Yodel took parcel they shouldn't have - any recourse?

HillStreetBlues

TELLIT01 said:

I'm afraid 'seems likely to me' is not actual evidence. 

I would agree with that.

TELLIT01 said:

Although not an unreasonable guess as to what happened, it's far from being proof or a basis to accuse a delivery driver of theft.

The OP hasn't claim it was theft, just the Yodel driver took it

Manxman_in_exile

HillStreetBlues said:

TELLIT01 said:

I'm afraid 'seems likely to me' is not actual evidence. 

I would agree with that.

TELLIT01 said:

Although not an unreasonable guess as to what happened, it's far from being proof or a basis to accuse a delivery driver of theft.

The OP hasn't claim it was theft, just the Yodel driver took it

Yes to both.

The OP needs to concentrate just on explaining to the seller that their courier never delivered the jeans into the OP's physical possession - as evidenced by a photo of an unattended delivery.

Speculation as to who took the jeans or how they disappeared is unnecessary.

Farfetch1

Manxman_in_exile said:

HillStreetBlues said:

TELLIT01 said:

I'm afraid 'seems likely to me' is not actual evidence. 

I would agree with that.

TELLIT01 said:

Although not an unreasonable guess as to what happened, it's far from being proof or a basis to accuse a delivery driver of theft.

The OP hasn't claim it was theft, just the Yodel driver took it

Yes to both.

The OP needs to concentrate just on explaining to the seller that their courier never delivered the jeans into the OP's physical possession - as evidenced by a photo of an unattended delivery.

Speculation as to who took the jeans or how they disappeared is unnecessary.

Committing fraud is hardly the way forward.

These frivolous "it wasn't in my possession" claims will fall flat in court. The OP needs the chase the entity that took their parcel, Yodel.

Manxman_in_exile

Farfetch1 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

HillStreetBlues said:

TELLIT01 said:

I'm afraid 'seems likely to me' is not actual evidence. 

I would agree with that.

TELLIT01 said:

Although not an unreasonable guess as to what happened, it's far from being proof or a basis to accuse a delivery driver of theft.

The OP hasn't claim it was theft, just the Yodel driver took it

Yes to both.

The OP needs to concentrate just on explaining to the seller that their courier never delivered the jeans into the OP's physical possession - as evidenced by a photo of an unattended delivery.

Speculation as to who took the jeans or how they disappeared is unnecessary.

Committing fraud is hardly the way forward.

These frivolous "it wasn't in my possession" claims will fall flat in court. The OP needs the chase the entity that took their parcel, Yodel.

Are you suggesting that leaving the parcel outside the OP's property on top of another parcel that has been left out for collection by somebody else satisfies the trader's responsibility under s29(2) Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk)?

Or are you explicitly accusing the OP of preparing to commit fraud?

sheramber

Farfetch1 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

HillStreetBlues said:

TELLIT01 said:

I'm afraid 'seems likely to me' is not actual evidence. 

I would agree with that.

TELLIT01 said:

Although not an unreasonable guess as to what happened, it's far from being proof or a basis to accuse a delivery driver of theft.

The OP hasn't claim it was theft, just the Yodel driver took it

Yes to both.

The OP needs to concentrate just on explaining to the seller that their courier never delivered the jeans into the OP's physical possession - as evidenced by a photo of an unattended delivery.

Speculation as to who took the jeans or how they disappeared is unnecessary.

Committing fraud is hardly the way forward.

These frivolous "it wasn't in my possession" claims will fall flat in court. The OP needs the chase the entity that took their parcel, Yodel.

There is no evidence Yodel took it.  If the driver denies it the OP has no proof, only circumstantial evidence.

TELLIT01

Manxman_in_exile said:

Are you suggesting that leaving the parcel outside the OP's property on top of another parcel that has been left out for collection by somebody else satisfies the trader's responsibility under s29(2) Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk)?

Or are you explicitly accusing the OP of preparing to commit fraud?

How would the person who delivered the package know that the stuff already there wasn't a previous delivery rather than something awaiting collection.  I suspect most delivery drivers have better things to do with their time than check other packages.

pinkshoes

You just need to wait and be patient...

I had the same with RM collecting a parcel at work that was awaiting a courier delivery. They accidentally picked up my parcel with some others.

RM then had the audacity to refuse to deliver or return my parcel because I had not paid postage on it! Well DUH... I had paid postage, just with the courier who was supposed to collect it!

It took quite a few phone calls but my parcel was eventually returned to me after about a week.

Couriers have tight deadlines so this was not done maliciously. They just picked up the wrong parcel. 

Unless you specified the porch as a safe place that was OK to leave the parcel, the ultimately the courier who delivered the jeans was at fault for not leaving them in a safe place. 

user1977

Hopefully not a daft question, but had you arranged the pick-up knowing there was likely to be another parcel being left there on the same day?

Manxman_in_exile

TELLIT01 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Are you suggesting that leEh?aving the parcel outside the OP's property on top of another parcel that has been left out for collection by somebody else satisfies the trader's responsibility under s29(2) Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk)?

Or are you explicitly accusing the OP of preparing to commit fraud?

How would the person who delivered the package know that the stuff already there wasn't a previous delivery rather than something awaiting collection.  I suspect most delivery drivers have better things to do with their time than check other packages.

Sorry - I don't understand what you mean.

I don't know how the person delivering the package would have known that the stuff already there wasn't a previous delivery because I'm not suggesting that they should have known.  (And I don't see why it might be relevant either.  The fact that a previous delivery man hasn't complied with the legislation is no reason why a subsequent one shouldn't).

What I'm basically asking Farfetch1 is whether they think that leaving a delivery unattended outside a consumer's house fulfills a trader's responsibility to deliver goods into a consumer's "physical possession".

I don't think it does.  But Farfetch1 appears to be suggesting - rather explicitly - that the OP might be taking advantage of the strict wording of s29 of the Act to commit fraud (ie that the OP has actually got the goods in question, but because they weren't delivered straight into their hands as required by the legislation that they are fraudulently going to claim that they never received them.)

Now that might not be what Farfetch1 intended to say, but I don't see any other way of interpreting this post of theirs:

Farfetch1 said:

Committing fraud is hardly the way forward.

These frivolous "it wasn't in my possession" claims will fall flat in court. The OP needs the chase the entity that took their parcel, Yodel.

If that isn't what they meant, I apologise, but I can't see any other way of interpreting their words.

[Edit:  I prefer to take an OP's posts at face value and assume that they are telling the truth rather than assume they are not telling the truth or are asking for advice on how to commit fraud]

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Manxman_in_exile said:

TELLIT01 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Are you suggesting that leEh?aving the parcel outside the OP's property on top of another parcel that has been left out for collection by somebody else satisfies the trader's responsibility under s29(2) Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk)?

Or are you explicitly accusing the OP of preparing to commit fraud?

How would the person who delivered the package know that the stuff already there wasn't a previous delivery rather than something awaiting collection.  I suspect most delivery drivers have better things to do with their time than check other packages.

Sorry - I don't understand what you mean.

I don't know how the person delivering the package would have known that the stuff already there wasn't a previous delivery because I'm not suggesting that they should have known.  (And I don't see why it might be relevant either.  The fact that a previous delivery man hasn't complied with the legislation is no reason why a subsequent one shouldn't).

What I'm basically asking Farfetch1 is whether they think that leaving a delivery unattended outside a consumer's house fulfills a trader's responsibility to deliver goods into a consumer's "physical possession".

I don't think it does.  But Farfetch1 appears to be suggesting - rather explicitly - that the OP might be taking advantage of the strict wording of s29 of the Act to commit fraud (ie that the OP has actually got the goods in question, but because they weren't delivered straight into their hands as required by the legislation that they are fraudulently going to claim that they never received them.)

Now that might not be what Farfetch1 intended to say, but I don't see any other way of interpreting this post of theirs:

Farfetch1 said:

Committing fraud is hardly the way forward.

These frivolous "it wasn't in my possession" claims will fall flat in court. The OP needs the chase the entity that took their parcel, Yodel.

If that isn't what they meant, I apologise, but I can't see any other way of interpreting their words.

[Edit:  I prefer to take an OP's posts at face value and assume that they are telling the truth rather than assume they are not telling the truth or are asking for advice on how to commit fraud]

Perhaps you don’t recognise the poster mentioning fraud  

I agree to the letter of the law risk hasn’t passed so the problem with Yodel is for the seller of the jeans to address.

For what it would cost the seller to replace the jeans I think they’d be unwise to risk small claims if OP started down that route.