Confused over missing returns parcels & who is responsible

wainright

Hi,
Hoping someone can help because I keep reading conflicting advice on this subject.
I recently had a parcel go missing with Royal Mail, but Amazon did the right thing and refunded me. However, it got me thinking if this happens again with any other retailer, who is responsible if the returns label was supplied by them through an online returns portal? Because I have seen on some websites that even if the retailer supplies the label to you, they are saying it is the consumers responsibility to chase the courier? I am also confused how this works if the return is subsidised by the retailer (meaning they take a percentage of the amount owed towards the return costs) because I order online a fair bit, I could really do with knowing my rights if ever another returned parcel goes missing. Thanks 

knightstyle

IMO it depends on who pays the return, if the seller pays then it is their responsibility after you hand over the package to the courier/PO etc.  However if you pay it is your responsibility till it arrives with the seller. That is why you need to make sure it is insured.

RefluentBeans

I believe, and I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong, if the retailer organise the return postage the issue is theirs to take up. If you were ordering and arranged your own delivery (as in its on your account - you pay for the postage directly) then if it goes missing it’s your risk. 

I think with subsidised shipping it depends how it’s carried out. If they ask you to go to the shop and give you an address then you pay for the postage then it’s your responsibility to ensure the parcel gets there okay, and thus you’re at risk if it goes missing. If you get given a barcode and the post office scans it and it’s shipped back for you, then it’s on them. Even if they take out the cost of the postage from your refund. 

I think in practice it’s a lot more common to have a barcode and the post office worker scans that barcode. 

I think the law is generally quite robust with this aspect of missing parcels, but what we have seen more of recently is the parcels getting intercepted and then the original item that you returned is missing. So when it gets back to the retailer it looks like you’ve returned an old pair of shoes instead of a coat and so looks like you’re trying to pull a fast one. Even with a proof of postage, it doesn’t necessarily show what you posted back. And I think in those scenarios if both parties feel the other side is wrong, the only way to proceed is via a mediator or through court. 

robatwork

He who pays the piper calls the tune. When it comes to "your rights" you are talking about contract law. If you didn't contract with a courier then it can be difficult or impossible to exercise your rights in court, but you could possibly have an action against the retailer.

Amazon for me have been fantastic when it comes to returns. Probably becuase I return a tiny percentage of my overall spend, so don't trigger any algorithm that looks for fraud or "bad" customers. I'd deliberately choose Amazon over some other retailers because of their fairly painless returns process. Perhaps not for really expensive goods though where I prefer to buy direct if possible, cutting out any future go to the retailer/go to the manufacturer arguments over warranty.

flaneurs_lobster

This is relevant since I returned a phone to Very last week, using their barcode which was scanned at the Post Office and a label generated. I asked the clerk if the package was covered by any insurance (the phone is worth just over £1000) and was told I needn't worry since it was the recipient's problem because they were paying the postage.

Of course I'm still worried - the package has tracked to a collection hub somewhere in The North and I will worry until that £1K has been credited back to my account.

wainright

robatwork said:

He who pays the piper calls the tune. When it comes to "your rights" you are talking about contract law. If you didn't contract with a courier then it can be difficult or impossible to exercise your rights in court, but you could possibly have an action against the retailer.

Amazon for me have been fantastic when it comes to returns. Probably becuase I return a tiny percentage of my overall spend, so don't trigger any algorithm that looks for fraud or "bad" customers. I'd deliberately choose Amazon over some other retailers because of their fairly painless returns process. Perhaps not for really expensive goods though where I prefer to buy direct if possible, cutting out any future go to the retailer/go to the manufacturer arguments over warranty.

Amazon have been more than fair with me to be honest. I never gave this stuff a second thought until Royal Mail lost a parcel that was being returned to a third party seller on Amazon, it obviously then did occur to me that I need to be knowing the consumer law regarding lost returns. Thanks for the info

wainright

RefluentBeans said:

I believe, and I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong, if the retailer organise the return postage the issue is theirs to take up. If you were ordering and arranged your own delivery (as in its on your account - you pay for the postage directly) then if it goes missing it’s your risk. 

I think with subsidised shipping it depends how it’s carried out. If they ask you to go to the shop and give you an address then you pay for the postage then it’s your responsibility to ensure the parcel gets there okay, and thus you’re at risk if it goes missing. If you get given a barcode and the post office scans it and it’s shipped back for you, then it’s on them. Even if they take out the cost of the postage from your refund. 

I think in practice it’s a lot more common to have a barcode and the post office worker scans that barcode. 

I think the law is generally quite robust with this aspect of missing parcels, but what we have seen more of recently is the parcels getting intercepted and then the original item that you returned is missing. So when it gets back to the retailer it looks like you’ve returned an old pair of shoes instead of a coat and so looks like you’re trying to pull a fast one. Even with a proof of postage, it doesn’t necessarily show what you posted back. And I think in those scenarios if both parties feel the other side is wrong, the only way to proceed is via a mediator or through court. 

Yes, that is the way I understood it. Any return generated through the retailers website for free returns (printed label or otherwise, it is the retailer who has the contract with the courier and not the customer. 

wainright

flaneurs_lobster said:

This is relevant since I returned a phone to Very last week, using their barcode which was scanned at the Post Office and a label generated. I asked the clerk if the package was covered by any insurance (the phone is worth just over £1000) and was told I needn't worry since it was the recipient's problem because they were paying the postage.

Of course I'm still worried - the package has tracked to a collection hub somewhere in The North and I will worry until that £1K has been credited back to my account.

Hope all is well for you, that is a lot of money, but from what I have learned here, your retailer is responsible 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

The common answer on here is that the person who pays for the courier is responsible. 

Other than that being a logical deduction, I've not seen anything posted that supports this as a legal position.

Under the CCRs the trader is to refund within 14 days of having received the goods or 14 days of evidence of the goods having been sent back. Does this place the burden of chasing the courier/consumer in the event of total non-delivery upon the trader or imply it's no longer the consumer's responsibility?

In a similar vein, under the CRA the trader is to refund within 14 days* when the goods do not conform to the contract, which also asks the same question as above in circumstances where it is clear by looking at the goods that they do not conform. 

*Subsection (15) requires a trader to provide any refund due to the consumer without undue delay and at the latest within 14 days from when the trader agrees that the consumer is entitled to it. For example, if a consumer rejects goods because of a technical fault which cannot be seen without testing or detailed examination, the 14-day period would start once the trader had carried out the appropriate tests and found the goods were indeed faulty. In contrast, if it was clear from looking at the goods that they breached the relevant requirement under the Act, there is unlikely to be any reason for the trader not to agree immediately that the consumer is entitled to a refund.

Neither legislation makes any reference to who paid for or commissioned the return. 

So if the other poster's £1000 phone goes missing and Very refuse to do anything I don't think anyone here can say for certain what will happen in small claims. For that reason if returning high value items, like a £1000 phone, I would suggest it be packaged not to look like a phone and sent with Royal Mail Special Delivery