Missing return to shoezone

Alderbank

Evri says sorry for UK parcel delivery delays

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64223554

Evri told the BBC the backlogs should be cleared "over the next few days".

p00hsticks

Gemknee said:

It was £590 worth of footwear that has gone missing, am I responsible for this??

Out of interest, how many pairs of shoes and slippers did this represent and how were they packaged ?

HillStreetBlues

Gemknee said:

Thanks, that was my thought, I only could do what I was instructed to do by shoezone, I couldn't amend or alter the address label or add insurance from the pages I was directed to! 

So as far as you were concerned you were following Shoe Zone returns policy, that you had been directed to do.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

It’s often said here if the consumer purchases the label they are responsible for the risk of return, I’m not disputing this nor have anything to say otherwise, but does anyone know what this is actually based upon from a legal perspective? 

Manxman_in_exile

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

It’s often said here if the consumer purchases the label they are responsible for the risk of return, I’m not disputing this nor have anything to say otherwise, but does anyone know what this is actually based upon from a legal perspective? 

I often wonder about this as well.

Very often the first response here is "Who paid for the return - you or the trader?"

While this might be relevant from a contractual point of view (see the very first response in this thread which treats it purely as a contractual issue)  I'm not sure if it's relevant from a statutory point of view if the consumer is exercising their right to cancel a contract under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (legislation.gov.uk).

The effect of regulation 34(5)(b) appears to be that a consumer is entitled to a refund for goods they've returned if they can supply evidence that they've sent the goods back to the trader. 

It appears not to matter whether the returned goods are either lost or damaged during their return, and it appears not to matter who organised or paid for the return.  Evidence of sending them back is sufficient to get a refund.

I know we've both raised this point before on here and I think some posters have used it successfully but I'm not sure.  Unfortunately not everybody comes back with an update as to whether they've been successful.  (And the search function is so poor I wouldn't know how to start looking... )

[Edit:  Just to clarify my answer to your question - I think the legal basis for the view that whoever pays for, or organises, the return assumes the risk for it is based on ordinary principles of contract law.  But I think those principles are over-ridden by a strict interpretation of the wording of 34(5)(b) in the case of cancellations under the CCRs]

Manxman_in_exile

I must admit I don't know if you can cancel part of an order under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (legislation.gov.uk) or not, but if you told them within 14 days of delivery that you were cancelling the order (in respect of those shoes you were returning) and you got them sent off within a further 14 days, then I don't see what you've got to lose by arguing the point with Shoezone

You could try going back to them and telling them for clarity you were exercising your right to cancel under the CCRs, and that under regulation 34(5)(b) you are entitled to a refund within 14 days of providing evidence to Shoezone that you sent the goods back, even if Evri have subsequently lost the shoes in transit.

"Reimbursement by trader in the event of withdrawal or cancellation

34.—(1) The trader must reimburse all payments, other than payments for delivery, received from the consumer, subject to paragraph (10)...

... (4) Reimbursement must be without undue delay, and in any event not later than the time specified in paragraph (5) or (6).

(5) If the contract is a sales contract and the trader has not offered to collect the goods, the time is the end of 14 days after—

(a)the day on which the trader receives the goods back, or

(b)if earlier, the day on which the consumer supplies evidence of having sent the goods back"

The strict meaning of that wording appears to be that so long as you can provide evidence of sending the goods back to the trader, you are entitled to a refund even if the trader never receives them.

I don't see what you've got to lose by putting that to Shoezone, but wait and see what others say.  It might work or it might not.

Just a couple of reasons why this argument might not work would be:

(1)  You might not be able to cancel just part of an order under the CCRs.  It might be all or nothing.  I don't know.

(2)  The argument that the wording of reg 34(5)(b) must be incomplete and that surely the intention of the CCRs can't have been to make the trader pay a refund even if they never get the goods back.

As I say - see what others suggest...

Manxman_in_exile

Funnily enough I was looking for something else and found this on Which?

You could add a reference to 34(5)(b) to it.

Letter complaining that you couldn't cancel an online order - Which?

HillStreetBlues

Manxman_in_exile said:

I must admit I don't know if you can cancel part of an order under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (legislation.gov.uk)

I would said you can't,  as you are  actually cancelling  or withdraw from the contract.
If you keep any item the contract remains in place.

Manxman_in_exile

HillStreetBlues said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I must admit I don't know if you can cancel part of an order under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (legislation.gov.uk)

I would said you can't,  as you are  actually cancelling  or withdraw from the contract.
If you keep any item the contract remains in place

I was afraid that might be the case, unfortunately.

I think if I were the OP I'd still give it a try though.  I don't see what other options he has or what he has to lose by trying...

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Manxman_in_exile said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

It’s often said here if the consumer purchases the label they are responsible for the risk of return, I’m not disputing this nor have anything to say otherwise, but does anyone know what this is actually based upon from a legal perspective? 

I often wonder about this as well.

Very often the first response here is "Who paid for the return - you or the trader?"

While this might be relevant from a contractual point of view (see the very first response in this thread which treats it purely as a contractual issue)  I'm not sure if it's relevant from a statutory point of view if the consumer is exercising their right to cancel a contract under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (legislation.gov.uk).

The effect of regulation 34(5)(b) appears to be that a consumer is entitled to a refund for goods they've returned if they can supply evidence that they've sent the goods back to the trader. 

It appears not to matter whether the returned goods are either lost or damaged during their return, and it appears not to matter who organised or paid for the return.  Evidence of sending them back is sufficient to get a refund.

I know we've both raised this point before on here and I think some posters have used it successfully but I'm not sure.  Unfortunately not everybody comes back with an update as to whether they've been successful.  (And the search function is so poor I wouldn't know how to start looking... )

[Edit:  Just to clarify my answer to your question - I think the legal basis for the view that whoever pays for, or organises, the return assumes the risk for it is based on ordinary principles of contract law.  But I think those principles are over-ridden by a strict interpretation of the wording of 34(5)(b) in the case of cancellations under the CCRs]

If the purchaser just says I'm cancelling and returns off their own back with a courier of their choice it's logical that the risk would lie with them, although the law isn't always logical.

But in this instance the trader has recommended a courier for return and it would be interesting to know the actual law to see whether such variables affect who risk lies with.

It was only a quick look on the showzone help pages so I might have missed it but I didn't see a limit on value or mention of compensation, this could of course be mentioned on the courier booking flow. 

I'm not sure I would trust Evri with £60 let alone £600, if the parcel fit within Royal Mail sizes and weights Special Delivery would have been the best option. 

I'm sure @unholyangel said years ago you could cancel your contract for part of an order as it was separate contracts within a contract or something similar but I might not be remembering what she said particularly well. 

If OP has cover to the value of £590 then claiming from the courier is probably the easier solution, if they don't a letter before action to showzone won't cost them anything, at the least it might make  shoezone work with Evri to locate the parcel.