Stolen parcel left unattended by Royal Mail

Exodi

bris said:

user1977 said:

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)

Yodel certainly wont, they deliver to the address. They take a picture with door open and the parcel in the recipients hand, they never takes photos of faces.

If a safe place is an option the app tells the courier where it is and they leave it there with a photo as proof.

If no safe place is on the couriers app then its a failed delivery, they get 3 chances to deliver then the recipient has to go to the depot to collect it.

If its fresh food which Yodel now does in a big way if there is no one there to accept it its left on the doorstep with a photo taken, if its stolen its tough luck, There is no second or third chances with fresh food.

I wouldn't be so sure. I think it probably depends on the driver, as my local Yodel delivery driver always leaves it through my side gate - most couriers serving my property do.

We never spoke to them or asked, nor have nominated it as a 'safe place', they just (thankfully) take the initiative. It would be pretty pointless for a Yodel driver to try deliver a parcel midday on a Monday while we're both at work (like most people on a weekday), to try again on Tuesday and Wednesday, presumably they know this. I didn't even know Yodel had depots customers can visit to be honest, I expected it would go back to sender. I can say as a consumer, if our Yodel driver did stop delivering parcels because we're not there to receive them, we'd just opt for couriers (or retailers) who are willing to deliver without a physical person in to receive the goods.

I think (neigh, hope) everyone can appreciate the situation of why fresh food needs to be left on the doorstep if it can not be physically received!

RefluentBeans

Exodi said:

bris said:

user1977 said:

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)

Yodel certainly wont, they deliver to the address. They take a picture with door open and the parcel in the recipients hand, they never takes photos of faces.

If a safe place is an option the app tells the courier where it is and they leave it there with a photo as proof.

If no safe place is on the couriers app then its a failed delivery, they get 3 chances to deliver then the recipient has to go to the depot to collect it.

If its fresh food which Yodel now does in a big way if there is no one there to accept it its left on the doorstep with a photo taken, if its stolen its tough luck, There is no second or third chances with fresh food.

I wouldn't be so sure. I think it probably depends on the driver, as my local Yodel delivery driver always leaves it through my side gate - most couriers serving my property do.

We never spoke to them or asked, nor have nominated it as a 'safe place', they just (thankfully) take the initiative. It would be pretty pointless for a Yodel driver to try deliver a parcel midday on a Monday while we're both at work (like most people on a weekday), to try again on Tuesday and Wednesday, presumably they know this. I didn't even know Yodel had depots customers can visit to be honest, I expected it would go back to sender. I can say as a consumer, if our Yodel driver did stop delivering parcels because we're not there to receive them, we'd just opt for couriers (or retailers) who are willing to deliver without a physical person in to receive the goods.

I think (neigh, hope) everyone can appreciate the situation of why fresh food needs to be left on the doorstep if it can not be physically received!

I agree. But then the issue of risk is even more confused. Some people on here seem to think the risk is solely with the retailer and unless the postie does an ID challenge, the risk doesn’t fully transfer to the recipient. This is probably a very antiquated view and something I don’t thing would hold up now, as the cast majority of deliveries wouldn’t meet this threshold. 

There seems to be a belief that nominated safe spaces could potentially meet that physical possession standard. But as you have said, what happens when you don’t nominate a safe space - you’ve said you haven’t specifically said to leave it there so does an un-nominated (but generally used) safe space count - like a porch? Do you have to specific for each delivery - surely if you ordered a £3000 computer you wouldn’t want it sitting on the porch - but if you haven’t turned off ‘safe space delivery’ does that change things? 

And then there’s people like yourself who seem willing to accept to some risk for the ease and convenience. If you ordered that £3000 computer to be delivered on a Saturday, but the parcel gets dropped where it normally does but you don’t notice, and it gets stolen, I don’t think it’s necessary fair to assume the risk is all on the consumer. Same things for when you’re not at home. 

I don’t know what the precise answer should be. But I don’t think the current law is sufficient. I still would think the delivery company should take some responsibility and risk for delivery. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

I don’t know what the precise answer should be. But I don’t think the current law is sufficient. I still would think the delivery company should take some responsibility and risk for delivery. 

This would effectively be changing the entire dynamic of the legislation, for one it would only apply to some instances (the CRA covers all contracts for the sale of goods) and it would amending the obligation placed upon the trader and moving (some of?) it to a random third party that may be used.  

If anything the courier companies being regulated would probably create greater change across the industry bringing protection for traders both big (who probably don't need it) and more importantly small as well as consumers sending items themselves whether to their aunty/grandkids or selling unwanted stuff online. 

The problem is a lot of sectors are becoming dominated by a few key players who then hold influence over government and of course do their best to avoid regulation. 

sheramber

Some firms I have used give options
standard postage
tracked postage
tracked with a signature 

The price for each reflects the service chosen so it is the buyer’s choice to pay more  for extra service.

user1977

Alderbank said:

What do others think about these alternatives to 'leave it round the back'?

Amazon lockers are definitely my preferred option, saves any hassle with missing deliveries (not that we have too much trouble as the other flats here can let in couriers through the security entry). Depends on your distance from them though - I'm in an inner city area with lockers a few minutes' walk away. They're also sometimes unavailable as an option if they're already fully booked.

RefluentBeans

sheramber said:

Some firms I have used give options
standard postage
tracked postage
tracked with a signature 

The price for each reflects the service chosen so it is the buyer’s choice to pay more  for extra service.

The buyer meaning the consumer or retailer? If consumed why on earth would people pay extra when the risk is with the retailer (apparently)? It gets stolen off my door step, apparently it’s the retailers responsibility to pay! I’m being facetious here, but that’s part of the problem, there’s needs to be a fair share of risk. 

sheramber

RefluentBeans said:

sheramber said:

Some firms I have used give options
standard postage
tracked postage
tracked with a signature 

The price for each reflects the service chosen so it is the buyer’s choice to pay more  for extra service.

The buyer meaning the consumer or retailer? If consumed why on earth would people pay extra when the risk is with the retailer (apparently)? It gets stolen off my door step, apparently it’s the retailers responsibility to pay! I’m being facetious here, but that’s part of the problem, there’s needs to be a fair share of risk. 

The consumer makes the choice. He can chose standard postage if he does not want to pay more. But if someone has already had the hassle of a missing parcel after delivery they may consider it worth it to get their parcel when they ordered it , rather than have to fight for a refund while not having the item that ordered. Personal choice.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

sheramber said:

RefluentBeans said:

sheramber said:

Some firms I have used give options
standard postage
tracked postage
tracked with a signature 

The price for each reflects the service chosen so it is the buyer’s choice to pay more  for extra service.

The buyer meaning the consumer or retailer? If consumed why on earth would people pay extra when the risk is with the retailer (apparently)? It gets stolen off my door step, apparently it’s the retailers responsibility to pay! I’m being facetious here, but that’s part of the problem, there’s needs to be a fair share of risk. 

The consumer makes the choice. He can chose standard postage if he does not want to pay more. But if someone has already had the hassle of a missing parcel after delivery they may consider it worth it to get their parcel when they ordered it , rather than have to fight for a refund while not having the item that ordered. Personal choice.

A choice based on, for example, speed or a certain provider could be acceptable but a trader would have to be careful not to imply a choice based on liability as it’s likely to be considered a prohibited commercial practice under the CPRs.

I fully appreciate that if you buy a one off item opting for a decent choice can save you trouble but really the trader should be covering that angle anyway by using a decent service.

You could buy in a sale and want to reduce the risk of missing out but then again there’s damages.

It can certainly make sense in some select situations but should only occur only off your own back without any implication from the trader and that offer of choice without a valid reason could be implication enough to breach the CPRs.

Undervalued

sheramber said:

Some firms I have used give options
standard postage
tracked postage
tracked with a signature 

The price for each reflects the service chosen so it is the buyer’s choice to pay more  for extra service.

Yes but most / all courier firms (including the Royal Mail) will collect a signature from whoever answers the door. They deliver to an address and not to a person. The debate here is really about whether that counts as the physical possession of the consumer or not.

The porters lodge at many colleges, often with hundreds of students, are signing for dozens of parcels a day on behalf of those resident. Is that good enough?

sheramber

Undervalued said:

sheramber said:

Some firms I have used give options
standard postage
tracked postage
tracked with a signature 

The price for each reflects the service chosen so it is the buyer’s choice to pay more  for extra service.

Yes but most / all courier firms (including the Royal Mail) will collect a signature from whoever answers the door. They deliver to an address and not to a person. The debate here is really about whether that counts as the physical possession of the consumer or not.

The porters lodge at many colleges, often with hundreds of students, are signing for dozens of parcels a day on behalf of those resident. Is that good enough?

That is up to the individual whether they consider that  is good enough.

One person can consider a parcel left at the back door is good enough, another need not.

Again individual choice. If it is considered not good enough, don't use the service.

My postie left parcels in my garage. I considered that good enough. You may not