Incorrectly delivered parcel

Manxman_in_exile

Like a couple of other posters I'm not quite sure why so many people are critical of the OP.

It's obvious from their posts that English is not their first language. 

They've said they don't live in a "nice" area.*

Perhaps all their neighbours are thieves or unpleasant racists or xenophobes.*

We don't know.

All we know is that they haven't agreed to have deliveries made to anyone other than to themself.

(And delivery to a "safe place" is some made-up invention of courier companies.)

Therefore they are entitled to have purchases delivered to them and not to their neighbours if they do not agree to that.  (Or at least that is my understanding of  s29(2)(a) of the Consumer Rights Act.)

This was for the trader to sort out, not the OP.


*Not that people who live in nice areas can't be racist or xenophobic...

Undervalued

Manxman_in_exile said:

Like a couple of other posters I'm not quite sure why so many people are critical of the OP.

It's obvious from their posts that English is not their first language. 

They've said they don't live in a "nice" area.*

Perhaps all their neighbours are thieves or unpleasant racists or xenophobes.*

We don't know.

All we know is that they haven't agreed to have deliveries made to anyone other than to themself.

(And delivery to a "safe place" is some made-up invention of courier companies.)

Therefore they are entitled to have purchases delivered to them and not to their neighbours if they do not agree to that.  (Or at least that is my understanding of  s29(2)(a) of the Consumer Rights Act.)

This was for the trader to sort out, not the OP.


*Not that people who live in nice areas can't be racist or xenophobic...

Do we? I would have thought there was a very good chance that somewhere, when placing the order, they agreed to terms of business including the courier's normal delivery practice.

Whilst the OP said (from memory) that they had written to DPD (?) in the past saying not to deliver to neighbours, I have to say it is naïve at best to expect that that will reliably happen. 

I understand the difficulties that there can be with deliveries but, realistically, if the normal practice doesn't work for you then it is probably asking for trouble to buy online.

My house appears to have two front doors and many couriers even struggle to read and understand a clear sign on the "wrong" door explaining which one to use!

Manxman_in_exile

Undervalued said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Like a couple of other posters I'm not quite sure why so many people are critical of the OP.

It's obvious from their posts that English is not their first language. 

They've said they don't live in a "nice" area.*

Perhaps all their neighbours are thieves or unpleasant racists or xenophobes.*

We don't know.

All we know is that they haven't agreed to have deliveries made to anyone other than to themself.

(And delivery to a "safe place" is some made-up invention of courier companies.)

Therefore they are entitled to have purchases delivered to them and not to their neighbours if they do not agree to that.  (Or at least that is my understanding of  s29(2)(a) of the Consumer Rights Act.)

This was for the trader to sort out, not the OP.


*Not that people who live in nice areas can't be racist or xenophobic...

Do we? I would have thought there was a very good chance that somewhere, when placing the order, they agreed to terms of business including the courier's normal delivery practice.''

Perhaps you've forgotten but let me remind you of what s29(2)(a) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says:

"29  Passing of risk

(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 [my bold] to take possession of the goods."

Are you saying either (1) that the purely hypothetical situation of agreeing, in your words, "... to terms of business including the courier's normal delivery practice" could amount to the OP identifying a person to take safe delivery of the goods, or (2) that any T&Cs at all could override what the Act lays down?

As I said previously, this is the trader's problem, not the OP's - no matter how unreasonable people might think it.

Undervalued

Manxman_in_exile said:

Undervalued said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Like a couple of other posters I'm not quite sure why so many people are critical of the OP.

It's obvious from their posts that English is not their first language. 

They've said they don't live in a "nice" area.*

Perhaps all their neighbours are thieves or unpleasant racists or xenophobes.*

We don't know.

All we know is that they haven't agreed to have deliveries made to anyone other than to themself.

(And delivery to a "safe place" is some made-up invention of courier companies.)

Therefore they are entitled to have purchases delivered to them and not to their neighbours if they do not agree to that.  (Or at least that is my understanding of  s29(2)(a) of the Consumer Rights Act.)

This was for the trader to sort out, not the OP.


*Not that people who live in nice areas can't be racist or xenophobic...

Do we? I would have thought there was a very good chance that somewhere, when placing the order, they agreed to terms of business including the courier's normal delivery practice.''

Perhaps you've forgotten but let me remind you of what s29(2)(a) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says:

"29  Passing of risk

(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 [my bold] to take possession of the goods."

Are you saying either (1) that the purely hypothetical situation of agreeing, in your words, "... to terms of business including the courier's normal delivery practice" could amount to the OP identifying a person to take safe delivery of the goods, or (2) that any T&Cs at all could override what the Act lays down?

As I said previously, this is the trader's problem, not the OP's - no matter how unreasonable people might think it.

I would have thought that if the customer places an order with a firm who's terms of business say the courier may deliver to a neighbour then, by placing the order, they have "identified" their neighbours as persons to take safe delivery. I agree that "left in a safe place" may not comply as it doesn't involve a person.

Manxman_in_exile

The meaning of the words "... a person identified[*] by the consumer.. " is perfectly clear.

Such a person cannot even remotely be said to be the same as some unidentified neighbour "selected"  in advance by the courier.

And no T&Cs can override the provisions of the legislation.

But if you want to waste your own time arguing up is down, black is white etc, you can go ahead without me...


[*]  No doubt it says "identified" rather "identifiable" for a good reason.  It's because the consumer identifies that person.  ie they tell the trader and/or their agent who that person is, not the other way round.

born_again

Undervalued said:

Do we? I would have thought there was a very good chance that somewhere, when placing the order, they agreed to terms of business including the courier's normal delivery practice.

Whilst the OP said (from memory) that they had written to DPD (?) in the past saying not to deliver to neighbours, I have to say it is naïve at best to expect that that will reliably happen. 

I understand the difficulties that there can be with deliveries but, realistically, if the normal practice doesn't work for you then it is probably asking for trouble to buy online.

My house appears to have two front doors and many couriers even struggle to read and understand a clear sign on the "wrong" door explaining which one to use!

I would say, rather than writing they download the app and enter preferences in there.

You can just see what could happen to a letter. Arrives. Someone looks at it & says. We do not have a facility for this on our system. So goes straight in bin.

Our next door miserable neighbour won't take any in. One courier asked them & got a mouthful from them. Something along the lines of we don't get paid to do your job, but with some 4 letter words thrown in 👀

Undervalued

Manxman_in_exile said:

The meaning of the words "... a person identified[*] by the consumer.. " is perfectly clear.

Such a person cannot even remotely be said to be the same as some unidentified neighbour "selected"  in advance by the courier.

And no T&Cs can override the provisions of the legislation.

But if you want to waste your own time arguing up is down, black is white etc, you can go ahead without me...


[*]  No doubt it says "identified" rather "identifiable" for a good reason.  It's because the consumer identifies that person.  ie they tell the trader and/or their agent who that person is, not the other way round.

No normal courier service, even good old trusted Royal Mail Special Delivery delivers to a specific person. They deliver to an address.

Manxman_in_exile

So what does s29(2)(a) mean then when it refers to "a person identified by the consumer"?  It doesn't say address.

Regardless of that, the law certainly doesn't say the goods can be left with anyone other than the addressee that the courier deems sufficient to meet the trader's legal responsibilities.

If you want to say the provision doesn't mean what it says, then fine...

Undervalued

Manxman_in_exile said:

So what does s29(2)(a) mean then when it refers to "a person identified by the consumer"?  It doesn't say address.

Regardless of that, the law certainly doesn't say the goods can be left with anyone other than the addressee that the courier deems sufficient to meet the trader's legal responsibilities.

If you want to say the provision doesn't mean what it says, then fine...

No, I am not saying that.

All I am saying is that no normal parcel / post service that I am aware of guarantees delivery to a specific person. Before Covid changes they would deliver to the address where somebody (anybody!) would squiggle a signature. As I said even Royal Mail Special Delivery, which was generally regarded as one of the most reliable and accountable services, was quite specific in their T&C that this is what they do.

Since the changes brought about by the Covid situation most, maybe all, have downgraded further to "safe place" or a photograph of the parcel on the doorstep.

I would be interested to know if there have been any successful court judgements relating to claims under the regulations you keep citing? Your interpretation would basically make it impossible for a retailer to defend any claim where there is no signature or photograph of the actual buyer accepting the parcel. I don't think the real world is as black and white as that.