Parcel left on doorstep-not there when i got home

NBLondon

born_again said:

@prowla Proof of delivery is the picture that the OP has posted from DPD. Under chargeback regulations all that is required is proof of delivery. It does not matter where, just that the item was delivered. Which it was. Remember these are over & above your legal consumer rights & set by the card companies.

I'd say that picture of a package in front of a closed door is proof of incomplete delivery.  A picture of it by an open door or with a human being is proof of delivery.   If the delivery instructions say "Leave in Porch" then a picture of it in a porch is proof of delivery as advised by the recipient.

There's a massive flaw in the s75 definition there.  By that logic a dodgy supplier could send an item to their branch office with proof of delivery and resell it multiple times.  

And I agree with our three-legged commentator...   If the customer has specified a delivery instruction - that becomes part of the s29 definition.  If that instruction was not complied with then s29 applies.

Undervalued

NBLondon said:

born_again said:

@prowla Proof of delivery is the picture that the OP has posted from DPD. Under chargeback regulations all that is required is proof of delivery. It does not matter where, just that the item was delivered. Which it was. Remember these are over & above your legal consumer rights & set by the card companies.

I'd say that picture of a package in front of a closed door is proof of incomplete delivery.  A picture of it by an open door or with a human being is proof of delivery.   If the delivery instructions say "Leave in Porch" then a picture of it in a porch is proof of delivery as advised by the recipient.

There's a massive flaw in the s75 definition there.  By that logic a dodgy supplier could send an item to their branch office with proof of delivery and resell it multiple times.  

And I agree with our three-legged commentator...   If the customer has specified a delivery instruction - that becomes part of the s29 definition.  If that instruction was not complied with then s29 applies.

But what happens if the customer specifies a delivery instruction that the courier doesn't offer?

Some couriers prevent this by only providing a short list of options with no opportunity to write your own specific instruction.

Also of course, photographic "proof" a best only shows the parcel in a location for a split second. It is quite possible a dishonest courier removed it after taking the photo.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again said:

ThumbRemote said:

born_again said:

ThumbRemote said:

It's quite clear that DPD haven't complied with the instructions given, and the retailer are trying to disclaim all responsibility. 

If you paid by card, maybe talk to the card issuer about a Section 75 claim or chargeback. Otherwise (and maybe after the wedding) commence small claims action against the retailer. There's not a chance of them winning, they probably won't even try to defend the claim. 

Wondered how long before that was mentioned.

It's destined to failure as there is proof of delivery. That is all that matters.

Why would a section 75 claim fail? My understanding is that section 75 means the credit provider has the same responsibilities as the retailer. If it hasn't been delivered, the card issuer can't just claim they don't have to follow the law. 

The retailer can prove delivery & the customers choice of location & agreement on taking the risk. Thus they will argue no breach of contract. Just the same as retailer is...

This is one of my problems with s29 of the CRA.

I know traders shouldn't be able to evade their responsibility under s29 to deliver only into the physical possession of either the consumer or their nominee, but at some point a trader is going to argue that all they've done is follow the alternative delivery instructions given by the consumer (eg a safe place).

I wouldn't give any instruction other than to deliver to a nominated neighbour.  (As explained above, I'm not sure how clear an instruction to "leave in porch" is).

It's still the trader's choice to offer this and as such they bear the risk.

Safe place is of benefit to the trader (and the courier), let's say they stopped leaving parcels like this and only handed them to the customer, couriers would then have to deliver more parcels at out of work hours which would cost.

Sure there is the benefit of convenience and reduced cost to the consumer also but it appears the legislation has afforded that convenience at the trader's risk should they offer such convenience. 

The only question is whether or not on the balance of probability the goods came into the consumer's physical possession, with a parcel left like that and a person willing to go through the small claims process I would hope the OP would win. 

Even if the parcel had been left inside a closed porch (or any other safe place the customer picked) that would still be at the trader's risk, although perhaps harder to argue o the balance of probability that it went missing before the customer got their hands on the goods.  

born_again

NBLondon said:

born_again said:

@prowla Proof of delivery is the picture that the OP has posted from DPD. Under chargeback regulations all that is required is proof of delivery. It does not matter where, just that the item was delivered. Which it was. Remember these are over & above your legal consumer rights & set by the card companies.

I'd say that picture of a package in front of a closed door is proof of incomplete delivery.  A picture of it by an open door or with a human being is proof of delivery.   If the delivery instructions say "Leave in Porch" then a picture of it in a porch is proof of delivery as advised by the recipient.

There's a massive flaw in the s75 definition there.  By that logic a dodgy supplier could send an item to their branch office with proof of delivery and resell it multiple times.  

And I agree with our three-legged commentator...   If the customer has specified a delivery instruction - that becomes part of the s29 definition.  If that instruction was not complied with then s29 applies.

You can argue the point all you like. Visa/Mastercard regulations are very clear. All the retailer has to do is prove delivery. Plain & simple. Just what the picture does. 
Agree that it could be abused by a dodgy retailer. But would they risk it. Something like that would soon flag up as Visa etc do track the number of chargebacks against a retailer. Too many ad they can stop them rejecting chargebacks or even worse pull their right to take card payments.

But that is then what you legal consumer rights are for.

born_again

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again said:

ThumbRemote said:

born_again said:

ThumbRemote said:

It's quite clear that DPD haven't complied with the instructions given, and the retailer are trying to disclaim all responsibility. 

If you paid by card, maybe talk to the card issuer about a Section 75 claim or chargeback. Otherwise (and maybe after the wedding) commence small claims action against the retailer. There's not a chance of them winning, they probably won't even try to defend the claim. 

Wondered how long before that was mentioned.

It's destined to failure as there is proof of delivery. That is all that matters.

Why would a section 75 claim fail? My understanding is that section 75 means the credit provider has the same responsibilities as the retailer. If it hasn't been delivered, the card issuer can't just claim they don't have to follow the law. 

The retailer can prove delivery & the customers choice of location & agreement on taking the risk. Thus they will argue no breach of contract. Just the same as retailer is...

This is one of my problems with s29 of the CRA.

I know traders shouldn't be able to evade their responsibility under s29 to deliver only into the physical possession of either the consumer or their nominee, but at some point a trader is going to argue that all they've done is follow the alternative delivery instructions given by the consumer (eg a safe place).

I wouldn't give any instruction other than to deliver to a nominated neighbour.  (As explained above, I'm not sure how clear an instruction to "leave in porch" is).

It's still the trader's choice to offer this and as such they bear the risk.

Safe place is of benefit to the trader (and the courier), let's say they stopped leaving parcels like this and only handed them to the customer, couriers would then have to deliver more parcels at out of work hours which would cost.

Sure there is the benefit of convenience and reduced cost to the consumer also but it appears the legislation has afforded that convenience at the trader's risk should they offer such convenience. 

The only question is whether or not on the balance of probability the goods came into the consumer's physical possession, with a parcel left like that and a person willing to go through the small claims process I would hope the OP would win. 

Even if the parcel had been left inside a closed porch (or any other safe place the customer picked) that would still be at the trader's risk, although perhaps harder to argue o the balance of probability that it went missing before the customer got their hands on the goods.  

Many retailers do not have a option to leave in a secure location. But the option is available in the couriers tracking & App. So in a lot of cases a retailer would not be aware of customers choice. Unless courier informs them after delivery.
Certainly know the DPD app have several options of where to leave packages or not as the case maybe.

F1shyFingers

user1977 said:

F1shyFingers said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Bexxie1979 said:

Where do I stand with my consumer rights?

The answer to this is very simple, the goods remain at the trader's risk until

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/29/enacted

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 the retailer does not wish to bear the risk of them being left in a safe place they should instruct their delivery agent not to provide such a service (or deliver the goods themselves).Left outside a door meets neither of the above, (without passing comment on the OP but as a general note) any issues surrounding dishonestly are a separate matter.

Letter before action (templates on Google) followed by small claims if the value of the goods warrants this.

Do you really think that a court would find the courier negligent for leaving something outside a front door in an area that could be ambiguously viewed as being a porch, as per the instructions?

Like I said above, it doesn't look like it was left "in" anything.

A porch is clearly not what you think it is.

a covered shelter projecting in front of the entrance of a building.

This may well fulfil that criteria, given we can only see an image taken towards the bottom right of the door.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

born_again said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again said:

ThumbRemote said:

born_again said:

ThumbRemote said:

It's quite clear that DPD haven't complied with the instructions given, and the retailer are trying to disclaim all responsibility. 

If you paid by card, maybe talk to the card issuer about a Section 75 claim or chargeback. Otherwise (and maybe after the wedding) commence small claims action against the retailer. There's not a chance of them winning, they probably won't even try to defend the claim. 

Wondered how long before that was mentioned.

It's destined to failure as there is proof of delivery. That is all that matters.

Why would a section 75 claim fail? My understanding is that section 75 means the credit provider has the same responsibilities as the retailer. If it hasn't been delivered, the card issuer can't just claim they don't have to follow the law. 

The retailer can prove delivery & the customers choice of location & agreement on taking the risk. Thus they will argue no breach of contract. Just the same as retailer is...

This is one of my problems with s29 of the CRA.

I know traders shouldn't be able to evade their responsibility under s29 to deliver only into the physical possession of either the consumer or their nominee, but at some point a trader is going to argue that all they've done is follow the alternative delivery instructions given by the consumer (eg a safe place).

I wouldn't give any instruction other than to deliver to a nominated neighbour.  (As explained above, I'm not sure how clear an instruction to "leave in porch" is).

It's still the trader's choice to offer this and as such they bear the risk.

Safe place is of benefit to the trader (and the courier), let's say they stopped leaving parcels like this and only handed them to the customer, couriers would then have to deliver more parcels at out of work hours which would cost.

Sure there is the benefit of convenience and reduced cost to the consumer also but it appears the legislation has afforded that convenience at the trader's risk should they offer such convenience. 

The only question is whether or not on the balance of probability the goods came into the consumer's physical possession, with a parcel left like that and a person willing to go through the small claims process I would hope the OP would win. 

Even if the parcel had been left inside a closed porch (or any other safe place the customer picked) that would still be at the trader's risk, although perhaps harder to argue o the balance of probability that it went missing before the customer got their hands on the goods.  

Many retailers do not have a option to leave in a secure location. But the option is available in the couriers tracking & App. So in a lot of cases a retailer would not be aware of customers choice. Unless courier informs them after delivery.
Certainly know the DPD app have several options of where to leave packages or not as the case maybe.

Unfortunately there is a fundamental principle being missed here @born_again  

The trader's obligation is to safely deliver the goods into the physical possession of the consumer (or a person the consumer nominates).

If the trader chooses to use a third party (such as a courier) to perform this action the trader still bears the responsibility of that third party's actions. The trader can not deny the consumer the rights afforded to them simply because their third party acts in a manner that is in contravention to the trader's obligations.  

The regs are very clear in that risk passes upon physical possession and anything that happens to the goods up until that point is the trader's responsibly and at their risk.

The only area of doubt in these situations is whether or not the goods did come into physical possession which is basically a question of whether the customer is telling the truth about not receiving the goods and this would depend upon the specific circumstances of each example. 

I know chargebacks are covered by bank or card policy but S75 places the same liability upon the credit provider and as with a few of these topics if the legislation affords the consumer something and the bank is equally liable I don't see how the bank will defend such a claim successfully if the consumer decides to take action against the bank rather than the trader. 

@Bexxie1979 please see my earlier post you need to remind the trader of what I've said above by sending them this:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/29/enacted

they come into the physical possession of—

(a)the consumer, or

(b)a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.

Reminding them that your contract is not with DPD, the goods were not delivered into your physical possession and if they won't remedy the situation you will file through small claims to recover your loses. 

Any discussion about porches, safe places, DPD or anything else is completely irrelevant (although sadly has filled 6 pages). 

born_again

Re above. I get what you are saying.

Might be wrong. But I would say if someone says to courier. "Please leave package (insert where)" & it is left there, with proof. Then that is the customer saying. If left in this location, I am taking this as in my possession.
Otherwise no retailer would offer that option, or allow a courier to offer that option.

Even Royal mail do not deliver to your possession. They consider something put through your letterbox delivered. In fact proof of postage is considered proof of delivery. Despite the fact it may have got lost in the post.

How many times does it come up that retailer provides a return label, customer returns item via royal mail & has proof of postage & the argument is that as you have proof it has been posted. It has been delivered & it is the retailer problem. Even though the retailer said they have no proof of delivery?

S75 & CC would say no breach of contract as Item delivered to where customer specified. 

Undervalued

born_again said:

Re above. I get what you are saying.

Might be wrong. But I would say if someone says to courier. "Please leave package (insert where)" & it is left there, with proof. Then that is the customer saying. If left in this location, I am taking this as in my possession.
Otherwise no retailer would offer that option, or allow a courier to offer that option.

Even Royal mail do not deliver to your possession. They consider something put through your letterbox delivered. In fact proof of postage is considered proof of delivery. Despite the fact it may have got lost in the post.

How many times does it come up that retailer provides a return label, customer returns item via royal mail & has proof of postage & the argument is that as you have proof it has been posted. It has been delivered & it is the retailer problem. Even though the retailer said they have no proof of delivery?

S75 & CC would say no breach of contract as Item delivered to where customer specified. 

It is (generally) "proof" in the civil sense, i.e. on the balance of probabilities. The vast, vast majority of mail gets correctly delivered so the balance of probability is that yours did. Things like a documented history of delivery problems at a particular address might sway the judge under some circumstances.

It wouldn't generally on its own be proof in the criminal sense i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

born_again said:

Re above. I get what you are saying.

Might be wrong. But I would say if someone says to courier. "Please leave package (insert where)" & it is left there, with proof. Then that is the customer saying. If left in this location, I am taking this as in my possession.
Otherwise no retailer would offer that option, or allow a courier to offer that option.

Even Royal mail do not deliver to your possession. They consider something put through your letterbox delivered. In fact proof of postage is considered proof of delivery. Despite the fact it may have got lost in the post.

How many times does it come up that retailer provides a return label, customer returns item via royal mail & has proof of postage & the argument is that as you have proof it has been posted. It has been delivered & it is the retailer problem. Even though the retailer said they have no proof of delivery?

S75 & CC would say no breach of contract as Item delivered to where customer specified. 

Business is always cost vs risk, it is obviously cheaper for the current system to continue rather than for couriers have more staff in more vans to deliver over smaller areas in shorter hours of say 6pm to 9pm when the average person is more likely to be home from work.

It's also much cheaper than letting the customer pick a time that suits them as routes are planned to be efficient, the cost of delivering two parcels on the same street 6 hours apart with 120 other deliveries all at times specified by the customer would be significant due to the back and fourth costing both fuel and time (time which would need to made up by more staff and more vans). 

The return issue is different as the trader doesn't have consumer rights afforded to them. 

Although the card provider may fall on the side of the trader with proof of delivery if the customer would win in small claims against the trader then presumably they'd also win against the card provider given they share the same liability?

I can't agree that delivery to a safe place is in the consumer's physical possession. The practice is of benefit to the couriers, and thus the traders, to earn them a profit. The view that the consumer should be privileged in order to be able to consume is incorrect IMO, it is the trader who should be privileged in order to profit. 

The problem is that (if we take dishonest customers out of the conversation) only a few customers will experience what the OP has, even few will know their rights and instead will believe what the trader tells them and even fewer will bother to go through small claims so the risk to the trader is even lower than it should be because the average person has no idea of their rights and accepts what they are told or finds the concept of small claims daunting or too time consuming.

On the other hand if you look at age restricted products retailers are hot on this because they face criminal proceedings for selling certain items to those under the age of 18. With age restriction the trader's risk is too big so they suffer the costs rather than the risk, where as with passing of risk the trader's risk is very small so they suffer the risk rather than the costs.