the goods had been delivered to the address as requested by the consumer. It sounds as if the goods were bulky in this instance but what if the purchase could have been posted through the letterbox indicated by the consumer? Why would the retailer be liable if goods were delivered in accordance with delivery information supplied by a customer?
If the trader goes to deliver the goods but the consumer doesn't reside at the address supplied the trader simply returns back with the goods still in their possession.Parking_Eyerate said:
None of which addresses relevant questions.
And all those questions about ID are why the trader chooses not to request it, they make the process as convenient as possible so that you buy as much as possible which is profitable for them. In turn they run the risk that they occasionally face claims where the goods show as delivered but the consumer claims they haven't received them.Parking_Eyerate said:
The issue is whether it is reasonable for a retailer to act on information provided by a customer. I believe it is (see below for some examples why) but you appear to disagree.
The issue is that it is the trader that must deliver the goods but in a lot of cases they use a third party to do so.Parking_Eyerate said:
I have no idea if the name was right or wrong, presumably it was the right name since there is no mentiion that it was incorrect. However, since the retailer has no way of ensuring whether an addressee is a real person habitually or temporarily resident at a particular address or not, i fail to see why that matters. If the person nominated by the customer doesn't exist the retailer cannot be at fault for failing to deliver to a person that doesn"t exist.unholyangel said:
Was the name wrong too? Otherwise I don't see giving a different delivery address as authorising someone identified by the consumer.Parking_Eyerate said:
Rationally, any details which the consumer has input could presumably qualify as ‘a person identified by the consumer’. If a customer has provided details it is illogical to say that the retailer should be considered to be put in a position to act contrary to the instructions specifically provided. Would a retailer be expected to guess the correct address?
The legislation is, to my view, intended as portrayed and also very clear, I don't dee how it can be taken any other way:Money_Grabber13579 said:
Whilst this might be what the legislation could be read as saying, it can’t be what was intended and I can’t imagine that any judge would support this view. If they did, it would open the door for anyone to say that the goods weren’t received every time they were to be delivered to a different address from that of the purchaser, for example, when being purchased as a gift and delivered directly to that person.
Once again the key word being consumer, not address, and goods remain at the trader's risk until they come into physical possession of the consumer.longjohnjohnson said:
The fairly obvious argument being that the seller and consumer agreed to the goods being sent to an alternate address, as per
The trader has to deliver the goods to the consumer, not to an address, passing of risk occurs when the goods come in to physical possession of the consumer or a person (not a place) identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.Ergates said:
"(5) Paragraphs (6) and (7) apply if the trader does not deliver the goods in accordance with paragraph (3) or at the agreed time or within the agreed period."
Which part of the legislation are you relying on to make this statement?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.
What does "delivered to the consumer" or "delivered into the physical possession of the consumer" actually mean?
If I buy something online and it's compact enough to be put through the letterbox of my front door (I've given the retailer the correct delivery address) would any reasonable person consider that it had not been delivered to me when it hits the doormat? Or do I have to have it put into my hands or be physically present in the house for it to be delivered to me? And if I have to be in the house, do I have to be aware that something is lying on the doormat or is my mere presence - possibly in bed asleep - enough?
Hasn't the item been delivered to me when it's put through my letterbox - even if I'm not there? From then on it's under my control and in my physical possession whether I'm present or not - just like all my other personal possessions in the house. To say it's not been delivered to me or that it's not in my physical possession unless and until it's actually in my hands seems a bit strange.
Let's say the item is valuable and it comes through the letterbox while I'm out. Let's further say that I'm burgled before I return and the item is stolen. (Or the house burns down or the dog eats it before I get back home... ) Who is responsible for it? If I claim for its loss on my contents insurance, could my insurers successfully argue that the item remained at the seller's risk because it hadn't been delivered into my "physical possession", even though it was lying on the doormat of my house? Could the retailer argue that they no longer had any control over it and of course it was no longer their responsibility once it had been put through the letterbox in accordance with my instructions, even though I hadn't been there when it was delivered?
What if I was at work and the item had not been delivered when I left the house in the morning. If I chased it up with the retailer in the afternoon and was told "It was delivered to you earlier today, you must have been out at the time", would they be wrong to say it had been delivered to me - wrong because I wasn't there?
What I'm wondering is, given the above sort of scenario, would the item in question be considered to have been delivered to me in a manner that satisfies the retailer's obligations under the Consumer Rights Act, or wouldn't it have been?
I ask because IF (and I strongly emphasise "IF") it's at all possible for an item to be "delivered to a consumer" even though they may be physically absent, then the question of whether or not the consumer supplies the correct address in the first place becomes a bit more relevant. Certainly more relevant than if you simply argue that if it hasn't been delivered into the very hands of the correct person then whether the address is right or not is irrelevant - it's not the right person anyway.
Of course, if actual physical delivery into the hands of the consumer or delivery in the physical presence of the consumer is absolutely essential, then whether the address is correct or not is irrelevant. (Although I still doubt that that result is what Parliament intended).
[EDIT: To me this delivery to a wrong address question is the reverse of - but as equally bonkers as - the chargeback situation where a chargeback can't apply so long as the retailer has delivered anywhere - including to the wrong address. That makes no sense at all... ]
1 -
I think a dose of pragmatism is required. Any dispute would ultimately be resolved in the civil courts where the required level of proof is Balance of Probabilities.
Whilst the previous technical dissection of the CRA/CCRs has been interesting, a judge likely wouldn't follow that line of reasoning and would accept (almost certainly in the case of of items delivered through a letterbox) that the goods had been correctly delivered and passing of risk had occurred if the delivery address matched that advised/confirmed by the consumer. (Even if it was the seller's system that caused an erroneous delivery address to be defined - provided that the consumer had the opportunity to confirm the address during the checkout process and the system didn't change it thereafter; it would be a different situation if the consumer wasn't afforded that confirmation opportunity).
It is less clear when it comes to goods which cannot be delivered through a letterbox ... if goods are presented to a person at the nominated address then I believe a judge would also agree that passing of risk had occurred; however if they're simply left on a doorstep / in a bin / in a place that has not been designated by the consumer then the risk would still lie with the seller.
[The above is purely my opinion and does not constitute legal advice]Jenni x3 -
No mention of delivery* in passing of risk, only when goods comes into physical possession.Manxman_in_exile said:I've just been going through this thread again because although I understand the arguments of unholyangel and the_lunatic based on the wording of the legislation, it just doesn't seem right to me. The following exchange strikes me as relevant:Parking_Eyerate said:
Yes, that appears to be what happened here but you are not addressing the point of what would be the legal situation if the goods had been delivered to the address as requested by the consumer. It sounds as if the goods were bulky in this instance but what if the purchase could have been posted through the letterbox indicated by the consumer? Why would the retailer be liable if goods were delivered in accordance with delivery information supplied by a customer?
If the trader goes to deliver the goods but the consumer doesn't reside at the address supplied the trader simply returns back with the goods still in their possession.Parking_Eyerate said:
None of which addresses relevant questions.
And all those questions about ID are why the trader chooses not to request it, they make the process as convenient as possible so that you buy as much as possible which is profitable for them. In turn they run the risk that they occasionally face claims where the goods show as delivered but the consumer claims they haven't received them.Parking_Eyerate said:
The issue is whether it is reasonable for a retailer to act on information provided by a customer. I believe it is (see below for some examples why) but you appear to disagree.
The issue is that it is the trader that must deliver the goods but in a lot of cases they use a third party to do so.Parking_Eyerate said:
I have no idea if the name was right or wrong, presumably it was the right name since there is no mentiion that it was incorrect. However, since the retailer has no way of ensuring whether an addressee is a real person habitually or temporarily resident at a particular address or not, i fail to see why that matters. If the person nominated by the customer doesn't exist the retailer cannot be at fault for failing to deliver to a person that doesn"t exist.unholyangel said:
Was the name wrong too? Otherwise I don't see giving a different delivery address as authorising someone identified by the consumer.Parking_Eyerate said:
Rationally, any details which the consumer has input could presumably qualify as ‘a person identified by the consumer’. If a customer has provided details it is illogical to say that the retailer should be considered to be put in a position to act contrary to the instructions specifically provided. Would a retailer be expected to guess the correct address?
The legislation is, to my view, intended as portrayed and also very clear, I don't dee how it can be taken any other way:Money_Grabber13579 said:
Whilst this might be what the legislation could be read as saying, it can’t be what was intended and I can’t imagine that any judge would support this view. If they did, it would open the door for anyone to say that the goods weren’t received every time they were to be delivered to a different address from that of the purchaser, for example, when being purchased as a gift and delivered directly to that person.
Once again the key word being consumer, not address, and goods remain at the trader's risk until they come into physical possession of the consumer.longjohnjohnson said:
The fairly obvious argument being that the seller and consumer agreed to the goods being sent to an alternate address, as per
The trader has to deliver the goods to the consumer, not to an address, passing of risk occurs when the goods come in to physical possession of the consumer or a person (not a place) identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.Ergates said:
"(5) Paragraphs (6) and (7) apply if the trader does not deliver the goods in accordance with paragraph (3) or at the agreed time or within the agreed period."
Which part of the legislation are you relying on to make this statement?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.
That was answered in page 2, the goods remain at the trader's risk until they come in to physical possession of the consumer or a person identified by them.Parking_Eyerate said:
Yes, that appears to be what happened here but you are not addressing the point of what would be the legal situation if the goods had been delivered to the address as requested by the consumer. It sounds as if the goods were bulky in this instance but what if the purchase could have been posted through the letterbox indicated by the consumer? Why would the retailer be liable if goods were delivered in accordance with delivery information supplied by a customer?
If the trader goes to deliver the goods but the consumer doesn't reside at the address supplied the trader simply returns back with the goods still in their possession.Parking_Eyerate said:
None of which addresses relevant questions.
And all those questions about ID are why the trader chooses not to request it, they make the process as convenient as possible so that you buy as much as possible which is profitable for them. In turn they run the risk that they occasionally face claims where the goods show as delivered but the consumer claims they haven't received them.Parking_Eyerate said:
The issue is whether it is reasonable for a retailer to act on information provided by a customer. I believe it is (see below for some examples why) but you appear to disagree.
The issue is that it is the trader that must deliver the goods but in a lot of cases they use a third party to do so.Parking_Eyerate said:
I have no idea if the name was right or wrong, presumably it was the right name since there is no mentiion that it was incorrect. However, since the retailer has no way of ensuring whether an addressee is a real person habitually or temporarily resident at a particular address or not, i fail to see why that matters. If the person nominated by the customer doesn't exist the retailer cannot be at fault for failing to deliver to a person that doesn"t exist.unholyangel said:
Was the name wrong too? Otherwise I don't see giving a different delivery address as authorising someone identified by the consumer.Parking_Eyerate said:
Rationally, any details which the consumer has input could presumably qualify as ‘a person identified by the consumer’. If a customer has provided details it is illogical to say that the retailer should be considered to be put in a position to act contrary to the instructions specifically provided. Would a retailer be expected to guess the correct address?
The legislation is, to my view, intended as portrayed and also very clear, I don't dee how it can be taken any other way:Money_Grabber13579 said:
Whilst this might be what the legislation could be read as saying, it can’t be what was intended and I can’t imagine that any judge would support this view. If they did, it would open the door for anyone to say that the goods weren’t received every time they were to be delivered to a different address from that of the purchaser, for example, when being purchased as a gift and delivered directly to that person.
Once again the key word being consumer, not address, and goods remain at the trader's risk until they come into physical possession of the consumer.longjohnjohnson said:
The fairly obvious argument being that the seller and consumer agreed to the goods being sent to an alternate address, as per
The trader has to deliver the goods to the consumer, not to an address, passing of risk occurs when the goods come in to physical possession of the consumer or a person (not a place) identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.Ergates said:
"(5) Paragraphs (6) and (7) apply if the trader does not deliver the goods in accordance with paragraph (3) or at the agreed time or within the agreed period."
Which part of the legislation are you relying on to make this statement?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.
What does "delivered to the consumer" or "delivered into the physical possession of the consumer" actually mean?
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/43/madePassing of risk
43.—(1) A sales contract is to be treated as including the following provisions as terms.
(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.
(3) Paragraph (2) does not apply if the goods are delivered to a carrier who—
(a)is commissioned by the consumer to deliver the goods, and
(b)is not a carrier the trader named as an option for the consumer.
(4) In that case the goods are at the consumer’s risk on and after delivery to the carrier.
(5) Paragraph (4) does not affect any liability of the carrier to the consumer in respect of the goods.
EU regs are similar
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/83/oj
Article 20
Passing of risk
In contracts where the trader dispatches the goods to the consumer, the risk of loss of or damage to the goods shall pass to the consumer when he or a third party indicated by the consumer and other than the carrier has acquired the physical possession of the goods. However, the risk shall pass to the consumer upon delivery to the carrier if the carrier was commissioned by the consumer to carry the goods and that choice was not offered by the trader, without prejudice to the rights of the consumer against the carrier.
*Lets save the use of the word deliver for when the consumer commissions the carrier until the day we get a thread on it
Although it's use here and not otherwise does highlight a difference.
In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces0 -
Jenni_D said:I think a dose of pragmatism is required. Any dispute would ultimately be resolved in the civil courts where the required level of proof is Balance of Probabilities.
Whilst the previous technical dissection of the CRA/CCRs has been interesting, a judge likely wouldn't follow that line of reasoning and would accept (almost certainly in the case of of items delivered through a letterbox) that the goods had been correctly delivered and passing of risk had occurred if the delivery address matched that advised/confirmed by the consumer. (Even if it was the seller's system that caused an erroneous delivery address to be defined - provided that the consumer had the opportunity to confirm the address during the checkout process and the system didn't change it thereafter; it would be a different situation if the consumer wasn't afforded that confirmation opportunity).
It is less clear when it comes to goods which cannot be delivered through a letterbox ... if goods are presented to a person at the nominated address then I believe a judge would also agree that passing of risk had occurred; however if they're simply left on a doorstep / in a bin / in a place that has not been designated by the consumer then the risk would still lie with the seller.
[The above is purely my opinion and does not constitute legal advice]
I think you've outlined my thoughts on this more clearly and more succinctly that I have!
In respect of items posted through a letterbox I can't believe a court would say that risk had not transferred so long as delivery was in accordance with an address supplied by the consumer - even if that address was wrong. Surely it has to be implied into the legislation that the consumer has a responsibility to provide an address where items can actually be delivered to them. Otherwise the provisions about delivery become nonsensical.
I'll admit I'm less confident about the situation where the goods are too large to go through a letterbox...
I think(?) I agree that "... if goods are presented to a person at the nominated address then I believe a judge would also agree that passing of risk had occurred... " but I'd accept it's a much greyer area.
I also agree that stuff left outside and/or in a bin etc has not been delivered at all.
1
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