Royal Mail mis-delivered package

smash

I attempted to trade in my old phone with Google in November, long story short, the phone was rejected (not factory reset) and their partner company sent it back by Royal Mail on 5th December.

On the 12th December, the package is tracked as being delivered using Royal Mail Tracked 24 with a picture, but it is clearly not my door. The Royal Mail website says I should contact the sender, so I reported this to Google on 17th December, and they told me to wait 10 business days before they could do anything.

I've been back and forth with support getting nowhere, they are now telling me to contact Royal Mail myself to resolve the issue. Their "internal team" has determined the package has been delivered by the courier and they will do no more.

I have pointed out that under Consumer Rights Act 2015 it is their responsibility to ensure my property is returned to me but it's been hopeless.

Can anyone offer any advice or a course of action to resolve? As it stands, my £500 phone appears to have been lost and Google are not accepting any responsibility for this.

DullGreyGuy

smash said:
I have pointed out that under Consumer Rights Act 2015 it is their responsibility to ensure my property is returned to me but it's been hopeless.

Can anyone offer any advice or a course of action to resolve? As it stands, my £500 phone appears to have been lost and Google are not accepting any responsibility for this.

The Consumer Rights Act is for when you buy a product or service... you weren't buying a product or service, you were the vendor in this transaction and the buyer rejected your goods. 

Who paid for the return postage? Presumably Google? With most couriers its always the buyer of the service that has to make the claim but Royal Mail is different and will take claims from either party (had by own claim on them in December). 

So have you submitted a claim to Royal Mail?

Okell

It's not strictly Consumer Rights Act territory as you weren't buying the 'phone from them.  However you could use the principle as an argument by analogy.

The truth is that you entrusted the 'phone to them and they had a corresponding duty of care to exercise reasonable care in looking after it.  They owed you a legal duty to look after the phone and return it to you safe and sound.  They have failed in that duty and owe you compensation.  They should have indemnity insurance to cover this sort of loss and if they don't, they need to pursue it with RM.  It's their problem not yours.

Send a "Letter Before Claim" (aka Letter Before Action - google both terms) briefly outlining the facts and give them 21 days to pay up whatever you think the value of the phone was - but be realistic.  Tell that if they haven't paid within that timescale you will issue a court claim against them without further action for the value of the 'phone plus court fees.

Money Claim Online (MCOL) user guide - GOV.UK

NB - before you do a letter before claim you could contact them again and point out that despite what their "internal team" thinks, the RM tracking has a picture clearly showing the parcel outside a door you can prove isn't yours.  Ask them what they think a judge in the small claims court will make of that...

DullGreyGuy

Okell said:
the RM tracking has a picture clearly showing the parcel outside a door you can prove isn't yours.  Ask them what they think a judge in the small claims court will make of that...

As you say, its not covered by the CRA which places, in many people's opinion, excessive obligations on commercial vendors but we live in a country with a nanny state approach and we pay higher prices for goods than others with lower statutory rights. 

This isnt covered by statutory rights so come in under the much lower duty of care that we owe each other. The Buyer in this case received duff goods from the Seller (the OP). It appears at their own expense, they have used a professional delivery service to return the defective goods. 

Given the choice of delivery service the OP is perfectly able to make a claim against the delivery service and undoubtedly is in a better position to do so knowing what their own door looks like etc. 

Its certainly far from a slam dunk and if the OP has refused to attempt to deal with RM and instead gone to court the judge may, if the mood takes him, look exceptionally badly on the OP.

smash

Thanks for the advice, I did wonder if Consumer Rights would apply since it was return of a trade in phone rather than a purchase. I agree that it's their legal duty to ensure that phone is returned safely to me. Google's trade in partner PCS Wireless would have paid for the return postage, I used Special Delivery to send it to them to ensure it was tracked, signed for, and insured.

I haven't contacted the RM myself, their website says to contact the seller/sender who can submit a case or claim on my behalf. If I do contact RM and they say it's lost, I'll have to chase Google for compensation or something. I don't relish either route at the moment!

I did find this page for Google while searching: https://payments.google.com/payments/html/complaintsHandlingProcess.html

Again I'm not sure this would apply to this case but willing to give it a try in the morning.

Alderbank

DullGreyGuy said:

smash said:
I have pointed out that under Consumer Rights Act 2015 it is their responsibility to ensure my property is returned to me but it's been hopeless.

Can anyone offer any advice or a course of action to resolve? As it stands, my £500 phone appears to have been lost and Google are not accepting any responsibility for this.

The Consumer Rights Act is for when you buy a product or service... you weren't buying a product or service, you were the vendor in this transaction and the buyer rejected your goods. 

I'm not too sure about that.

My take is that the OP entered into a consumer contract to buy a Pixel phone from Google and would pay partly in cash and partly in 'something else', their old phone.

They didn't like Google's opinion about their old phone so exercised their consumer right to reject.

This is anticipated in s20(11)ff of the Consumer Rights Act, albeit the wording is rather clumsy:

(11) To the extent that the consumer transferred anything else [other than money] under the contract, the consumer is entitled to receive back the same amount of what the consumer transferred, unless subsection (12) applies.

(12)To the extent that the consumer transferred under the contract something for which the same amount of the same thing cannot be substituted, the consumer is entitled to receive back in its original state whatever the consumer transferred.

I think that is a higher duty than just exercising reasonable care. The seller has a statutory duty to ensure that the consumer receives back the thing which cannot be substituted and in its original state.

DullGreyGuy

Alderbank said:

DullGreyGuy said:

smash said:
I have pointed out that under Consumer Rights Act 2015 it is their responsibility to ensure my property is returned to me but it's been hopeless.

Can anyone offer any advice or a course of action to resolve? As it stands, my £500 phone appears to have been lost and Google are not accepting any responsibility for this.

The Consumer Rights Act is for when you buy a product or service... you weren't buying a product or service, you were the vendor in this transaction and the buyer rejected your goods. 

I'm not too sure about that.

My take is that the OP entered into a consumer contract to buy a Pixel phone from Google and would pay partly in cash and partly in 'something else', their old phone.

Your knowledge of Google products is clearly more than mine as the OP stated nothing about using it as part payment. 

smash

I did indeed purchase a new Pixel and paid in full for it, the old phone was intended to be traded in and a partial refund made for it's value after inspection. Since they valued the phone at £0 it was automatically returned to me... or not, in this case.

Okell

DullGreyGuy said:

Alderbank said:

DullGreyGuy said:

smash said:
I have pointed out that under Consumer Rights Act 2015 it is their responsibility to ensure my property is returned to me but it's been hopeless.

Can anyone offer any advice or a course of action to resolve? As it stands, my £500 phone appears to have been lost and Google are not accepting any responsibility for this.

The Consumer Rights Act is for when you buy a product or service... you weren't buying a product or service, you were the vendor in this transaction and the buyer rejected your goods. 

I'm not too sure about that.

My take is that the OP entered into a consumer contract to buy a Pixel phone from Google and would pay partly in cash and partly in 'something else', their old phone.

Your knowledge of Google products is clearly more than mine as the OP stated nothing about using it as part payment. 

I think they are referring to the Op's words "I attempted to trade in my old phone with Google..."

Okell

Alderbank said:

DullGreyGuy said:

smash said:
I have pointed out that under Consumer Rights Act 2015 it is their responsibility to ensure my property is returned to me but it's been hopeless.

Can anyone offer any advice or a course of action to resolve? As it stands, my £500 phone appears to have been lost and Google are not accepting any responsibility for this.

The Consumer Rights Act is for when you buy a product or service... you weren't buying a product or service, you were the vendor in this transaction and the buyer rejected your goods. 

I'm not too sure about that.

My take is that the OP entered into a consumer contract to buy a Pixel phone from Google and would pay partly in cash and partly in 'something else', their old phone.

They didn't like Google's opinion about their old phone so exercised their consumer right to reject.

This is anticipated in s20(11)ff of the Consumer Rights Act, albeit the wording is rather clumsy:

(11) To the extent that the consumer transferred anything else [other than money] under the contract, the consumer is entitled to receive back the same amount of what the consumer transferred, unless subsection (12) applies.

(12)To the extent that the consumer transferred under the contract something for which the same amount of the same thing cannot be substituted, the consumer is entitled to receive back in its original state whatever the consumer transferred.

I think that is a higher duty than just exercising reasonable care. The seller has a statutory duty to ensure that the consumer receives back the thing which cannot be substituted and in its original state.

Doesn't s20 only come into play once a contract has been entered into by both the consumer and the trader?

But aren't you suggesting that there is no contract here because the OP has decided not to accept whatever part-ex value Google have put on his old 'phone?

Isn't this a simple case of negligence?  Google (or whoever) have the OP's property and owe the OP a duty of care.  They should have chosen an appropriate method of returning the phone so that any loss by RM would be covered.  Or they claim on their own insurance

DullGreyGuy

Okell said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Alderbank said:

DullGreyGuy said:

smash said:
I have pointed out that under Consumer Rights Act 2015 it is their responsibility to ensure my property is returned to me but it's been hopeless.

Can anyone offer any advice or a course of action to resolve? As it stands, my £500 phone appears to have been lost and Google are not accepting any responsibility for this.

The Consumer Rights Act is for when you buy a product or service... you weren't buying a product or service, you were the vendor in this transaction and the buyer rejected your goods. 

I'm not too sure about that.

My take is that the OP entered into a consumer contract to buy a Pixel phone from Google and would pay partly in cash and partly in 'something else', their old phone.

Your knowledge of Google products is clearly more than mine as the OP stated nothing about using it as part payment. 

I think they are referring to the Op's words "I attempted to trade in my old phone with Google..."

Some allow you to trade in a secondhand device for store credit or cash rather than explicitly as part of sale