Parcel left in the rain by postman, and ruined

la531983

born_again said:

la531983 said:

And this is why everyone should get a Ring doorbell so they can liaise with callers to the door about where to leave things

Plenty of other brands that will do exactly the same for far less & no subscription 👍

Well yes but you get the general jist.

elsien

Arunmor said:

Is there no personal responsibility these days? 

If householders made arrangements to receive such items it would save everyone a lot of bother and expense, its not difficult (shed, plastic/metal box etc).  Anything tricky can be covered by a post-it note on the door.

Many of us live in rural areas where a trip to the sorting office is not that easy and a failed delivery might result in never seeing the package.

You are presuming that such items are expected which is not always the case. Plus if you arrange a delivery for a specific date when you know you will be there and then it gets delivered early (which happened to me this week while I was away,) I would still expect it to be left somewhere secure. Or redelivered. Not just dumped,

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Exodi said:

Since this legislation was inevitably going to be posted, as it always is, I'd like to continue the cycle by pointing out that goods posted through the letterbox (as the OP hoped) would also not be 'into the physical possession of the consumer', if you are interpreting it as literally putting the item in the consumers hands. Even in that case, a postman couldn't be sure that the person that they were handing the goods to was 'the consumer' as per the contract -  I would presumably be valid in arguing that by handing my parcel to my wife at the doorstep, the delivery was not compliant with the legislation. Perhaps they should also perform doorstop ID checks? Or if we're interpreting physical possession as on the property, then we can all make guesses about what is acceptable or not - Letterbox OK but doorstep not? What about in a shed? Or does it have to be inside the house? So an external letterbox is not OK? No wait, maybe it needs to be secured for it to count? But then what about if you post it through the letterbox, but the front door was unlocked? And a whole host of other silly situations interpreting this legislation at face value (e.g. My HelloFresh food delivery would spoil if allowed to return back to depot).

Fortunately for the OP, citing the (frankly outdated) legislation above, is usually a quick and easy way to get a refund and a fan-favourite of this forum.

I think we've done that one to death on here

Question for me is if you were a book seller and delivered the goods yourself would you leave a book wrapped in cardboard on a doorstep with the weather forecast for the last week or so (bucketing it down here)?

My answer would no.

Not that it affects consumer rights but Royal Mail can return parcels to the depot for the customer to pick up (or perhaps they should go back out again the next day for x delivery attempts before being held).

Whilst the line of the legislation can be debated to the extreme I think it's pretty poor in this instance for a parcel that clearly isn't waterproof to be left on a doorstep at this time of year. 

Nebbit

I think this is mainly down to the OP and he should take the hit.  

The retailer, The Telegraph Bookshop, did not agree with you. Obviously feeling that a company like theirs can afford to take the hit better than I can, they have informed me this morning, with laudable promptness,  that they will send me a full refund. 

twopenny

It's no excuse but I get the impression in my area at least that the staff at royal mail sorting office are understaffed and under a lot of pressure.
There are vans parked both sides of the road for about half a mile, where it was friendly and cheerful it's now gritted teeth and letters are delivered after all the parcels are sent out.
This means they start delivering letters around 3pm after other stuff. After an early start this was when they knocked off.

Perhaps the guy was at the end of his tether as there seems to be a high staff turnover.

But the OP assumed, in their own words, that it would fit and no checking or leaving an alternative.
On the other hand you would hope it would be in a waterproof bag as it's paper between van and delivery.
So fault on both sides.
But yes, I'd start with the retailer who chose this method of delivery and see what they say. 
Beyond that it's going to be protracted and unpleasant dealing with RM. Is the £20 worth it for your nerves and delay in replacement?

Ergates

Exodi said:

Since this legislation was inevitably going to be posted, as it always is,

It's a piece of consumer rights legislation and this is a consumer rights forum, so that should hardly come as a surprise.

Exodi said:

I'd like to continue the cycle by pointing out that goods posted through the letterbox (as the OP hoped) would also not be 'into the physical possession of the consumer', if you are interpreting it as literally putting the item in the consumers hands. Even in that case, a postman couldn't be sure that the person that they were handing the goods to was 'the consumer' as per the contract -  I would presumably be valid in arguing that by handing my parcel to my wife at the doorstep, the delivery was not compliant with the legislation. Perhaps they should also perform doorstop ID checks? Or if we're interpreting physical possession as on the property, then we can all make guesses about what is acceptable or not - Letterbox OK but doorstep not? What about in a shed? Or does it have to be inside the house? So an external letterbox is not OK? No wait, maybe it needs to be secured for it to count? But then what about if you post it through the letterbox, but the front door was unlocked? And a whole host of other silly situations interpreting this legislation at face value (e.g. My HelloFresh food delivery would spoil if allowed to return back to depot).

There's a lot of strawman arguments in there.

I'm not aware of any cases where customers are complaining to retailers about post delivered through their letterbox, left in a secure location or handed to their spouses.  If you have evidence of such things, perhaps you could post it here?

Exodi said:

Fortunately for the OP, citing the (frankly outdated) legislation above, is usually a quick and easy way to get a refund and a fan-favourite of this forum.

Again - it's consumer rights legislation and this is a consumer rights forum so.... ?
And how is it outdated?  The piece of legislation that protects your consumer rights when a courier leaves a parcel on your doorstep (and it gets rained on or stolen) is the same legislation that protects you when the lose it, or deliver it to the wrong address, or damages it.  Would you really rather that if/when a courier loses or damages your parcel the retailer could just shrug and say "Sorry, that's your problem".

Arunmor

elsien said:

Arunmor said:

Is there no personal responsibility these days? 

If householders made arrangements to receive such items it would save everyone a lot of bother and expense, its not difficult (shed, plastic/metal box etc).  Anything tricky can be covered by a post-it note on the door.

Many of us live in rural areas where a trip to the sorting office is not that easy and a failed delivery might result in never seeing the package.

You are presuming that such items are expected which is not always the case. Plus if you arrange a delivery for a specific date when you know you will be there and then it gets delivered early (which happened to me this week while I was away,) I would still expect it to be left somewhere secure. Or redelivered. Not just dumped,

Best to make life easier for all concerned if you just sort out a simple solution that covers most contingencies costs virtually nothing.

Exodi

Ergates said:

Exodi said:

I'd like to continue the cycle by pointing out that goods posted through the letterbox (as the OP hoped) would also not be 'into the physical possession of the consumer', if you are interpreting it as literally putting the item in the consumers hands. Even in that case, a postman couldn't be sure that the person that they were handing the goods to was 'the consumer' as per the contract -  I would presumably be valid in arguing that by handing my parcel to my wife at the doorstep, the delivery was not compliant with the legislation. Perhaps they should also perform doorstop ID checks? Or if we're interpreting physical possession as on the property, then we can all make guesses about what is acceptable or not - Letterbox OK but doorstep not? What about in a shed? Or does it have to be inside the house? So an external letterbox is not OK? No wait, maybe it needs to be secured for it to count? But then what about if you post it through the letterbox, but the front door was unlocked? And a whole host of other silly situations interpreting this legislation at face value (e.g. My HelloFresh food delivery would spoil if allowed to return back to depot).

There's a lot of strawman arguments in there.

I'm not aware of any cases where customers are complaining to retailers about post delivered through their letterbox, left in a secure location or handed to their spouses.  If you have evidence of such things, perhaps you could post it here?

Respectfully, those are not strawman arguments, but why don't you aid my misunderstanding and define 'physical possession' for me then?

I don't know what is seemingly absurd about deliveries to external mailboxes or sheds - we see people discuss and complain this sort of thing quite often (the whole 'safe space' debate), I'm surprised you're suggesting otherwise?

If you have evidence that someone has successfully used the s29 legislation to challenge something left on their doorstep, perhaps you could post it here? This shouldn't be hard given we see a lot of delivery mishaps and we see a lot of people that are quick to cite s29 in response.

Despite this, I have seen virtually no feedback on here of it being successfully used in court - which is odd, because literal interpretation of the legislation would render virtually every single delivery made in the UK non-compliant.

This is the debate that gets had ad nauseam.

Ergates said:

Exodi said:

Fortunately for the OP, citing the (frankly outdated) legislation above, is usually a quick and easy way to get a refund and a fan-favourite of this forum.

Again - it's consumer rights legislation and this is a consumer rights forum so.... ?
And how is it outdated?  The piece of legislation that protects your consumer rights when a courier leaves a parcel on your doorstep (and it gets rained on or stolen) is the same legislation that protects you when the lose it, or deliver it to the wrong address, or damages it.

I'm not going to get into this debate for the millionth time on this forum - if you're keen to delve into it, look into one of the other hundreds of threads with pages and pages which effectively boil down to "but rights" "but reality" "but rights" "but reality" etc.

Ergates said:
Would you really rather that if/when a courier loses or damages your parcel the retailer could just shrug and say "Sorry, that's your problem".

Now that's a good example of a strawman.

Exodi

Nebbit said:

I think this is mainly down to the OP and he should take the hit.  

The retailer, The Telegraph Bookshop, did not agree with you. Obviously feeling that a company like theirs can afford to take the hit better than I can, they have informed me this morning, with laudable promptness,  that they will send me a full refund. 

Glad you got a good outcome. It looks like it was fulfilled by Amazon however Waterstones also sell Tunisgrad if you have one nearby.

https://www.waterstones.com/book/tunisgrad/saul-david/9780008653811

Okell

Exodi said:

Okell said:

mksysb said:

mta999 said:

you need to ask for a refund or replacement from.the retailer

Why should the retailer have to pay for the OPs mistake?  He was the one who got the dimensions  wrong instead of checking the size and making suitable arrangements.  And how was the postman supposed to know he was going to be away all weekend?

I think this is mainly down to the OP and he should take the hit.  

Because the law says it's the retailer's responsibility.

s29(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

"(2)  The goods remain at the trader's risk until they come into the physical possession of—

(a)  the consumer, or

(b)  a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods."

Couriers can't just leave stuff on people's doorsteps.  But if they do, the law deems it the retailer's fault.  There is no special treatment for RM

Since this legislation was inevitably going to be posted, as it always is, I'd like to continue the cycle by pointing out that goods posted through the letterbox (as the OP hoped) would also not be 'into the physical possession of the consumer', if you are interpreting it as literally putting the item in the consumers hands...

Flugelhorn said:

mksysb said:

mta999 said:

you need to ask for a refund or replacement from.the retailer

Why should the retailer have to pay for the OPs mistake?  He was the one who got the dimensions  wrong instead of checking the size and making suitable arrangements.  And how was the postman supposed to know he was going to be away all weekend?

I think this is mainly down to the OP and he should take the hit.  

postman shouldn't just leave it outside - a note should have been left and OP could have collected from the sorting office

Just as I knew you would inevitably come on and make the same irrelevant point - yet again.

I'll adopt the practice of the courts here and not consider any extraneous issues that don't contribute to answering the question in front of us - which basically is:  "Who is responsible to the consumer if a delivery is damaged, lost or stolen before it is delivered into the consumer's physical possession?"

Answer:  "The retailer".

So if a courier leaves a delivery on the addressee's doorstep while there's no-one at home and it is damaged as a result, then that is the retailer's responsibility.  Indeed it's probably true that according to the strict letter of the law the retailer is responsible even if it is left in a "safe place" as the law makes no provision for "safe places".

Regarding whether something simply delivered to an address rather than into the hands of the addressee satisfies the requirement isn't the question the OP has asked, and doesn't need to be answered.

However, if you have something delivered that's meant for you but is swiped by your wife or another member of your family living at the same address before you can get your hands on it, come back and ask the question again.

(FWIW I suspect a court would say that delivery to the given address would satisfy the requirement of physical possession - partly because, AIUI, that is all RM is legally obliged to do.  I think a court would say it had been delivered into the possession of everybody living there, including the addressee, and that the addressee's remedy is against whoever swiped it, not the retailer)