Stolen parcel left unattended by Royal Mail

tightauldgit

Alderbank said:

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RefluentBeans said:

I suppose, looking through the lens of the delivery company having ‘safe’ spaces to drop the parcel is a no brainier - they waive their responsibility as they now can just deliver to a porch, they can take the photo and run. It means that they cant easily be held liable for not safely delivering the parcel, so it’s the retailer that absorbed the risk under the CRA. 

The safe place obviously assists in their liability but it's main draw is only making one visit to a property, having to go back more than once is expensive and they really want to avoid doing so. 

The law itself isn't really an issue, rather a lack of clarification on what it means.  

If safe places meet physical possession then that's that, if they don't then retailer's are free to weigh the risks vs the costs, it would just be nice to know where the line is drawn so we can best advise people looking for help on such issues. 

Certainly a clarification would help everyone but it also looks like the law as it stands has to be amended to acknowledge the existence of 'safe places' and that consumers can opt for that option and accept the risk. 

Are we certain that the law hasn't been amended here?

Under our legal system it would be unusual for relatively minor issues like this to be amended by changing primary legislation. Our process is that judges 'interpret' the law to reflect the intention of the legislators. This process of precedent is only persuasive at lower courts but still taken into account by judges, and precedent by an appellate court is as binding as the primary legislation. 

Are we sure there are not any precedents?

Not certain no but I haven't seen any precedent that addresses the issue and nobody really seems to know where the idea that agreeing to a safe place transfers the risk to the consumer comes from.  

Undervalued

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

 then suppliers who understood that would surely stop leaving things in safe places

What makes you say this? I would imagine millions of parcels are left in safe places and the number of problems is very small. 

If the cost of not leaving in safe places is greater than the losses of replacing/refunding those who have an issue that's what is going to happen, it's simple business sense.

I would also imagine the number of false claims of non-delivery is far higher than genuine cases of loss or damage to a parcel whilst they seek refugee in a safe place for a short while. 

tightauldgit said:

 it's just going to encourage suppliers to be obstructive as we see currently in the knowledge that people probably aren't going to take matters to court - so effectively unethical suppliers would win an advantage over ethical ones. 

That applies to any obligations, that's an enforcement issue rather than specifics of the law.

tightauldgit said:

Certainly a clarification would help everyone but it also looks like the law as it stands has to be amended to acknowledge the existence of 'safe places' and that consumers can opt for that option and accept the risk. 

Consumer rights are designed to inspire confidence which increases spending and keeps the economy going.

If there was a change to the legislation it would depend on how the government felt such a change would affect confidence, spending and the economy (as I've said before should they know or care).

If as Alderbank points out it's clarified by a higher court that would become the interpretation of the law until a further higher court ruled otherwise.  

Indeed but as I have pointed out in other threads on a similar subject, the chances of case getting to a high enough court to set a binding precedent are slim. The costs and potential risks are wildly out of proportion to the value of the claim.

My own opinion is that, even if it did get that far, the interpretation of "physical possession of the consumer" is unlikely to be as literal as some on here would like to think. If I am right that would slightly weaken the position of the consumer regarding "safe place" deliveries. However it would help to preserve the cheap deliveries most seem to crave.

However I do agree with you that the number of claimed losses, as a proportion of all deliveries, is low and yes, sadly, many of those are likely to be fraudulent.

Exodi

tightauldgit said:

Its all a bit of a mess at the minute especially after all the rules seemed to change with COVID but I don't accept that simply leaving a parcel in the vicinity of the address of the recipient should be considered delivery and I think it's a practice that really should stop. 

While I sympathise with your past experiences, as someone who lives in a good neighborhood, cameras on the front, side and back of the house, and a side gate (left unlocked for couriers) I can not state enough how happy I am that couriers take the initiative to leave parcels round the side of the house when we're not in (as much as that may infuriate some in this thread would prefer regression to physical/signed (and more costlier) deliveries).

My wife and I both work 9-5 weekdays, so it is effectively impossible for us to receive a parcel on weekdays if it has to be received in person. I expect this is the same for a significant amount of people. On weekends the last thing we want to do is sit in the house and wait for deliveries.

We actively use merchants/couriers who tend to leave goods outside (like Evri or Amazon) instead of couriers who take it back to a sorting office for collection (Royal Mail). It doesn't matter where I live, every sorting office I've ever been to is usually in an awkward place and doesn't have parking within a million miles.

So please, I beg the couriers to carry on leaving goods outside to the dissatisfaction of a few people (which can continue to be dealt with on a case by case basis). If putting up cameras is a possibility, I'd encourage all to do so. Having a video doorbell is invaluable, and while I've only ever needed to 'use' it once, it was a quick conversation of 'your item shows as delivered at 13:42' 'my video doorbell footage shows no delivery was attempted'. It's not just to prove that an item was/wasn't delivered. It also makes it less likely to be stolen off your doorstep with a camera pointing at it.

Exodi

RefluentBeans said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

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? 

Risk doesn't pass upon voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another (delivery) if it did that would be what was stated under passing of the risk instead of the term physical possession.

I think that’s an interesting take from the CAB - I think that this whole thing needs to be tested in court. These laws do not seem fit for todays time, and I (personally) feel that the retailer is taking on all the risk, whilst the delivery companies appear to be able to act how they want without legal repercussion from either side. In this case, RM probably won’t pay out to the retailer stating that they delivered it, and the customer claims they haven’t. Whilst the retailer has to absorb the costs. I do think that there should be some shared risk between the retailer, the delivery agent, (and potentially the consumer). 

We can't have our cake and eat it.

Merchants already have the option to elect to use a signed for service that (should) require a physical hand-over of the goods, but they choose not to because of cost.

Consumers are not desperately pleading with retailers to charge them more, so they can upgrade the delivery to a more expensive and inconvenient option that requires them to be present for the delivery.

The current system works best. No system will satisfy all.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Undervalued said:

Indeed but as I have pointed out in other threads on a similar subject, the chances of case getting to a high enough court to set a binding precedent are slim. The costs and potential risks are wildly out of proportion to the value of the claim.

Completely agree Unless it's done as a test case it's very unlikely with this topic.

Undervalued said:

My own opinion is that, even if it did get that far, the interpretation of "physical possession of the consumer" is unlikely to be as literal as some on here would like to think. If I am right that would slightly weaken the position of the consumer regarding "safe place" deliveries. However it would help to preserve the cheap deliveries most seem to crave.

I do agree that is a possibility and would maybe result in a case by case situation which could ultimately lead to little or no clarification anyway.  

The loss of enjoyment situation for holidays was somewhat clarified with levels of damages suggested by a higher court depending upon the type of holiday so something similar could happen.

I think, if anything, it would be cases where the customer themselves has agreed a safe place directly with the retailer. 

I have a DPD delivery that didn't arrive yesterday, because they couldn't be bothered to come to our house, and when you look at the tracking you can name a safe place but if you do you have to accept responsibility for it. 

If DPD lost the parcel and I said you are liable to me for the value of the goods they'd say nothing to do with them and take it up with the retailer so I don't see that they can have their cake and eat it by not having that liability but expecting me to sign away my rights with them.

What is most annoying about DPD is if they don't deliver they'll eventually take the parcel to a collection point 20 miles away (and then claim it's better for the planet if I go and pick it up!) so they are twisting my arm somewhat to accept responsibility and nominate a safe place to save them the cost of keep coming back to my house. I don't think that is fair in the slightest and IMO such behaviour is completely unacceptable as it is pushing the consumer into a position they shouldn't have to be in. 

Another consideration here is a "safe place", by such terminology coined by the couriers themselves, should be just that and if my shed isn't "safe" in their eyes they shouldn't leave the parcel. If a parcel is left in a truly safe place what is going to happen to it?   

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Exodi said:

tightauldgit said:

Its all a bit of a mess at the minute especially after all the rules seemed to change with COVID but I don't accept that simply leaving a parcel in the vicinity of the address of the recipient should be considered delivery and I think it's a practice that really should stop. 

While I sympathise with your past experiences, as someone who lives in a good neighborhood, cameras on the front, side and back of the house, and a side gate (left unlocked for couriers) I can not state enough how happy I am that couriers take the initiative to leave parcels round the side of the house when we're not in (as much as that may infuriate some in this thread would prefer regression to physical/signed (and more costlier) deliveries).

My wife and I both work 9-5 weekdays, so it is effectively impossible for us to receive a parcel on weekdays if it has to be received in person. I expect this is the same for a significant amount of people. On weekends the last thing we want to do is sit in the house and wait for deliveries.

We actively use merchants/couriers who tend to leave goods outside (like Evri or Amazon) instead of couriers who take it back to a sorting office for collection (Royal Mail). It doesn't matter where I live, every sorting office I've ever been to is usually in an awkward place and doesn't have parking within a million miles.

So please, I beg the couriers to carry on leaving goods outside to the dissatisfaction of a few people (which can continue to be dealt with on a case by case basis). If putting up cameras is a possibility, I'd encourage all to do so. Having a video doorbell is invaluable, and while I've only ever needed to 'use' it once, it was a quick conversation of 'your item shows as delivered at 13:42' 'my video doorbell footage shows no delivery was attempted'. It's not just to prove that an item was/wasn't delivered. It also makes it less likely to be stolen off your doorstep with a camera pointing at it.

Purely out of interest if your parcel was pinched by some toerag, despite the cameras, etc, would you expect the retailer to refund/replace? 

Undervalued

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

Indeed but as I have pointed out in other threads on a similar subject, the chances of case getting to a high enough court to set a binding precedent are slim. The costs and potential risks are wildly out of proportion to the value of the claim.

Completely agree Unless it's done as a test case it's very unlikely with this topic.

Undervalued said:

My own opinion is that, even if it did get that far, the interpretation of "physical possession of the consumer" is unlikely to be as literal as some on here would like to think. If I am right that would slightly weaken the position of the consumer regarding "safe place" deliveries. However it would help to preserve the cheap deliveries most seem to crave.

I do agree that is a possibility and would maybe result in a case by case situation which could ultimately lead to little or no clarification anyway.  

The loss of enjoyment situation for holidays was somewhat clarified with levels of damages suggested by a higher court depending upon the type of holiday so something similar could happen.

I think, if anything, it would be cases where the customer themselves has agreed a safe place directly with the retailer. 

I have a DPD delivery that didn't arrive yesterday, because they couldn't be bothered to come to our house, and when you look at the tracking you can name a safe place but if you do you have to accept responsibility for it. 

If DPD lost the parcel and I said you are liable to me for the value of the goods they'd say nothing to do with them and take it up with the retailer so I don't see that they can have their cake and eat it by not having that liability but expecting me to sign away my rights with them.

What is most annoying about DPD is if they don't deliver they'll eventually take the parcel to a collection point 20 miles away (and then claim it's better for the planet if I go and pick it up!) so they are twisting my arm somewhat to accept responsibility and nominate a safe place to save them the cost of keep coming back to my house. I don't think that is fair in the slightest and IMO such behaviour is completely unacceptable as it is pushing the consumer into a position they shouldn't have to be in. 

Another consideration here is a "safe place", by such terminology coined by the couriers themselves, should be just that and if my shed isn't "safe" in their eyes they shouldn't leave the parcel. If a parcel is left in a truly safe place what is going to happen to it?   

There is a house, in a nice neighbourhood I walk past quite regularly, that has a strong steel box (presumably bolted down) near the front door. It has a clear printed notice asking any parcel delivery to put the item in the box then snap the padlock closed. No idea what happens if they have more than one delivery on the same day! I suspect the box is in view of their door bell camera.

I don't know how many couriers actually do as the sign asks or what happens if they come home to find the box locked with no parcel inside!

It may be that something like that, particularly for people who are out a lot, would be a sensible compromise?

Exodi

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Exodi said:

tightauldgit said:

Its all a bit of a mess at the minute especially after all the rules seemed to change with COVID but I don't accept that simply leaving a parcel in the vicinity of the address of the recipient should be considered delivery and I think it's a practice that really should stop. 

While I sympathise with your past experiences, as someone who lives in a good neighborhood, cameras on the front, side and back of the house, and a side gate (left unlocked for couriers) I can not state enough how happy I am that couriers take the initiative to leave parcels round the side of the house when we're not in (as much as that may infuriate some in this thread would prefer regression to physical/signed (and more costlier) deliveries).

My wife and I both work 9-5 weekdays, so it is effectively impossible for us to receive a parcel on weekdays if it has to be received in person. I expect this is the same for a significant amount of people. On weekends the last thing we want to do is sit in the house and wait for deliveries.

We actively use merchants/couriers who tend to leave goods outside (like Evri or Amazon) instead of couriers who take it back to a sorting office for collection (Royal Mail). It doesn't matter where I live, every sorting office I've ever been to is usually in an awkward place and doesn't have parking within a million miles.

So please, I beg the couriers to carry on leaving goods outside to the dissatisfaction of a few people (which can continue to be dealt with on a case by case basis). If putting up cameras is a possibility, I'd encourage all to do so. Having a video doorbell is invaluable, and while I've only ever needed to 'use' it once, it was a quick conversation of 'your item shows as delivered at 13:42' 'my video doorbell footage shows no delivery was attempted'. It's not just to prove that an item was/wasn't delivered. It also makes it less likely to be stolen off your doorstep with a camera pointing at it.

Purely out of interest if your parcel was pinched by some toerag, despite the cameras, etc, would you expect the retailer to refund/replace? 

I don't like these sorts of questions because having never suffered a loss due to theft (and having greatly benefited from the convenience of 'non-physical' deliveries) I am aware I will be biased on this. Answering with the expected response would only prompt the retort "well you would say that."

But moving away from being a convenience spoiled consumer, I am a director of a manufacturing business that frequently sells direct to consumers - I have witnessed the sharp end of the other side, particularly the frustration caused from receiving an INR refund request for an item with tracking showing the item delivered to the correct address (though not specifically handed to the purchaser). We also see a lot of fraudulent returns (particularly processed through Amazon, but that's another thread...), so I'm additionally wary that if 'parcel not physically handed to the person named on the invoice = automatic refund' then some people might take the opportunity to report an INR whenever they see it has been delivered on their doorstep.

So genuinely, if I was at work and I see on my camera that someone has gone through my gate and stolen the parcel(s) down the side of my house, I wouldn't demand the retailer(s) send me a replacement, I'd possibly call the police with the footage (which I'm not naive to knowing 99% of the time will achieve nothing) and almost certainly be in a bad mood for a few days.

I think as I work in a senior position, I'm possibly not the best person to give advice on consumer rights on a forum like this (where advice is understandably tailored to benefit consumers). I also appreciate that some may feel that (faceless) 'businesses' generally have bigger pockets so can afford (or should have priced in) the blow from losses like this. I don't however think I'm 'right' in my view of this, and absolutely support peoples decisions to pursue the retailer if that's what they decide to do, it's just not something I would do personally.

My view expressed above about non-physical deliveries came strictly from the view of 'careful what you wish for or you just might get it'.

While we can agree that physically received deliveries are safer than non-physically received deliveries, I don't think many people are willing pay the inconvenience and cost of it. As I said before, it's already possible to mandate physical delivery (e.g. through signed for or ID special services), but no-one does.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Undervalued said:

There is a house, in a nice neighbourhood I walk past quite regularly, that has a strong steel box (presumably bolted down) near the front door. It has a clear printed notice asking any parcel delivery to put the item in the box then snap the padlock closed. No idea what happens if they have more than one delivery on the same day! I suspect the box is in view of their door bell camera.

I don't know how many couriers actually do as the sign asks or what happens if they come home to find the box locked with no parcel inside!

It may be that something like that, particularly for people who are out a lot, would be a sensible compromise?

If my A4 picture frame is delivered first and then another courier delivers my 5 kilos of nuts and bolts who is responsible for the broken picture frame? 

Passing of risk suggests the retailer, every option seems to have a can of worms.

I'm sure there was some ideas floating about where couriers could leave parcels in the boot of a car.  

Okell

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Exodi said:

tightauldgit said:

Its all a bit of a mess at the minute especially after all the rules seemed to change with COVID but I don't accept that simply leaving a parcel in the vicinity of the address of the recipient should be considered delivery and I think it's a practice that really should stop. 

While I sympathise with your past experiences, as someone who lives in a good neighborhood, cameras on the front, side and back of the house, and a side gate (left unlocked for couriers) I can not state enough how happy I am that couriers take the initiative to leave parcels round the side of the house when we're not in (as much as that may infuriate some in this thread would prefer regression to physical/signed (and more costlier) deliveries).

My wife and I both work 9-5 weekdays, so it is effectively impossible for us to receive a parcel on weekdays if it has to be received in person. I expect this is the same for a significant amount of people. On weekends the last thing we want to do is sit in the house and wait for deliveries.

We actively use merchants/couriers who tend to leave goods outside (like Evri or Amazon) instead of couriers who take it back to a sorting office for collection (Royal Mail). It doesn't matter where I live, every sorting office I've ever been to is usually in an awkward place and doesn't have parking within a million miles.

So please, I beg the couriers to carry on leaving goods outside to the dissatisfaction of a few people (which can continue to be dealt with on a case by case basis). If putting up cameras is a possibility, I'd encourage all to do so. Having a video doorbell is invaluable, and while I've only ever needed to 'use' it once, it was a quick conversation of 'your item shows as delivered at 13:42' 'my video doorbell footage shows no delivery was attempted'. It's not just to prove that an item was/wasn't delivered. It also makes it less likely to be stolen off your doorstep with a camera pointing at it.

Purely out of interest if your parcel was pinched by some toerag, despite the cameras, etc, would you expect the retailer to refund/replace? 

That is the $64000 question!

Those who seem to favour the view that the retailer should not be liable appear to be arguing along the following lines:

1.  Couriers not fulfilling the retailer's legal obligations by cutting corners provide a more convenient and cheaper online retail experience

2.  This is to everybody's benefit

3.  Therefore, because it's to everybody's benefit, when it goes wrong the consumer alone should bear the loss and not the retailer.

Whereas the correct argument is:

1.  Couriers not fulfilling the retailer's legal obligations by cutting corners provide a more convenient and cheaper online retail experience

2.  This is to everybody's benefit

3.  Therefore everybody should bear the cost of failed deliveries by the retailer adjusting their prices accordingly so they can compensate those who suffer failed deliveries.

This makes economic sense and adheres to the principle that the true cost of providing a service should be borne by all service users and should not just be subsidised by unfairly loading the cost of losses onto those individuals who suffered the loss.