Shed refund

tripled

Onbuy is a marketplace platform. You need to check your order confirmation and find out who the seller was. I would suggest you then follow the steps in buyer protection: https://www.onbuy.com/gb/buyer-protection/

Have you raised the issue with the seller? If not, then ask them for a refund on the basis that you did receive the delivery.

If they have refused, then have you raised a claim with PayPal?

If PayPal have rejected the claim, did you pay by card and, if so, have you raised a chargeback or S75 claim?

The above avenues would be the quickest way to get your money back if successful. If not, that would be the point to consider a letter before action and court.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Undervalued said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

bradrock said:

No nothing. I did get an email the day before saying it would be delivered but only saw that on the day of delivery as I was doing a double shift at work.

So you were told it was coming but didn't check your emails. 

Had you seen the email, what would you have done differently?

The answer to that doesn’t affect OP’s consumer rights (might have saved them some headache), risk passes upon physical possession as manxman said, dumped in the garden is very unlikely to achieve this so letter before action to the actual seller. Depending upon Onbuys wording of their terms OP may have a claim against them also if they offer some kind of guarantee for non-deliveries.

Has it been tested, in a high enough court to set a binding precedent, what constitutes "physical possession" for these sort of purposes?

For as long as I can remember the Royal Mail (and presumably others followed suit) would only collect a "signature" from somebody at the premises. They made it clear that they did not deliver to a specific person. No steps were ever taken to verify the identity of the person who put an often unreadable squiggle on a hand held device.

Covid muddied the waters as it became the norm to leave packages on a doorstep or in an unlocked porch (or other so called "safe" place). Was the law amended to accommodate this? 

The law hasn’t been amended (as far as I know) because the contract doesn’t work in the way you assume.

The trader is obliged to deliver the goods into the physical possession of the consumer.

Should they use a third party (i.e courier) to perform this obligation and that third party leaves the parcel anywhere other than in the consumer’s physical possession that is the trader’s risk.

I don’t know if it’s been tested and I understand there may be doubt if the consumer opts for a safe place or such but if it was acceptable to dump the goods in the consumer’s garden unattended then the passing of risk clause in the legislation would be pointless as it’s there to protect the consumer for such actions, i.e what happens to the goods before it’s place in the consumer’s hands.

It’s been discussed at length many time but traders could insist their third party seeks ID upon delivery (which can be done as Royal Mail for example will do delivery with age conformation for age restricted products) but it doesn’t happen because of cost.

You may argue you don’t want to pay more but the legislation is what it is and trader either opts for something more expensive to reduce their risk or takes a punt on a cheap service and suffers the risk when problems occur. 

Undervalued

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

bradrock said:

No nothing. I did get an email the day before saying it would be delivered but only saw that on the day of delivery as I was doing a double shift at work.

So you were told it was coming but didn't check your emails. 

Had you seen the email, what would you have done differently?

The answer to that doesn’t affect OP’s consumer rights (might have saved them some headache), risk passes upon physical possession as manxman said, dumped in the garden is very unlikely to achieve this so letter before action to the actual seller. Depending upon Onbuys wording of their terms OP may have a claim against them also if they offer some kind of guarantee for non-deliveries.

Has it been tested, in a high enough court to set a binding precedent, what constitutes "physical possession" for these sort of purposes?

For as long as I can remember the Royal Mail (and presumably others followed suit) would only collect a "signature" from somebody at the premises. They made it clear that they did not deliver to a specific person. No steps were ever taken to verify the identity of the person who put an often unreadable squiggle on a hand held device.

Covid muddied the waters as it became the norm to leave packages on a doorstep or in an unlocked porch (or other so called "safe" place). Was the law amended to accommodate this? 

The law hasn’t been amended (as far as I know) because the contract doesn’t work in the way you assume.

The trader is obliged to deliver the goods into the physical possession of the consumer.

Should they use a third party (i.e courier) to perform this obligation and that third party leaves the parcel anywhere other than in the consumer’s physical possession that is the trader’s risk.

I don’t know if it’s been tested and I understand there may be doubt if the consumer opts for a safe place or such but if it was acceptable to dump the goods in the consumer’s garden unattended then the passing of risk clause in the legislation would be pointless as it’s there to protect the consumer for such actions, i.e what happens to the goods before it’s place in the consumer’s hands.

It’s been discussed at length many time but traders could insist their third party seeks ID upon delivery (which can be done as Royal Mail for example will do delivery with age conformation for age restricted products) but it doesn’t happen because of cost.

You may argue you don’t want to pay more but the legislation is what it is and trader either opts for something more expensive to reduce their risk or takes a punt on a cheap service and suffers the risk when problems occur. 

But that is a crucial point. The consumer may well "have opted for that" by agreeing to the seller's terms of business via a tick box or similar.

Until this is properly tested it will continue as a series of "try and get away with it" or grudging settlements with customers that make a big fuss. 

98% of the time it sort of works but that is little help if you are one of the unlucky 2% or whatever.

Manxman_in_exile

bradrock said:

Undervalued said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

bradrock said:

No nothing. I did get an email the day before saying it would be delivered but only saw that on the day of delivery as I was doing a double shift at work.

So you were told it was coming but didn't check your emails. 

Had you seen the email, what would you have done differently?

The answer to that doesn’t affect OP’s consumer rights (might have saved them some headache), risk passes upon physical possession as manxman said, dumped in the garden is very unlikely to achieve this so letter before action to the actual seller. Depending upon Onbuys wording of their terms OP may have a claim against them also if they offer some kind of guarantee for non-deliveries.

Has it been tested, in a high enough court to set a binding precedent, what constitutes "physical possession" for these sort of purposes?

For as long as I can remember the Royal Mail (and presumably others followed suit) would only collect a "signature" from somebody at the premises. They made it clear that they did not deliver to a specific person. No steps were ever taken to verify the identity of the person who put an often unreadable squiggle on a hand held device.

Covid muddied the waters as it became the norm to leave packages on a doorstep or in an unlocked porch (or other so called "safe" place). Was the law amended to accommodate this? 

This thread started with I would get my money back to now I'm not so sure and have lost £400

No.  Under the legislation you are entitled to your refund because the seller hasn't ensured that the shed was delivered into your physical possession.

But the practical difficulty you will face is if the seller says that the goods were delivered to you and points to your "signature" on a piece of paper as proof that they were delivered to you, and that you were physically present.  Then it's your word against the courier's word.

If the shed was delivered at 9:27am do you have evidence that you weren't there at that time?  eg had you clocked on at work, were you with work colleagues, could your manager - or anyone else - give evidence that you were at work at the time etc etc?  If you have a 60 minute commute to work, what time did you arrive at work?

I'm not saying you would necessarily need this evidence to win a case, but if you could provide such evidence it would help your case as it would tend to show that the courier could not possibly have delivered the shed into your physical possession.

With regard to reporting the theft to the police, I'm not sure that that is necessary either, but it might add some weight to your argument that it's been stolen.  As the shed still belongs to the seller you could tell them that you'd be willing to report the theft to the police on their behalf if they want you to do so, and if the police will accept a stolen property report from somebody other than the owner.

The courier providing photos of an unattended shed on a pallett (or whatever) in your garden (how do we even know from the photos that it was your garden?) is not proof it was delivered into your physical possession, even if it is your garden.

Quote to the seller the law I originally linked to in my first post and tell them you want your money back.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Undervalued said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

bradrock said:

No nothing. I did get an email the day before saying it would be delivered but only saw that on the day of delivery as I was doing a double shift at work.

So you were told it was coming but didn't check your emails. 

Had you seen the email, what would you have done differently?

The answer to that doesn’t affect OP’s consumer rights (might have saved them some headache), risk passes upon physical possession as manxman said, dumped in the garden is very unlikely to achieve this so letter before action to the actual seller. Depending upon Onbuys wording of their terms OP may have a claim against them also if they offer some kind of guarantee for non-deliveries.

Has it been tested, in a high enough court to set a binding precedent, what constitutes "physical possession" for these sort of purposes?

For as long as I can remember the Royal Mail (and presumably others followed suit) would only collect a "signature" from somebody at the premises. They made it clear that they did not deliver to a specific person. No steps were ever taken to verify the identity of the person who put an often unreadable squiggle on a hand held device.

Covid muddied the waters as it became the norm to leave packages on a doorstep or in an unlocked porch (or other so called "safe" place). Was the law amended to accommodate this? 

The law hasn’t been amended (as far as I know) because the contract doesn’t work in the way you assume.

The trader is obliged to deliver the goods into the physical possession of the consumer.

Should they use a third party (i.e courier) to perform this obligation and that third party leaves the parcel anywhere other than in the consumer’s physical possession that is the trader’s risk.

I don’t know if it’s been tested and I understand there may be doubt if the consumer opts for a safe place or such but if it was acceptable to dump the goods in the consumer’s garden unattended then the passing of risk clause in the legislation would be pointless as it’s there to protect the consumer for such actions, i.e what happens to the goods before it’s place in the consumer’s hands.

It’s been discussed at length many time but traders could insist their third party seeks ID upon delivery (which can be done as Royal Mail for example will do delivery with age conformation for age restricted products) but it doesn’t happen because of cost.

You may argue you don’t want to pay more but the legislation is what it is and trader either opts for something more expensive to reduce their risk or takes a punt on a cheap service and suffers the risk when problems occur. 

But that is a crucial point. The consumer may well "have opted for that" by agreeing to the seller's terms of business via a tick box or similar.

Until this is properly tested it will continue as a series of "try and get away with it" or grudging settlements with customers that make a big fuss. 

98% of the time it sort of works but that is little help if you are one of the unlucky 2% or whatever.

T&Cs can’t contract out consumer rights. The legislation does have an exception, possession of a person named by the consumer, if other exceptions are not stated that means there aren’t any (as far as my understanding goes).

I do agree though it’s a case of try and get away with it unless the customer makes a fuss. 

Manxman_in_exile

Undervalued said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

bradrock said:

No nothing. I did get an email the day before saying it would be delivered but only saw that on the day of delivery as I was doing a double shift at work.

So you were told it was coming but didn't check your emails. 

Had you seen the email, what would you have done differently?

The answer to that doesn’t affect OP’s consumer rights (might have saved them some headache), risk passes upon physical possession as manxman said, dumped in the garden is very unlikely to achieve this so letter before action to the actual seller. Depending upon Onbuys wording of their terms OP may have a claim against them also if they offer some kind of guarantee for non-deliveries.

Has it been tested, in a high enough court to set a binding precedent, what constitutes "physical possession" for these sort of purposes?

For as long as I can remember the Royal Mail (and presumably others followed suit) would only collect a "signature" from somebody at the premises. They made it clear that they did not deliver to a specific person. No steps were ever taken to verify the identity of the person who put an often unreadable squiggle on a hand held device.

Covid muddied the waters as it became the norm to leave packages on a doorstep or in an unlocked porch (or other so called "safe" place). Was the law amended to accommodate this? 

I think I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that - as a question of law - any court in the country would hold that leaving a package unattended on an addressee's doorstep (or path, or driveway, or front or back garden) in the absence of that addressee's physical presence, did not satisfy the requirement to deliver the package etc into the addressee's "physical possession".

To me physical possession implies delivery into the actual hands of the addressee, or at least the simultaneous physical presence of the addressee at the time delivery takes place.*

Whether or not the addressee had actually been there or not would, of course, be a question of fact.

Personally I think the term "physical possession" is an odd one to use and it's perhaps strange that it isn't defined or made clear in the legislation what it's intended to mean.  Perhaps as a concept it originated from the wording of the original EU Directive (or whatever it was) that this legislation was derived from, and it didn't lend itself to being directly translated into English.

I think one of the problems of adopting EU Directives into UK law was that the EU Directives were drafted so as to be interpreted broadly and in "the spirit" of what they were intended to achieve, whereas UK legislation has traditionally been interpreted very narrowly, strictly and literally.

*Perhaps paradoxically, I'm equally certain that if a package was successfully delivered through an addressee's letterbox then a court would hold that it had been delivered into that addressee's physical possession even if they weren't present at the time.  But I might struggle to explain why...

bradrock

Manxman_in_exile said:

bradrock said:

Undervalued said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

bradrock said:

No nothing. I did get an email the day before saying it would be delivered but only saw that on the day of delivery as I was doing a double shift at work.

So you were told it was coming but didn't check your emails. 

Had you seen the email, what would you have done differently?

The answer to that doesn’t affect OP’s consumer rights (might have saved them some headache), risk passes upon physical possession as manxman said, dumped in the garden is very unlikely to achieve this so letter before action to the actual seller. Depending upon Onbuys wording of their terms OP may have a claim against them also if they offer some kind of guarantee for non-deliveries.

Has it been tested, in a high enough court to set a binding precedent, what constitutes "physical possession" for these sort of purposes?

For as long as I can remember the Royal Mail (and presumably others followed suit) would only collect a "signature" from somebody at the premises. They made it clear that they did not deliver to a specific person. No steps were ever taken to verify the identity of the person who put an often unreadable squiggle on a hand held device.

Covid muddied the waters as it became the norm to leave packages on a doorstep or in an unlocked porch (or other so called "safe" place). Was the law amended to accommodate this? 

This thread started with I would get my money back to now I'm not so sure and have lost £400

No.  Under the legislation you are entitled to your refund because the seller hasn't ensured that the shed was delivered into your physical possession.

But the practical difficulty you will face is if the seller says that the goods were delivered to you and points to your "signature" on a piece of paper as proof that they were delivered to you, and that you were physically present.  Then it's your word against the courier's word.

If the shed was delivered at 9:27am do you have evidence that you weren't there at that time?  eg had you clocked on at work, were you with work colleagues, could your manager - or anyone else - give evidence that you were at work at the time etc etc?  If you have a 60 minute commute to work, what time did you arrive at work?

I'm not saying you would necessarily need this evidence to win a case, but if you could provide such evidence it would help your case as it would tend to show that the courier could not possibly have delivered the shed into your physical possession.

With regard to reporting the theft to the police, I'm not sure that that is necessary either, but it might add some weight to your argument that it's been stolen.  As the shed still belongs to the seller you could tell them that you'd be willing to report the theft to the police on their behalf if they want you to do so, and if the police will accept a stolen property report from somebody other than the owner.

The courier providing photos of an unattended shed on a pallett (or whatever) in your garden (how do we even know from the photos that it was your garden?) is not proof it was delivered into your physical possession, even if it is your garden.

Quote to the seller the law I originally linked to in my first post and tell them you want your money back.

Oh I can absolutely prove I was at work from 7am til 4pm on that day probably at least 20 people could verify this no problem if it cam to it.

Manxman_in_exile

Undervalued said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

bradrock said:

No nothing. I did get an email the day before saying it would be delivered but only saw that on the day of delivery as I was doing a double shift at work.

So you were told it was coming but didn't check your emails. 

Had you seen the email, what would you have done differently?

The answer to that doesn’t affect OP’s consumer rights (might have saved them some headache), risk passes upon physical possession as manxman said, dumped in the garden is very unlikely to achieve this so letter before action to the actual seller. Depending upon Onbuys wording of their terms OP may have a claim against them also if they offer some kind of guarantee for non-deliveries.

Has it been tested, in a high enough court to set a binding precedent, what constitutes "physical possession" for these sort of purposes?

For as long as I can remember the Royal Mail (and presumably others followed suit) would only collect a "signature" from somebody at the premises. They made it clear that they did not deliver to a specific person. No steps were ever taken to verify the identity of the person who put an often unreadable squiggle on a hand held device.

Covid muddied the waters as it became the norm to leave packages on a doorstep or in an unlocked porch (or other so called "safe" place). Was the law amended to accommodate this? 

The law hasn’t been amended (as far as I know) because the contract doesn’t work in the way you assume.

The trader is obliged to deliver the goods into the physical possession of the consumer.

Should they use a third party (i.e courier) to perform this obligation and that third party leaves the parcel anywhere other than in the consumer’s physical possession that is the trader’s risk.

I don’t know if it’s been tested and I understand there may be doubt if the consumer opts for a safe place or such but if it was acceptable to dump the goods in the consumer’s garden unattended then the passing of risk clause in the legislation would be pointless as it’s there to protect the consumer for such actions, i.e what happens to the goods before it’s place in the consumer’s hands.

It’s been discussed at length many time but traders could insist their third party seeks ID upon delivery (which can be done as Royal Mail for example will do delivery with age conformation for age restricted products) but it doesn’t happen because of cost.

You may argue you don’t want to pay more but the legislation is what it is and trader either opts for something more expensive to reduce their risk or takes a punt on a cheap service and suffers the risk when problems occur. 

But that is a crucial point. The consumer may well "have opted for that" by agreeing to the seller's terms of business via a tick box or similar...

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

bradrock said:

No nothing. I did get an email the day before saying it would be delivered but only saw that on the day of delivery as I was doing a double shift at work.

So you were told it was coming but didn't check your emails. 

Had you seen the email, what would you have done differently?

The answer to that doesn’t affect OP’s consumer rights (might have saved them some headache), risk passes upon physical possession as manxman said, dumped in the garden is very unlikely to achieve this so letter before action to the actual seller. Depending upon Onbuys wording of their terms OP may have a claim against them also if they offer some kind of guarantee for non-deliveries.

Has it been tested, in a high enough court to set a binding precedent, what constitutes "physical possession" for these sort of purposes?

For as long as I can remember the Royal Mail (and presumably others followed suit) would only collect a "signature" from somebody at the premises. They made it clear that they did not deliver to a specific person. No steps were ever taken to verify the identity of the person who put an often unreadable squiggle on a hand held device.

Covid muddied the waters as it became the norm to leave packages on a doorstep or in an unlocked porch (or other so called "safe" place). Was the law amended to accommodate this? 

The law hasn’t been amended (as far as I know) because the contract doesn’t work in the way you assume.

The trader is obliged to deliver the goods into the physical possession of the consumer.

Should they use a third party (i.e courier) to perform this obligation and that third party leaves the parcel anywhere other than in the consumer’s physical possession that is the trader’s risk.

I don’t know if it’s been tested and I understand there may be doubt if the consumer opts for a safe place or such but if it was acceptable to dump the goods in the consumer’s garden unattended then the passing of risk clause in the legislation would be pointless as it’s there to protect the consumer for such actions, i.e what happens to the goods before it’s place in the consumer’s hands.

It’s been discussed at length many time but traders could insist their third party seeks ID upon delivery (which can be done as Royal Mail for example will do delivery with age conformation for age restricted products) but it doesn’t happen because of cost.

You may argue you don’t want to pay more but the legislation is what it is and trader either opts for something more expensive to reduce their risk or takes a punt on a cheap service and suffers the risk when problems occur. 

But that is a crucial point. The consumer may well "have opted for that" by agreeing to the seller's terms of business via a tick box or similar.

Until this is properly tested it will continue as a series of "try and get away with it" or grudging settlements with customers that make a big fuss. 

98% of the time it sort of works but that is little help if you are one of the unlucky 2% or whatever.

T&Cs can’t contract out consumer rights. The legislation does have an exception, possession of a person named by the consumer, if other exceptions are not stated that means there aren’t any (as far as my understanding goes)... 

I agree with the_lunatic.

The law lays down only two alternatives and neither of those allows the seller to offer a "safe place" option. 

Under s29 the goods remain at the seller's risk until they come into the physical possession of either the consumer or a person identified by the consumer.  Leaving goods in a "safe place" wouldn't satisfy either of the requirements placed on the seller by the legislation, regardless of what the consumer may have ticked.  Both requirements demand delivery into the possession of a person, not a place.

And traders can't evade their liability under the legislation by attempting to get consumers to agree to that evasion.

Of course there's nothing to stop a trader offering a safe place option for either their own or the consumer's convenience, but the trader does so at their own risk, not at the consumer's.

Manxman_in_exile

bradrock said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

bradrock said:

Undervalued said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

bradrock said:

No nothing. I did get an email the day before saying it would be delivered but only saw that on the day of delivery as I was doing a double shift at work.

So you were told it was coming but didn't check your emails. 

Had you seen the email, what would you have done differently?

The answer to that doesn’t affect OP’s consumer rights (might have saved them some headache), risk passes upon physical possession as manxman said, dumped in the garden is very unlikely to achieve this so letter before action to the actual seller. Depending upon Onbuys wording of their terms OP may have a claim against them also if they offer some kind of guarantee for non-deliveries.

Has it been tested, in a high enough court to set a binding precedent, what constitutes "physical possession" for these sort of purposes?

For as long as I can remember the Royal Mail (and presumably others followed suit) would only collect a "signature" from somebody at the premises. They made it clear that they did not deliver to a specific person. No steps were ever taken to verify the identity of the person who put an often unreadable squiggle on a hand held device.

Covid muddied the waters as it became the norm to leave packages on a doorstep or in an unlocked porch (or other so called "safe" place). Was the law amended to accommodate this? 

This thread started with I would get my money back to now I'm not so sure and have lost £400

No.  Under the legislation you are entitled to your refund because the seller hasn't ensured that the shed was delivered into your physical possession.

But the practical difficulty you will face is if the seller says that the goods were delivered to you and points to your "signature" on a piece of paper as proof that they were delivered to you, and that you were physically present.  Then it's your word against the courier's word.

If the shed was delivered at 9:27am do you have evidence that you weren't there at that time?  eg had you clocked on at work, were you with work colleagues, could your manager - or anyone else - give evidence that you were at work at the time etc etc?  If you have a 60 minute commute to work, what time did you arrive at work?

I'm not saying you would necessarily need this evidence to win a case, but if you could provide such evidence it would help your case as it would tend to show that the courier could not possibly have delivered the shed into your physical possession.

With regard to reporting the theft to the police, I'm not sure that that is necessary either, but it might add some weight to your argument that it's been stolen.  As the shed still belongs to the seller you could tell them that you'd be willing to report the theft to the police on their behalf if they want you to do so, and if the police will accept a stolen property report from somebody other than the owner.

The courier providing photos of an unattended shed on a pallett (or whatever) in your garden (how do we even know from the photos that it was your garden?) is not proof it was delivered into your physical possession, even if it is your garden.

Quote to the seller the law I originally linked to in my first post and tell them you want your money back.

Oh I can absolutely prove I was at work from 7am til 4pm on that day probably at least 20 people could verify this no problem if it cam to it.

Then you can provide evidence that would prove you could not have been present when the shed was left in the garden.  Therefore your seller cannot prove that they delivered it into your physical possession.  Therefore they owe you a full refund.

Have you explained this to the seller yet? 

[Edit:  You may need to spell out to them that if they don't refund you and they force you to sue them, then you have 20 witnesses who can tell the court that you were not at home when the goods were delivered.]

bradrock

Manxman_in_exile said:

bradrock said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

bradrock said:

Undervalued said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

bradrock said:

No nothing. I did get an email the day before saying it would be delivered but only saw that on the day of delivery as I was doing a double shift at work.

So you were told it was coming but didn't check your emails. 

Had you seen the email, what would you have done differently?

The answer to that doesn’t affect OP’s consumer rights (might have saved them some headache), risk passes upon physical possession as manxman said, dumped in the garden is very unlikely to achieve this so letter before action to the actual seller. Depending upon Onbuys wording of their terms OP may have a claim against them also if they offer some kind of guarantee for non-deliveries.

Has it been tested, in a high enough court to set a binding precedent, what constitutes "physical possession" for these sort of purposes?

For as long as I can remember the Royal Mail (and presumably others followed suit) would only collect a "signature" from somebody at the premises. They made it clear that they did not deliver to a specific person. No steps were ever taken to verify the identity of the person who put an often unreadable squiggle on a hand held device.

Covid muddied the waters as it became the norm to leave packages on a doorstep or in an unlocked porch (or other so called "safe" place). Was the law amended to accommodate this? 

This thread started with I would get my money back to now I'm not so sure and have lost £400

No.  Under the legislation you are entitled to your refund because the seller hasn't ensured that the shed was delivered into your physical possession.

But the practical difficulty you will face is if the seller says that the goods were delivered to you and points to your "signature" on a piece of paper as proof that they were delivered to you, and that you were physically present.  Then it's your word against the courier's word.

If the shed was delivered at 9:27am do you have evidence that you weren't there at that time?  eg had you clocked on at work, were you with work colleagues, could your manager - or anyone else - give evidence that you were at work at the time etc etc?  If you have a 60 minute commute to work, what time did you arrive at work?

I'm not saying you would necessarily need this evidence to win a case, but if you could provide such evidence it would help your case as it would tend to show that the courier could not possibly have delivered the shed into your physical possession.

With regard to reporting the theft to the police, I'm not sure that that is necessary either, but it might add some weight to your argument that it's been stolen.  As the shed still belongs to the seller you could tell them that you'd be willing to report the theft to the police on their behalf if they want you to do so, and if the police will accept a stolen property report from somebody other than the owner.

The courier providing photos of an unattended shed on a pallett (or whatever) in your garden (how do we even know from the photos that it was your garden?) is not proof it was delivered into your physical possession, even if it is your garden.

Quote to the seller the law I originally linked to in my first post and tell them you want your money back.

Oh I can absolutely prove I was at work from 7am til 4pm on that day probably at least 20 people could verify this no problem if it cam to it.

Then you can provide evidence that would prove you could not have been present when the shed was left in the garden.  Therefore your seller cannot prove that they delivered it into your physical possession.  Therefore they owe you a full refund.

Have you explained this to the seller yet? 

[Edit:  You may need to spell out to them that if they don't refund you and they force you to sue them, then you have 20 witnesses who can tell the court that you were not at home when the goods were delivered.]

Not yet they said yesterday I could have a replacement or refund then today the last message I have off them is that they are providing pictures of it in the garden which they haven't even sent.

So tomorrow I will again ask for a full refund and quote some legislation see where that gets me.