Refused Delivery - Royal Mail Claimed It was delivered

powerful_Rogue

Chippyshell said:

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/

Help others to help you - which one did you purchase from?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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

Just to add, 

https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2019-07/crd_guidance_en_0_updated_0.pdf

5.5.5.   Risk when returning the goods to the trader

The Directive does not regulate who bears the risk for accidental damage or loss during the return of the goods when the consumer withdraws from the contract. Therefore, this matter is also subject to national laws, which may, for example, provide that the risk during the return of the goods lies with the consumer once it is transferred to him or her upon delivery in accordance with Article 20.

In principle, when returning the goods, the consumer should take reasonable care, for example, by choosing an established transport or postal service provider, to ensure that the goods reach the trader and are not damaged in transit.

Where the consumer has never taken physical possession of the goods, e.g. by refusing to take delivery, either without any explicit statement or with a statement to the trader about withdrawal from the contract, the trader would continue bearing the risk of loss or damage since no transfer of risk to the consumer will have taken place according to Article 20.

Article 20 is passing of risk which was in the cancellation regs but was omitted as it appears in the CRA. 

This is obviously guidance rather than law but none-the-less a credible source for one to use to articulate their position. 

born_again

Chippyshell said:

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/

But what is the description on your statement?
New or 2nd hand phones?

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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

Just to add, 

https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2019-07/crd_guidance_en_0_updated_0.pdf

5.5.5.   Risk when returning the goods to the trader

The Directive does not regulate who bears the risk for accidental damage or loss during the return of the goods when the consumer withdraws from the contract. Therefore, this matter is also subject to national laws, which may, for example, provide that the risk during the return of the goods lies with the consumer once it is transferred to him or her upon delivery in accordance with Article 20.

In principle, when returning the goods, the consumer should take reasonable care, for example, by choosing an established transport or postal service provider, to ensure that the goods reach the trader and are not damaged in transit.

Where the consumer has never taken physical possession of the goods, e.g. by refusing to take delivery, either without any explicit statement or with a statement to the trader about withdrawal from the contract, the trader would continue bearing the risk of loss or damage since no transfer of risk to the consumer will have taken place according to Article 20.

Article 20 is passing of risk which was in the cancellation regs but was omitted as it appears in the CRA. 

This is obviously guidance rather than law but none-the-less a credible source for one to use to articulate their position. 

Just out of curiosity, if the above was omitted from the CRA, as we are no longer bound by EU directives - How would the OP stand relying on this?

Chippyshell

born_again said:

Chippyshell said:

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/

But what is the description on your statement?
New or 2nd hand phones?

Just to clarify, the vendiapp directs to shop.vendiapp when you purchase. The statement doesnt state "new" just says the below:

Apple iPhone 14 Pro

Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max

powerful_Rogue

From looking at both sites, does appear this is some kind of 'ebay'.

The Marketplace

For New And

Refurbished Tech

Buy and sell the best quality products at
the best prices in the secondary market

Once you purchase the product, the seller sends it to us for in-hand verification and then we send it to you. This process can take 2-4 working days on average. On rare occasions it may take longer.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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

Just to add, 

https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2019-07/crd_guidance_en_0_updated_0.pdf

5.5.5.   Risk when returning the goods to the trader

The Directive does not regulate who bears the risk for accidental damage or loss during the return of the goods when the consumer withdraws from the contract. Therefore, this matter is also subject to national laws, which may, for example, provide that the risk during the return of the goods lies with the consumer once it is transferred to him or her upon delivery in accordance with Article 20.

In principle, when returning the goods, the consumer should take reasonable care, for example, by choosing an established transport or postal service provider, to ensure that the goods reach the trader and are not damaged in transit.

Where the consumer has never taken physical possession of the goods, e.g. by refusing to take delivery, either without any explicit statement or with a statement to the trader about withdrawal from the contract, the trader would continue bearing the risk of loss or damage since no transfer of risk to the consumer will have taken place according to Article 20.

Article 20 is passing of risk which was in the cancellation regs but was omitted as it appears in the CRA. 

This is obviously guidance rather than law but none-the-less a credible source for one to use to articulate their position. 

Just out of curiosity, if the above was omitted from the CRA, as we are no longer bound by EU directives - How would the OP stand relying on this?

It's was omitted from the cancellation regs due to duplication in the CRA 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/1/chapter/2/crossheading/other-rules-about-goods-contracts

So still part of our legislation  

I believe EU laws in place at the time we "left" still apply under retained law and we are awaiting what the media dubs as the "bonfire of EU laws" but I'm not up on the specifics. 

tightauldgit

HillStreetBlues said:

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.

It doesn't seem necessarily that they would have if they are following the logic put in this decision. Had they returned the item in line with any terms and the courier lost it then this ombudsman could just have easily decided that since the seller didn't receive it then it wasn't properly returned and no refund was due.

 

Chippyshell

tightauldgit said:

HillStreetBlues said:

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.

It doesn't seem necessarily that they would have if they are following the logic put in this decision. Had they returned the item in line with any terms and the courier lost it then this ombudsman could just have easily decided that since the seller didn't receive it then it wasn't properly returned and no refund was due.

 

The terms and conditions are slighlty confusing though they dont match the main website, ie when you go to the shop it changes. I would also state that in the above case they look at the courier terms of service which states you CAN NOT refuse a delivery of a parcel. However Royal Mail terms clearly state you can. Im probably coping hard but i guess ill have to just see the outcome.

My logic suggests although probably wrong, the terms of service apply to the courier when they have the risk hence why you can buy insured deliverys etc.. 

tightauldgit

Chippyshell said:

tightauldgit said:

HillStreetBlues said:

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.

It doesn't seem necessarily that they would have if they are following the logic put in this decision. Had they returned the item in line with any terms and the courier lost it then this ombudsman could just have easily decided that since the seller didn't receive it then it wasn't properly returned and no refund was due.

 

The terms and conditions are slighlty confusing though they dont match the main website, ie when you go to the shop it changes. I would also state that in the above case they look at the courier terms of service which states you CAN NOT refuse a delivery of a parcel. However Royal Mail terms clearly state you can. Im probably coping hard but i guess ill have to just see the outcome.

My logic suggests although probably wrong, the terms of service apply to the courier when they have the risk hence why you can buy insured deliverys etc.. 

Yeah my point was more that this ombudsman seems to simply be making things up as they go along without reference to the law. 

I don't see how any courier can bind anyone to accept a delivery - legally the terms and conditions are for customers of the courier which is the sender not the recipient and logically of course I can't bind anyone to accept a parcel simply by sending it to them using a courier that won't accept refusals.

If I send you a box full of drugs, poisonous biting insects, dog poo or all three then you are free to say no thanks I don't want that. 

This ombudsman seems very confused even saying things like the customer can claim against the courier forgetting that the recipient is not the customer and doesn't make a claim for loss.