Delivery left with neighbour I HATE!

Manxman_in_exile

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.

I think CAB are giving a misleading message there - perhaps because they've over-simplified the legal position? 

I didn't refer to para (2)(b) of s29 in my earlier post because it's not relevant to this thread, but what it says is:

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

That wording seems quite clear and specific to me.  If a courier cannot deliver goods into the physical possession of the consumer, then the goods must be delivered to (i) a person (ii) identified by the consumer in order for risk to transfer to the consumer.

Contrary to what CAB seem to be saying, (i) the trader cannot fulfill the requirements of s29 simply by leaving the goods at "... other places for delivery, like your porch or a neighbour’s house... " and (ii) neither can the trader make the consumer agree to T&Cs that allow that.  Only if the goods are left with a person identified by the consumer does a trader transfer risk when the consumer is not at home. 

Regarding Amazon's delivery information where it says that if the consumer is not at home then the courier will "... leave it in your preferred safe place or a secure location, or deliver to a neighbour", then neither (i) leaving the goods in a "safe place or a secure loacation" nor (ii) delivering to a neighbour, satsify the conditions of s29(2)(b).  Neither of them is a person identified by the consumer.  And Amazon can't make the consumer agree to such terms.

Looking at it from a purely pragmatic point of view, I suspect that couriers leaving items in "safe" places or with non-identified neighbours works perfectly satisfactorily 99.9% of the time, and is to the advantage and convenience of both consumers and traders.

But just because it's "better" and more convenient overall for everybody when everything works properly, doesn't mean that the strict legal requirements should be ignored when something goes wrong to the disadvantage of the consumer.

[Edit:  As @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head has already pointed out, the position is different if the consumer specifically chose a courier not offered as an option by the trader]

Undervalued

Bradden said:

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.

I too would be interested to know to what extent (if at all) this has been tested in a high enough court to set a precedent.

How literal is "physical possession of the consumer"?

What about a small package put through the letterbox?

What if the package is handed to the consumer's wife / husband?

To what extent (if at all) should the courier check the identity of whoever opens the door?

Or, does the "physical possession" include leaving it in a place the consumer has specified?

The Royal Mail's terms and conditions make very clear that they deliver signed for / special delivery mail to an address and not to a specific person.

Edit....

M in exile above helpfully gives a fuller quote....

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

but how must this "identified" person be arranged?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Undervalued said:

Bradden said:

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.

I too would be interested to know to what extent (if at all) this has been tested in a high enough court to set a precedent.

How literal is "physical possession of the consumer"?

What about a small package put through the letterbox?

What if the package is handed to the consumer's wife / husband?

To what extent (if at all) should the courier check the identity of whoever opens the door?

Or, does the "physical possession" include leaving it in a place the consumer has specified?

The Royal Mail's terms and conditions make very clear that they deliver signed for / special delivery mail to an address and not to a specific person.

Edit....

M in exile above helpfully gives a fuller quote....

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

but how must this "identified" person be arranged?

What you'll notice about the passing of risk section is that it does not mention a carrier in relation to the trader this is because the principle is:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/28/enacted

Unless the trader and the consumer have agreed otherwise, the contract is to be treated as including a term that the trader must deliver the goods to the consumer.

Deliver does not mean use a courier as we typically expect with a distance purchase, it simply means deliver from the trader's hands to the consumer's. 

Therefore if the trader uses a third party the trader has a choice to pick one that meets their obligations under the legislation or take the risk (and ultimately cost) of using one that doesn't.

Technically not delivering to a letterbox, or partner and checking ID is all possibly to achieve but is not currently done in order to cut cost, for balance it does equally create some convenience for consumers.

I understand that the specific term of physical possession could be applied more broadly to include the examples you've mentioned were it to be reviewed by a high enough court but the most important thing to note here is that currently the couriers offer a sub par service, they cut corners wherever they can to get the job done as cheaply as possibly. 

Sure you can say consumers want low prices but we are currently facing very high levels of inflation and people are still busy spending money, what it would have cost for couriers to pay workers a decent wage to keep regular staff who take care in their job (rather than the current situation of paying pennies per drop to push delivery staff to go as fast as possible) if put in place say 5 years ago would be little compared to the increase in costs we are all currently facing. 

If the intent of the legislation were to be applied more broadly that would be more apt for today's online shopping environment but IMO it should come hand in hand with regulation for any company conducting business as a courier to ensure that cutting corners to drive profits isn't at the significant detriment of consumers. 

It's a small step from put through the letter box to left on the doorstep and I'm sure anyone posting here wouldn't be happy if their parcel was left outside unattended but a review of the law meant it was tough luck someone had pinched it.

Look at the private parking companies with their racket going on, not sure how they got away with it but the high court allowed them to basically issue a penalty, which is prohibited in consumer contracts, and the private parking companies are certainly not known for their integrity. Anyone here think courier companies are any different? 

Manxman_in_exile

Undervalued said:

Bradden said:

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.

I too would be interested to know to what extent (if at all) this has been tested in a high enough court to set a precedent..

I doubt a case on this would ever reach the Court of Appeal so there will probably never be a precedent.

Undervalued said:

Bradden said:

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.

How literal is "physical possession of the consumer"?

Fair question.  But I'd suggest that in the absence of the consumer then leaving in a "safe place", in a porch, in the garden, on the doorstep, on a drive or in the street is clearly not in the consumer's physical possession. 

I think "physical possession" implies physical delivery to the address specified by the consumer, or delivery into the hands of the consumer, or that the consumer is present at delivery.  If the consumer is not at home and the delivery is too large to go through a letter-box, then it can only be left with a person previously identified by the consumer.  Not just any old neighbour.

Undervalued said:

Bradden said:

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.

How literal is "physical possession of the consumer"?

What about a small package put through the letterbox?  [Answer:  I would say that qualifies as physical possession if it's the address given for delivery by the consumer]

What if the package is handed to the consumer's wife / husband?  [Answer:  Too difficult!  I suspect a court might say that was OK, but I think it would depend on the facts and why there was an issue regarding delivery]

To what extent (if at all) should the courier check the identity of whoever opens the door?  [Answer:  Too difficult!  I suspect a court might say that was OK, but again I think it would depend on the facts and why there was an issue regarding delivery]

Or, does the "physical possession" include leaving it in a place the consumer has specified?  [Answer: Again I think it depends on exactly what the facts are.  If for example the specified place was inside a locker in the consumer's porch, and that locker could only be accessed by PIN, I would call that physical possession.  But if the place was outside the Gents' toilets on platform 2 at Euston, probably not.]  

The Royal Mail's terms and conditions make very clear that they deliver signed for / special delivery mail to an address and not to a specific person.  [ Answer:  As above, if it's delivered to the address given by the consumer then I think it qualifies as physical possession]

Manxman_in_exile

Undervalued said:

but how must this "identified" person be arranged?

but how must this "identified" person be arranged?

By the consumer informing the trader.

eg "If I'm not in leave with my neighbour at number 38"


[Sorry - had to add this as a separate post because the quote function on this forum is not fit for purpose.  Like a lot of the other functions...]

Money_Grabber13579

Bradden said:

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.

My only point is that when a respective organisation like Citizens Advice states something that is different, that shows that there isn’t consensus. I’ve no doubt that Citizens Advice can get it wrong on occasion and agree that the words you have highlighted seem to be clear but I’m not sure that anyone can be 100% certain that this is the position which would be adopted by the courts if it were ever challenged. 

diinozzo

I get parcels regularly in my name delivered to my mother in law's address...so can I claim for non delivery to me?

Royal Mail delivers to an address...not a person.

To my knowledge no courier delivers to a specific named person...only an address

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

diinozzo said:

I get parcels regularly in my name delivered to my mother in law's address...so can I claim for non delivery to me?

Royal Mail delivers to an address...not a person.

To my knowledge no courier delivers to a specific named person...only an address

Why, is your MIL not passing the parcels on to you? If not is she happy for the retailer to chase her for the money for the goods? 

It's not an excuse to make for false claims of non-delivery, it's a question of if something happens to the goods before risk passes and if your MIL dropped a parcel and broke the contents or simply lost it then that is technically under the trader's risk (to the letter of the legislation) but for you it would raise a question of whether the trader has a claim against MIL which obviously neither of you want.

Manxman_in_exile

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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 said:

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).

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head -  for clarification and my own education, have you got an authority for that?  Is it in the legislation or is it a common law power of the court or what?

HillStreetBlues

Manxman_in_exile said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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 said:

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).

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head -  for clarification and my own education, have you got an authority for that?  Is it in the legislation or is it a common law power of the court or what?

ECJ ruled that is the case (while we were still in the EU)
https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/courts-must-assess-unfair-terms-in-consumer-contracts-says-ecj