Refused Delivery - Royal Mail Claimed It was delivered

Chippyshell

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Okell said:

For the purposes of a s75 claim, I suspect the OP's card provider would argue that by both refusing delivery and merely informing the seller that they had done so, the OP has not fully complied with reg 32(3)(b), and therefore has not cancelled the contract under reg 19.

I think anybody who wants to exercise their right to cancel a contract under the CCRs should always make it 100% clear to the seller that that is what they are doing.

Just refusing delivery is asking for trouble...

Even without cancelling the contract risk lies with the trader until delivery, delivery of goods under the CRA entitles the consumer to treat the contract at an end if delivery doesn't occur after 1 failed attempt and again requesting a new date (I appreciate OP may not have given a new date but still could and I doubt the trader is going to deliver).

born_again said:

That looks like a ebay type marketplace.
So You have to wonder if they were genuine UK phones. Given "The phones had just came out" or someone selling on at a premium.

There really is nothing on their site about the returns process.
Nothing on companies house either.
Just looks like a office building, not a physical shop on google maps. Appears 129 companies listed at that address.

The site says the phone is sent to them for inspection and they then send it to the buyer, claiming the buyer should claim off the courier if it's damaged in transit. 

There's no indication (on the site at least) who you are buying from.

@born_again any thoughts on whether S75 applies?  


OP do you have copies of the emails sent during purchase, dispatch, etc.

Any address of anther party given? 


Regarding the terms of returns, they don't override the regs so could say anything and it wouldn't affect the position. 

No other party was given, just a normal confirmation email along with the "insured" postage details

Alderbank

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Regarding the terms of returns, they don't override the regs so could say anything and it wouldn't affect the position. 

Indeed, so even if the bank rejects an s27 claim that is not the end of the road.

The OP still has their statutory rights independently against both their bank and the retailer. 

HillStreetBlues

I think the Ombudsman's decision below can show the pitfall of refusing a delivery.
DRN-3997428.pdf

Chippyshell

HillStreetBlues said:

I think the Ombudsman's decision below can show the pitfall of refusing a delivery.
DRN-3997428.pdf

Interesting read thanks for that - Where can i find these?

Edit: Found it

tightauldgit

HillStreetBlues said:

I think the Ombudsman's decision below can show the pitfall of refusing a delivery.
DRN-3997428.pdf

Have to say that reads like a fairly terrible decision with all sorts of incorrect/irrelevant content - I wonder if the applicant hadn't made a very good job of explaining their case to the ombudsman or whether the ombudsman is just being deliberately obtuse.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

HillStreetBlues said:

I think the Ombudsman's decision below can show the pitfall of refusing a delivery.
DRN-3997428.pdf

Interesting read.  

There have been great debates on this board regarding passing of risk and when it occurs.

The ombudsman in this instance specifically mentions delivery to the customer's address whilst noting the parcel was left on the door step and the courier was called back (presumably from the drive way) to take it away and is taking the view that the parcel being placed on the step means passing of risk occurring.

There was some guidance stating refusing delivery means risk hasn't passed, I'll see if I can find it. 

HillStreetBlues

tightauldgit said:

Have to say that reads like a fairly terrible decision with all sorts of incorrect/irrelevant content - I wonder if the applicant hadn't made a very good job of explaining their case to the ombudsman or whether the ombudsman is just being deliberately obtuse.

I'm sure there will be decisions upheld in cases like that one.

Had Mr W  followed the laid down T&C of a return, then I expect every ombudsman would have found in his favour.

Chippyshell

The Royal Mail terms and conditions also state:

2.9 Subject to clause 2.11, if we are unable to deliver an Item or an Item is refused, provided it has a
Payment Mark on it and the return address is clear on the cover or envelope, we will return the Item
to that address (if the return address is not clear then we will deal with the Item at our absolute
discretion)

so slighlty different to the case above where i think its UPS from the sounds of it

born_again

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said

There's no indication (on the site at least) who you are buying from.

@born_again any thoughts on whether S75 applies?  


OP do you have copies of the emails sent during purchase, dispatch, etc.

Any address of anther party given? 


Regarding the terms of returns, they don't override the regs so could say anything and it wouldn't affect the position. 

As I said previously I do not think it does.

Can OP confirm how the debit is shown on statement. 

Were these both new phones?

As previously, this looks like nothing more than a selling platform, rather than a retailer selling a product.

Chippyshell

born_again said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said

There's no indication (on the site at least) who you are buying from.

@born_again any thoughts on whether S75 applies?  


OP do you have copies of the emails sent during purchase, dispatch, etc.

Any address of anther party given? 


Regarding the terms of returns, they don't override the regs so could say anything and it wouldn't affect the position. 

As I said previously I do not think it does.

Can OP confirm how the debit is shown on statement. 

Were these both new phones?

As previously, this looks like nothing more than a selling platform, rather than a retailer selling a product.

They have both

https://shop.vendiapp.com

and

https://vendiapp.com/