Delivery left with neighbour I HATE!

Jimmy_Boy

I emailed the seller on Amazon, and they responded very well I believe.
"We are sorry for the inconvenience caused and already emailed Hermes to collect the parcel and redeliver it to you. Would you please wait additional three business days for the response from Hermes or the redelivery? If the parcel can be redelivered within 3 business days, we can send you a replacement by DPD or issue a full refund on your order."

Manxman_in_exile

Well that's really good customer service.

Well done.

sheramber

or the redelivery? 

Hope that is not to the same neighbour.

goater78

Jimmy_Boy said:

I emailed the seller on Amazon, and they responded very well I believe.
"We are sorry for the inconvenience caused and already emailed Hermes to collect the parcel and redeliver it to you. Would you please wait additional three business days for the response from Hermes or the redelivery? If the parcel can be redelivered within 3 business days, we can send you a replacement by DPD or issue a full refund on your order."

The Hermes driver who picks up the parcel and then walks upstairs to your flat and hands the parcel over is going to wonder why you didn't do this yourself :

Belenus

goater78 said:

Jimmy_Boy said:

I emailed the seller on Amazon, and they responded very well I believe.
"We are sorry for the inconvenience caused and already emailed Hermes to collect the parcel and redeliver it to you. Would you please wait additional three business days for the response from Hermes or the redelivery? If the parcel can be redelivered within 3 business days, we can send you a replacement by DPD or issue a full refund on your order."

The Hermes driver who picks up the parcel and then walks upstairs to your flat and hands the parcel over is going to wonder why you didn't do this yourself :

The courier may knock on the door and get no answer because the occupant is out or the occupant may refuse to hand over the exercise bike.

Money_Grabber13579

I know many people on here say that goods have to be delivered to the person who ordered them otherwise they remain the responsibility of the seller.

Citizens Advice seem to have a different view:

Your item was delivered by a courier

Check your terms and conditions or account details - they might include other places for delivery, like your porch or a neighbour’s house. If you agreed to them, it’s not the seller’s responsibility if your order has gone missing.

Someone earlier posted Amazon’s T&C’s which said they would deliver to you, a safe place or a neighbour, which you will have to agree to before ordering. The above would suggest that if it’s delivered to a neighbour, and that was in the T&C’s, it’s not the sellers responsibility after delivery so I’m not sure it’s as black and white as some make it out to be.

Bradden

Money_Grabber13579 said:

I know many people on here say that goods have to be delivered to the person who ordered them otherwise they remain the responsibility of the seller.

Citizens Advice seem to have a different view:

Your item was delivered by a courier

Check your terms and conditions or account details - they might include other places for delivery, like your porch or a neighbour’s house. If you agreed to them, it’s not the seller’s responsibility if your order has gone missing.

Someone earlier posted Amazon’s T&C’s which said they would deliver to you, a safe place or a neighbour, which you will have to agree to before ordering. The above would suggest that if it’s delivered to a neighbour, and that was in the T&C’s, it’s not the sellers responsibility after delivery so I’m not sure it’s as black and white as some make it out to be.

This has already been covered. 

s29 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) makes the seller responsible for the goods until they come into the physical possession of the consumer.  There's no mention of discharging that responsibility by leaving the goods with a neighbour or in a safe place.

And s31 of the same Act says that the seller's responsibilities can't be excluded or restricted by any contractual T&Cs.

So if a seller wants to use a courier who they know will leave goods with a neighbour or in a safe place when they shouldn't do, then the seller does so at their own risk.

born_again

Bradden said:

This has already been covered. 

s29 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) makes the seller responsible for the goods until they come into the physical possession of the consumer.  There's no mention of discharging that responsibility by leaving the goods with a neighbour or in a safe place.

And s31 of the same Act says that the seller's responsibilities can't be excluded or restricted by any contractual T&Cs.

So if a seller wants to use a courier who they know will leave goods with a neighbour or in a safe place when they shouldn't do, then the seller does so at their own risk.

Not disagreeing. But has this been tested in court?
Would be a interesting challenge by retailer & courier that a customer agreed to T/C which state " leaving the goods with a neighbour or in a safe place"

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

born_again said:

Bradden said:

This has already been covered. 

s29 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) makes the seller responsible for the goods until they come into the physical possession of the consumer.  There's no mention of discharging that responsibility by leaving the goods with a neighbour or in a safe place.

And s31 of the same Act says that the seller's responsibilities can't be excluded or restricted by any contractual T&Cs.

So if a seller wants to use a courier who they know will leave goods with a neighbour or in a safe place when they shouldn't do, then the seller does so at their own risk.

Not disagreeing. But has this been tested in court?
Would be a interesting challenge by retailer & courier that a customer agreed to T/C which state " leaving the goods with a neighbour or in a safe place"

For unfair terms there is a Grey List and a Black List, the Grey List is covered by Schedule 2 of the CRA and details terms which may be unfair.

The Black List is terms which are unfair because the legislation deems it so, Section 31 of the CRA details Liability that cannot be excluded or restricted and details a long list of parts of the Act regarding the supply of goods including:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/31/enacted

1)A term of a contract to supply goods is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would exclude or restrict the trader’s liability arising under any of these provisions—

(k)section 29 (passing of risk).

It's worth a note that Passing of Risk includes the following:

(3)Subsection (2) does not apply if the goods are delivered to a carrier who—

(a)is commissioned by the consumer to deliver the goods, and

(b)is not a carrier the trader named as an option for the consumer.

This is a pretty fair balance, risk remains with the trader (until physical possession) if they use their carrier, if the consumer uses their carrier or requests a specific carrier the trader does not typically use (not named) this risk passes when the carrier takes possession. 

Whilst there has been many debates here on the subject and the consumer requesting delivery to a safe place or neighbour may create a grey area of doubt in this instance the neighbour was clearly not specified by the OP and as such the terms of carrier or the trader do not supersede the legislation  

Worth a side note the court is obligated to assess the fairness of a term even if the consumer (or any party really) doesn't raise the question of fairness. 

Jenni_D

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

born_again said:

Bradden said:

This has already been covered. 

s29 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) makes the seller responsible for the goods until they come into the physical possession of the consumer.  There's no mention of discharging that responsibility by leaving the goods with a neighbour or in a safe place.

And s31 of the same Act says that the seller's responsibilities can't be excluded or restricted by any contractual T&Cs.

So if a seller wants to use a courier who they know will leave goods with a neighbour or in a safe place when they shouldn't do, then the seller does so at their own risk.

Not disagreeing. But has this been tested in court?
Would be a interesting challenge by retailer & courier that a customer agreed to T/C which state " leaving the goods with a neighbour or in a safe place"

For unfair terms there is a Grey List and a Black List, the Grey List is covered by Schedule 2 of the CRA and details terms which may be unfair.

The Black List is terms which are unfair because the legislation deems it so, Section 31 of the CRA details Liability that cannot be excluded or restricted and details a long list of parts of the Act regarding the supply of goods including:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/31/enacted

1)A term of a contract to supply goods is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would exclude or restrict the trader’s liability arising under any of these provisions—

(k)section 29 (passing of risk).

It's worth a note that Passing of Risk includes the following:

(3)Subsection (2) does not apply if the goods are delivered to a carrier who—

(a)is commissioned by the consumer to deliver the goods, and

(b)is not a carrier the trader named as an option for the consumer.

This is a pretty fair balance, risk remains with the trader (until physical possession) if they use their carrier, if the consumer uses their carrier or requests a specific carrier the trader does not typically use (not named) this risk passes when the carrier takes possession. 

Whilst there has been many debates here on the subject and the consumer requesting delivery to a safe place or neighbour may create a grey area of doubt in this instance the neighbour was clearly not specified by the OP and as such the terms of carrier or the trader do not supersede the legislation  

Worth a side note the court is obligated to assess the fairness of a term even if the consumer (or any party really) doesn't raise the question of fairness. 

Spot on. Unfortunately most judges aren't even aware of this. (We see this a lot re. court claims in the Parking board).