Stolen parcel left unattended by Royal Mail

Undervalued

Okell said:

Teacholic said:

...Royal Mail  Laine sit delivered and have a photo of a parcel being held in front of  my door number and doors being closed/shut...

Assuming the photo doesn't show the OP or somebody they had identified holding it (and I presume they are saying it doesn't) then @tightauldgit is right and it's the seller's responsibility to sort this out.

s29(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) says:

"29  Passing of risk

(1)A sales contract is to be treated as including the following provisions as terms.

(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 for emphasis]

I don't think the photo the OP describes proves delivery into their possession.  There's really no point couriers taking photos in front of closed doors as unless the photo also shows the consumer it doesn't prove delivery into the consumer's physical possession.

This has been discussed endlessly on here in many past threads. 

The Royal Mail (and as far as I know all of the main "normal" couriers) deliver to an address and not to a named person. That is certainly made clear in the RM's terms and conditions.

So this is a bit of a catch 22 as far as "the physical possession of the consumer" is concerned. As far as I remember nobody has been able to cite a legal precedent that defines what exactly that term means! Equally I am not aware of any county court judgements which, although not strictly binding on other cases, would give a bit of a guide.

Obviously a courier that will repeatedly come back until the right person is at home and check their ID (which is not a legal obligation to have!) is going to be far more expensive than most people are willing to pay.

RefluentBeans

Undervalued said:

Okell said:

Teacholic said:

...Royal Mail  Laine sit delivered and have a photo of a parcel being held in front of  my door number and doors being closed/shut...

Assuming the photo doesn't show the OP or somebody they had identified holding it (and I presume they are saying it doesn't) then @tightauldgit is right and it's the seller's responsibility to sort this out.

s29(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) says:

"29  Passing of risk

(1)A sales contract is to be treated as including the following provisions as terms.

(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 for emphasis]

I don't think the photo the OP describes proves delivery into their possession.  There's really no point couriers taking photos in front of closed doors as unless the photo also shows the consumer it doesn't prove delivery into the consumer's physical possession.

This has been discussed endlessly on here in many past threads. 

The Royal Mail (and as far as I know all of the main "normal" couriers) deliver to an address and not to a named person. That is certainly made clear in the RM's terms and conditions.

So this is a bit of a catch 22 as far as "the physical possession of the consumer" is concerned. As far as I remember nobody has been able to cite a legal precedent that defines what exactly that term means! Equally I am not aware of any county court judgements which, although not strictly binding on other cases, would give a bit of a guide.

Obviously a courier that will repeatedly come back until the right person is at home and check their ID (which is not a legal obligation to have!) is going to be far more expensive than most people are willing to pay.

Yeah I have to say I agree with this. I think clarification needs to happen in the courts. We have seen on this board people who reject the delivery after handling the package. To me that should be allowed - how do you know it’s a parcel you want to reject without handling it. 

The term ‘physical possession’ is up for debate as well. I’m not entirely sure when things gets stolen off a porch who should be responsible. My gut says it should be shared between the consumer and the delivery agent. I don’t think the risk should be to the retailer in all honesty. But I don’t think it should be entirely on the consumer either. I think the consumer has to take some responsibility as it’s on their property. Like how does safe spaces and nominated locations work? They’re not in the physical possession of the consumer and they’re not with a nominated ‘person’, so by that logic if you say leave it in my porch, and then the item gets stolen, you’re not held at all responsible. 

Okell

@Undervalued and @RefluentBeans -  I don't see the relevance of any T&Cs used either by RM or any other carriers*.

The wording of the legislation is quite clear: "... the goods remain at the trader's risk until they come into the physical possession of... the consumer..."

I can't imagine that anybody could seriously argue that leaving an unattended parcel or package on somebody's doorstep would satisy the above condition, and I'm pretty certain that a court would not entertain the idea either.  If the legislature had intended that leaving a parcel unattended on a doorstep would suffice, I think they would have said so in as many words rather than use the phrase "physical possession".

Regarding the practice of leaving deliveries in " a safe place", I'd suggest that this does not satisfy the seller's responsibility under the legislation either.  (Personally I would never nominate a safe place for delivery, I would only identify a named individual).

So far as I'm aware the proposition that RM deliver to an address rather than an individual means no more than that they will post letters through the relevant letterbox and that they won't insist on delivery into the hands of a named addressee**.  It doesn't mean that they can fulfil their obligation to deliver mail safely just by leaving it on the doorstep of the correct address.  In the case of packages too large to deliver through a letterbox they are meant to leave the addressee a "We tried to deliver card" explaining what options are available for re-delivery or collection.

[NB - but let's first see the answer to the question whether the seller is a trader or a private individual...]

*If online traders can't find a carrier who will fufill their responsibilties under s29 they should either reconsider whether they want to continue selling online or they should increase their prices to cover inevitable losses.

** For clarification, I'd consider delivery through the letterbox of the address given by a consumer to be into "the physical possession" of that consumer.  And I think a court would too.

tightauldgit

RefluentBeans said:

Undervalued said:

Okell said:

Teacholic said:

...Royal Mail  Laine sit delivered and have a photo of a parcel being held in front of  my door number and doors being closed/shut...

Assuming the photo doesn't show the OP or somebody they had identified holding it (and I presume they are saying it doesn't) then @tightauldgit is right and it's the seller's responsibility to sort this out.

s29(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) says:

"29  Passing of risk

(1)A sales contract is to be treated as including the following provisions as terms.

(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 for emphasis]

I don't think the photo the OP describes proves delivery into their possession.  There's really no point couriers taking photos in front of closed doors as unless the photo also shows the consumer it doesn't prove delivery into the consumer's physical possession.

This has been discussed endlessly on here in many past threads. 

The Royal Mail (and as far as I know all of the main "normal" couriers) deliver to an address and not to a named person. That is certainly made clear in the RM's terms and conditions.

So this is a bit of a catch 22 as far as "the physical possession of the consumer" is concerned. As far as I remember nobody has been able to cite a legal precedent that defines what exactly that term means! Equally I am not aware of any county court judgements which, although not strictly binding on other cases, would give a bit of a guide.

Obviously a courier that will repeatedly come back until the right person is at home and check their ID (which is not a legal obligation to have!) is going to be far more expensive than most people are willing to pay.

Yeah I have to say I agree with this. I think clarification needs to happen in the courts. We have seen on this board people who reject the delivery after handling the package. To me that should be allowed - how do you know it’s a parcel you want to reject without handling it. 

The term ‘physical possession’ is up for debate as well. I’m not entirely sure when things gets stolen off a porch who should be responsible. My gut says it should be shared between the consumer and the delivery agent. I don’t think the risk should be to the retailer in all honesty. But I don’t think it should be entirely on the consumer either. I think the consumer has to take some responsibility as it’s on their property. Like how does safe spaces and nominated locations work? They’re not in the physical possession of the consumer and they’re not with a nominated ‘person’, so by that logic if you say leave it in my porch, and then the item gets stolen, you’re not held at all responsible. 

I think when you nominate a safe space you have to check something normally that says 'it's left here at my own risk and I waive all my rights, my children's rights and the rights of any future children they may have' so I accept that if you say leave it on the porch then courier and supplier have done their job.

However I do not accept that if you order an item from say Amazon and they just leave it on your front doorstep in full view of any naughty types and it might sit there for 3 days for all they know and it gets stolen - I don't see how they've fulfilled their obligation to get the item into your possession. 

RM and couriers can SAY anything they want but the law would appear to disagree -  the solution is simply not to leave parcels unattended unless the recipient expressly gives permission

user1977

Okell said:

(Personally I would never nominate a safe place for delivery, I would only identify a named individual).

Does anyone offer that as an option? (given that even a delivery to your own address is generally just "handed to whoever answers the door", not an identified individual)

ThumbRemote

This is a consumer rights forum. Your rights are quite clearly determined by the Consumer Rights Act, which as others have stated says you the goods should be delivered into your possession. Not left outside your home, no matter what couriers say. 

Some of the 'advice' given so far is dreadful.

A suggestion that there's no breach of contract. The terms of the contract are as per the CRA, these cannot be overridden, the good weren't delivered to you - simple breach of contract. 

Similarly the suggestion that a contract no longer exists. Notwithstanding that the CRA defines rights well beyond delivery, the contract has not been fulfilled as the goods were not delivered correctly. 

And the bizarre question of "What has the retailer done wrong if Royal Mail say that your parcel has been delivered". RM is an agent of the retailer, and they've failed to get the good to you. Even the evidence that Royal Mail have provided is laughable. They've literally provided a photo showing they DIDN'T deliver it to you. RM's terms to the retailer are no concern of yours. 

Take it to small claims court. The law is quite clear, you're entitled to your money back, and a judge will follow the law.

RefluentBeans

tightauldgit said:

RefluentBeans said:

Undervalued said:

Okell said:

Teacholic said:

...Royal Mail  Laine sit delivered and have a photo of a parcel being held in front of  my door number and doors being closed/shut...

Assuming the photo doesn't show the OP or somebody they had identified holding it (and I presume they are saying it doesn't) then @tightauldgit is right and it's the seller's responsibility to sort this out.

s29(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) says:

"29  Passing of risk

(1)A sales contract is to be treated as including the following provisions as terms.

(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 for emphasis]

I don't think the photo the OP describes proves delivery into their possession.  There's really no point couriers taking photos in front of closed doors as unless the photo also shows the consumer it doesn't prove delivery into the consumer's physical possession.

This has been discussed endlessly on here in many past threads. 

The Royal Mail (and as far as I know all of the main "normal" couriers) deliver to an address and not to a named person. That is certainly made clear in the RM's terms and conditions.

So this is a bit of a catch 22 as far as "the physical possession of the consumer" is concerned. As far as I remember nobody has been able to cite a legal precedent that defines what exactly that term means! Equally I am not aware of any county court judgements which, although not strictly binding on other cases, would give a bit of a guide.

Obviously a courier that will repeatedly come back until the right person is at home and check their ID (which is not a legal obligation to have!) is going to be far more expensive than most people are willing to pay.

Yeah I have to say I agree with this. I think clarification needs to happen in the courts. We have seen on this board people who reject the delivery after handling the package. To me that should be allowed - how do you know it’s a parcel you want to reject without handling it. 

The term ‘physical possession’ is up for debate as well. I’m not entirely sure when things gets stolen off a porch who should be responsible. My gut says it should be shared between the consumer and the delivery agent. I don’t think the risk should be to the retailer in all honesty. But I don’t think it should be entirely on the consumer either. I think the consumer has to take some responsibility as it’s on their property. Like how does safe spaces and nominated locations work? They’re not in the physical possession of the consumer and they’re not with a nominated ‘person’, so by that logic if you say leave it in my porch, and then the item gets stolen, you’re not held at all responsible. 

I think when you nominate a safe space you have to check something normally that says 'it's left here at my own risk and I waive all my rights, my children's rights and the rights of any future children they may have' so I accept that if you say leave it on the porch then courier and supplier have done their job.

However I do not accept that if you order an item from say Amazon and they just leave it on your front doorstep in full view of any naughty types and it might sit there for 3 days for all they know and it gets stolen - I don't see how they've fulfilled their obligation to get the item into your possession. 

RM and couriers can SAY anything they want but the law would appear to disagree -  the solution is simply not to leave parcels unattended unless the recipient expressly gives permission

But nominating a safe space does not satisfy the ‘in the physical possession of a) the consumer or b) the person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods’. So either DPD and co think that by nominating a porch as a safe space considers the porch a person, or that the physical possession is a debatable term. 

I, personally, think couriers have to go back to getting signatures. But given the likely faster nature of dropping at the door step, I think it’s going to result in a lot of annoyed customers that take a minute to go to the door. It’s a lose loss situ with the carriers I think. 

user1977

RefluentBeans said:

tightauldgit said:

RefluentBeans said:

Undervalued said:

Okell said:

Teacholic said:

...Royal Mail  Laine sit delivered and have a photo of a parcel being held in front of  my door number and doors being closed/shut...

Assuming the photo doesn't show the OP or somebody they had identified holding it (and I presume they are saying it doesn't) then @tightauldgit is right and it's the seller's responsibility to sort this out.

s29(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) says:

"29  Passing of risk

(1)A sales contract is to be treated as including the following provisions as terms.

(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 for emphasis]

I don't think the photo the OP describes proves delivery into their possession.  There's really no point couriers taking photos in front of closed doors as unless the photo also shows the consumer it doesn't prove delivery into the consumer's physical possession.

This has been discussed endlessly on here in many past threads. 

The Royal Mail (and as far as I know all of the main "normal" couriers) deliver to an address and not to a named person. That is certainly made clear in the RM's terms and conditions.

So this is a bit of a catch 22 as far as "the physical possession of the consumer" is concerned. As far as I remember nobody has been able to cite a legal precedent that defines what exactly that term means! Equally I am not aware of any county court judgements which, although not strictly binding on other cases, would give a bit of a guide.

Obviously a courier that will repeatedly come back until the right person is at home and check their ID (which is not a legal obligation to have!) is going to be far more expensive than most people are willing to pay.

Yeah I have to say I agree with this. I think clarification needs to happen in the courts. We have seen on this board people who reject the delivery after handling the package. To me that should be allowed - how do you know it’s a parcel you want to reject without handling it. 

The term ‘physical possession’ is up for debate as well. I’m not entirely sure when things gets stolen off a porch who should be responsible. My gut says it should be shared between the consumer and the delivery agent. I don’t think the risk should be to the retailer in all honesty. But I don’t think it should be entirely on the consumer either. I think the consumer has to take some responsibility as it’s on their property. Like how does safe spaces and nominated locations work? They’re not in the physical possession of the consumer and they’re not with a nominated ‘person’, so by that logic if you say leave it in my porch, and then the item gets stolen, you’re not held at all responsible. 

I think when you nominate a safe space you have to check something normally that says 'it's left here at my own risk and I waive all my rights, my children's rights and the rights of any future children they may have' so I accept that if you say leave it on the porch then courier and supplier have done their job.

However I do not accept that if you order an item from say Amazon and they just leave it on your front doorstep in full view of any naughty types and it might sit there for 3 days for all they know and it gets stolen - I don't see how they've fulfilled their obligation to get the item into your possession. 

RM and couriers can SAY anything they want but the law would appear to disagree -  the solution is simply not to leave parcels unattended unless the recipient expressly gives permission

I, personally, think couriers have to go back to getting signatures.

But even that is merely getting the squiggle of whoever answers the door, not necessarily checking that their ID matches that of the addressee.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

But nominating a safe space does not satisfy the ‘in the physical possession of a) the consumer or b) the person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods’. So either DPD and co think that by nominating a porch as a safe space considers the porch a person, or that the physical possession is a debatable term. 

DPD and co don't have any obligation to deliver the goods to the consumer's physical possession, that obligation is the trader's to bear and should they choose a third party who doesn't guarantee such that is the trader's risk. 

One may ask why courier's don't perform in a manner that guarantees, or as close as possible, the trader's obligations and the answer is simple, cost. 

To give an example, a RM Tracked 48 parcel is £2.99, the same service with age verification is £6.17, if you ship a million orders a year that's £3.18 million* extra for the courier to check an ID and that's without considering the increased inconvenience that could affect the consumer's willingness to purchase and put a dent in the economies of scale that big business thrive upon. 

So instead it is more cost effective/profitable to conduct business in the manner which we currently experience and bear a little bit of risk that occasionally a parcel is left somewhere where risk hasn't passed and then something happens to it. 

It's even more profitable if you can convince the customer it's tough luck because the courier says they delivered the goods.... 

Regarding safe places the CRA specifically says that liability under passing of risk can not be excluded, the consumer can not contract out (i.e sign away) their rights by ticking a box stating they assume liability. 

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

Liability that cannot be excluded or restricted

(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).


*this pricing example is given based on the prices on the RM site for everyone to use, big businesses no doubt pay less but as age verification is a legal obligation for certain products that must not be sold to those under a certain age such a service is likely to come at a premium, however the gap between standard and age verify is likely to be be narrower than £3.18 for a very large business. 

tightauldgit

It's interesting that the CAB disagree with the view here that a safe place doesn't satisfy the CRA - I wonder what they are basing that on?

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/somethings-gone-wrong-with-a-purchase/if-something-you-ordered-hasnt-been-delivered/#:~:text="Under the Consumer Rights Act,I have not received it.”

However they certainly do appear to agree that in a case like the OP where you haven't told them to leave something in a safe place then it's the seller's responsibility.

ETA: Maybe Section 28.2 covers the safe place? '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" - if you agree that the trader delivers the goods to your shed rather than you then I guess that would satisfy the law?