My mistake, sent return to wrong company, where do I stand?

DANHOW1

Hi, 

I bought some trainers from Jules B that didn't fit. Using Royal Mail returns I stupidly returned them to Joules (you select company name from a list & I'm an idiot) 

Joules took delivery of return but they have since lost them. 

Do i have any rights here?

Many Thanks. 

PHK

Not really. You could try Joules but they have no obligation to return unsolicited goods and it would be hard to prove they'd acted unreasonably.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

OP my understanding is that Joules have become an involuntary bailee of the goods and as such have a duty to take reasonable care of them and notify the person they belong to that they have them in their possession (was there any paperwork linking you to the goods?)

You may have a claim for damages against them. 

Whilst the goods were "unsolicited" that doesn't relieve them of their obligations as far as I'm aware, there is separate legislation making it an offence for someone to send unsolicited goods by way of trade or business and make a demand or proposes a right to payment for the goods, but that obviously doesn't apply to you. 

How much were the trainers? 

PHK

But there is a reasonability test as well, which is why I think it very unlikely that the OP would be able to show unreasonableness. 

However, if the OP demands the cost of the goods then I think that would be unreasonable and could be argued to be an offence. (Though I doubt it would come to that)

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

PHK said:

But there is a reasonability test as well, which is why I think it very unlikely that the OP would be able to show unreasonableness. 

However, if the OP demands the cost of the goods then I think that would be unreasonable and could be argued to be an offence. (Though I doubt it would come to that)

(I presume) OP isn't a trader or business dealing in shoes so can't commit an offence. 

When you say "unreasonable " are you referring to something specific related to the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977? Or something else such as the small claims process in general? 

DANHOW1

Thanks for replies. 

I'm not a not a trader, just regular consumer. 

Trainers were £140

I have the tracking and proof of delivery. Joules said they had taken delivery but have since been unable to locate in their warehouse. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

I would send them an email along the lines of

Dear Joules 

Whilst I appreciate the inconvenience and logistical difficulties of your warehouse receiving an unexpected parcel of goods in error, as an involuntary bailee there is a duty of care placed upon yourselves towards such goods and an obligation to trace the owner if possible and make those goods available for collection.

I'm happy to book a Royal Mail collection to retrieve the goods from your warehouse or, if it is more practical, for you to return the goods to me and I shall reimburse you for the cost of the courier.

I would be most grateful if the goods may be located and this situation brought to an amicable resolve.

Thank you in advance,
Sincerely 
DANHOW1

Beyond pestering them you have the option to send a letter before action requesting the return of the goods or their value (either templates on Google or some firms will send these for a fee of around £2-£20). 

Small claims is an option, the filing fee is £35 and they may buckle at any point but I don't think anyone here can say how it would turn out. In my armature opinion you'd win, I can't say whether the court would award costs (which by the point of a hearing could be close to £100) and of course there is the time and headache that comes with the process. 

Being polite and persistent whilst asserting they have an obligation to make the goods available for your collection is probably the best avenue to go down with all fingers tightly crossed   

DANHOW1

This is great thanks very much! 

Alderbank

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

PHK said:

But there is a reasonability test as well, which is why I think it very unlikely that the OP would be able to show unreasonableness. 

However, if the OP demands the cost of the goods then I think that would be unreasonable and could be argued to be an offence. (Though I doubt it would come to that)

(I presume) OP isn't a trader or business dealing in shoes so can't commit an offence. 

When you say "unreasonable " are you referring to something specific related to the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977? Or something else such as the small claims process in general? 

I think PHK is referring to the Unsolicited Goods & Services Act 1971. This is not specifically consumer law so applies to anyone sending unsolicited items to a business.
It is indeed a criminal offence under the act to demand the cost of goods, but as usual in criminal law it would be necessary to show criminal intent which is of course not the case with this simple mistake.

Returns are a big issue for the online clothing industry, at least 30% of orders are returned. ParcelForce will deliver several sacks of returns to Joules's depot every working day.
I think your excellent model letter for the OP to send to Joules should include an offer to pay their reasonable costs for searching for and retrieving that unsolicited pair of trainers identified only by their non-existent order number. I would budget for someone from head office to have to go down to the warehouse for at least half a day.

Whatever the outcome, the OP might be pushed to return the goods to Jules B within their allowed 30 day time slot for a change of mind refund. I think the OP should contact them, explain the situation and get agreement that they will refund even if the goods are returned later than 30 days, otherwise the exercise of writing to Joules offering to pay seems to be of limited value.

screech_78

Funnily enough, we’ve recently had a case like this go to small claims. 

A customer returned a laptop to us instead of Curry’s. We couldn’t locate it as it should go to unallocated stock (in the absence of a valid order number) but couldn’t be found. 

Went all the way as our team thought we had a good chance of defending it. Judge decided that customer should get 75% of the cost back. They felt that the customer had made the mistake however we should have better processes in place for things like this. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Alderbank said:

I think PHK is referring to the Unsolicited Goods & Services Act 1971. This is not specifically consumer law so applies to anyone sending unsolicited items to a business.
It is indeed a criminal offence under the act to demand the cost of goods, but as usual in criminal law it would be necessary to show criminal intent which is of course not the case with this simple mistake.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/30

2Demands and threats regarding payment.

(1)A person who, not having reasonable cause to believe there is a right to payment, in the course of any trade or business makes a demand for payment, or asserts a present or prospective right to payment, for what he knows are unsolicited goods sent (after the commencement of this Act) to another person with a view to his acquiring them [F2for the purposes of his trade or business], shall be guilty of an offence and on summary conviction shall be liable to a fine not exceeding [F3level 4 on the standard scale].

(2)A person who, not having reasonable cause to believe there is a right to payment, in the course of any trade or business and with a view to obtaining any payment for what he knows are unsolicited goods sent as aforesaid—

(a)threatens to bring any legal proceedings; or

(b)places or causes to be placed the name of any person on a list of defaulters or debtors or threatens to do so; or

(c)invokes or causes to be invoked any other collection procedure or threatens to do so,shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F3level 5 on the standard scale].

So section 2 of the Act doesn't apply to those such as the OP who aren't acting in their trade or business, I don't think the rest of the Act applies to this type of situation either.  

Alderbank said:

I think your excellent model letter for the OP to send to Joules should include an offer to pay their reasonable costs for searching for and retrieving that unsolicited pair of trainers identified only by their non-existent order number. I would budget for someone from head office to have to go down to the warehouse for at least half a day.

I don't think such costs are claimable as the staff are there any way and when a parcel came in to returns that wasn't associated with their company rather than becoming "lost" it should have been handed to management or such so that it could be dealt with (i.e having to search for the parcel isn't a cost the company have mitigated)  

screech_78 said:

Funnily enough, we’ve recently had a case like this go to small claims. 

A customer returned a laptop to us instead of Curry’s. We couldn’t locate it as it should go to unallocated stock (in the absence of a valid order number) but couldn’t be found. 

Went all the way as our team thought we had a good chance of defending it. Judge decided that customer should get 75% of the cost back. They felt that the customer had made the mistake however we should have better processes in place for things like this. 

Interesting, you don't know if the customer was awarded costs by any chance?