Retailer failing to collect incorrect goods

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Perhaps it relates to something else/specific, but I thought the courts deemed 1st Class post to have been delivered after 2(?) days (which always seemed a bit unfair to me given how unreliable standard letters can be). 

What is a "registered" letter these days? A large letter (£1.55 if under 100g) will have delivery confirmation, not sure if standard letters do. 

Okell

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Perhaps it relates to something else/specific, but I thought the courts deemed 1st Class post to have been delivered after 2(?) days (which always seemed a bit unfair to me given how unreliable standard letters can be). 

What is a "registered" letter these days? A large letter (£1.55 if under 100g) will have delivery confirmation, not sure if standard letters do. 

I think under the 1978 Interpretation Act there is a statutory presumption that if s document or notice is required to be sent or served by "post", then if sent by first class post it is deemed to have been delivered or served two working days after being sent.  If you go over to FTLA you will see this can be a critical issue when considering whether police NIPs and council PCNs have been properly served - and responded to.

The problem with the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 is that re a Notice of Intention to Sell Goods, the Act says it has to be sent "... by post in a registered letter, or by the recorded delivery service."

Whether a court would uphold such a requirement now, I don't know, but if I were sending such a notice I'd send by registered letter to make sure

Alderbank

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Perhaps it relates to something else/specific, but I thought the courts deemed 1st Class post to have been delivered after 2(?) days (which always seemed a bit unfair to me given how unreliable standard letters can be). 

That's a good point.

It's section 7 of the Interpretation Act of 1978 which says that where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, if sent as you describe it can be deemed to have been delivered.

It only applies to documents and where an Act of Parliament actually says they can or must be sent by post.

So it wouldn't apply to a box of frogs you sent to Auntie Mabel.

Exodi

theclangers7 said:

£24.39 ex VAT

Honestly considering the the fact the item probably cost them half of that combined with the time and effort involved in collecting the item, processing it, potentially repacking it (which they may not be able to do if they're not the manufacturer), etc I just can't see it being worth the hassle for them (but totally agree they should communicate that).

cantbelieveit23

Not a "legal" answer.....we have had this situation.  The first company told us to keep the item as a gift.  The second never suggested any return method, and never contacted us again.
Most likely you won't hear from them again, so it's a question of whether the small risk bothers you?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Okell said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Perhaps it relates to something else/specific, but I thought the courts deemed 1st Class post to have been delivered after 2(?) days (which always seemed a bit unfair to me given how unreliable standard letters can be). 

What is a "registered" letter these days? A large letter (£1.55 if under 100g) will have delivery confirmation, not sure if standard letters do. 

I think under the 1978 Interpretation Act there is a statutory presumption that if s document or notice is required to be sent or served by "post", then if sent by first class post it is deemed to have been delivered or served two working days after being sent.  If you go over to FTLA you will see this can be a critical issue when considering whether police NIPs and council PCNs have been properly served - and responded to.

The problem with the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 is that re a Notice of Intention to Sell Goods, the Act says it has to be sent "... by post in a registered letter, or by the recorded delivery service."

Whether a court would uphold such a requirement now, I don't know, but if I were sending such a notice I'd send by registered letter to make sure

If OP paid for £5 widget, got £500 widget and kept quiet it's a bit different as the retailer doesn't know unless told but in this situation the retailer is already aware that OP has their goods as they've conversed about it and then sent a replacement. 

Does beg the question if a company sued someone like the OP in a situation the would the court care much about such specifics of communication as the knowledge of possession already existed? 

Now with Royal Mail there is Tracked, Signed For and standard with delivery confirmation, so which one is "registered" or "recorded"?! 

A_Geordie

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Now with Royal Mail there is Tracked, Signed For and standard with delivery confirmation, so which one is "registered" or "recorded"?! 

"Registered Post" and "Registered Letter" don't exist anymore from a statutory interpretation point of view. 

The Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962 is the reference for this under s.1(1). The wording is a bit of a mouthful but what it's saying is that any reference to registered post shall be taken to mean a recorded delivery service. A recorded delivery service is essential a service that is tracked through the mail system such as RM Special Delivery, signed for or tracked service e.g. RM Tracked 24. 

The Schedule to that Act says that references to "registered letter" shall mean a reference to registered post, so it circles back to the above point. 

What it doesn't cover (in my opinion) is a first class stamp with a proof of postage receipt since that is not trackable through the RM system, though I am open to being corrected if there's some other legislation or case law that confirms this. 

Whilst on the same topic for reference (but separate to the Torts Act since it only refers to registered letter or recorded delivery), paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 of the Postal Services Act 2000 also says that a reference to "registered post" shall be taken to mean "registered postal service". The definition of registered postal service is in s.125 of the PSA 2000 as being: 

means a postal service which provides for the registration of postal packets in connection with their transmission by post and for the payment of compensation for any loss or damage

So this would include RM services that offer compensation e.g. RM signed for services as well as their same day service which I understand also offers compensation. I suppose there's an argument that you are not limited to RM services so the same could apply to other mail tracking service providers, unless the law expressly refers to RM but I have no authority on that. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Thanks, excellent answer! 

user1977

Though in old Royal Mail product naming terms, "registered" post was the equivalent of today's Special Delivery i.e. it included compensation for sending items of intrinsic value, and "recorded" was merely "Signed For" without any more than the standard compensation.