Mail order item stolen from non-safe place.

Okell

MyRealNameToo said:

Okell said:

The law makes any items bought through a distance contract the responsibility of the trader until the items in question are delivered into the physical possession of either the consumer or an individual specifically identified by the consumer for that purpose.

If the courier does not do that, it's a problem between them and the trader, and not the consumer's problem.

Nowhere does the law make any mention of "safe places".

And before anybody bangs on about allowing delivery to "safe spaces" reduces the cost of delivery to everybody - it doesn't.  It only reduces the average cost of delivery and only those people who have a successful delivery benefit from that reduced average cost.  Those who have goods "disappeared" from wherever the courier has dumped them are disproportionately penalised and are unfairly subsidising the reduced costs of everybody else.

A basic economic principle is that costs should be borne where they fall - otherwise you never know the true cost of anything.

Has caselaw moved on? I know several years ago there was extensive discussion on the legal standing if the customer had explicitly instructed the vendor/courier to leave the item say in a porch and the legal liability were that to happen but something occurs post delivery. 

The general view at the time was it was likely the courts would take the customer's instruction and see them as the author of their own misfortune if they said to leave the parcel in the bin and then customer complains the bin had been emptied between delivery and their opportunity to bring it in. 

I suppose the difficulty I have with that POV is that - while it might be consistent with previous law (ie decided cases under earlier common law and/or earlier legislation) - s29 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 seems to be 100% clear that goods must be delivered into the physical possession of either the consumer or someone they have specifically identified to receive delivery of the goods.  There is no mention of "safe places" and there is no other permitted way that the trader can satisfy their statutory obligation to deliver goods to the consumer.

It seems to me that this is reinforced by s31(1) under which the trader cannot exclude or restrict their liability under s29 by attempting to get the consumer to agree to any other form of delivery - eg to a "safe place"

While it's always possible that a maverick judge might decide to ignore the clear intention of the legislature and decide that they "must have meant B rather than A" when they actually said "by saying A we mean A", I think such speculation is purely speculative.


(FWIW I think most current consumer legislation is very badly drafted but it's a product of a "european style" drafting tradition rather than an English one.  If it had originated from Westminster Parliamentary draftsmen I suspect it would have been much clearer what was meant - but many pages longer...)

robatwork

One of the Amazon guys who delivers to me is operating on some sort of quantum level. He's knocking on the door and driving away, simultaneously.

Renfrewman

Royal Mail make it quite clear they deliver to addresses not people. Why hasn't that been challenged?

Okell

Renfrewman said:

Royal Mail make it quite clear they deliver to addresses not people. Why hasn't that been challenged?

How would a trader challenge RM about that?

Renfrewman

Okell said:

Renfrewman said:

Royal Mail make it quite clear they deliver to addresses not people. Why hasn't that been challenged?

How would a trader challenge RM about that?

I am not sure they would want to as it probably suits them not to. Proof of delivery to an address is enough for them I think. I don't know any courier who requires you to prove who you are when delivering a parcel. I regularly get parcels delivered in my name to my MIL's address who lives 25 miles away...not once have I been there to personally accept delivery. Could I claim for non delivery to me in person?

born_again

Renfrewman said:

Royal Mail make it quite clear they deliver to addresses not people. Why hasn't that been challenged?

Maybe if you are not in then they can't deliver 🤷‍♀️

Put a address on a letter & nothing else it gets delivered. Put a name & nothing else what happens?

Undervalued

born_again said:

Renfrewman said:

Royal Mail make it quite clear they deliver to addresses not people. Why hasn't that been challenged?

Maybe if you are not in then they can't deliver 🤷‍♀️

Put a address on a letter & nothing else it gets delivered. Put a name & nothing else what happens?

I think, technically, the RM still have to attempt to deliver it as mail is (was?) sent to a person, not a place! Any address is only to "help" them to do so. This is why, AFAIK, you can forward a letter free of charge if the recipient has moved or is even temporarily staying somewhere else. 

However as @Renfrewman has pointed out (and so have I in the past) RM will only provide proof of delivery to a place and not a person!

It is all a total mess and given that there is currently no legal obligation for any British subject to have any proof of identity I can't see how delivery to the personal possession of a named person can ever be proved!

Barralad77

My Amazon orders are now delivered by someone who leaves parcels on the front doorstep in full view of anyone passing by (the pavement is around 3 feet away) and immediately driving off. When I get the email confirming delivery it says ‘handed to customer’. This is a blatant lie, so I spent an hour or so yesterday discussing with Amazon who said they could see who the driver was but they needed me to allow them to send my complaint to the courier who could then tell the driver who it was who submitted the complaint. Not likely…. Quite why Amazon cannot simply get in touch with the courier service and ask them fo remind all their drivers to ensure that parcels are delivered in person is beyond me. I was told that their policy doesn’t allow them to do that, which seems ridiculous. But then so much of the modern world seems that way to me. Maybe it’s me?

Alderbank

Undervalued said:

born_again said:

Renfrewman said:

Royal Mail make it quite clear they deliver to addresses not people. Why hasn't that been challenged?

Maybe if you are not in then they can't deliver 🤷‍♀️

Put a address on a letter & nothing else it gets delivered. Put a name & nothing else what happens?

I think, technically, the RM still have to attempt to deliver it as mail is (was?) sent to a person, not a place! Any address is only to "help" them to do so. This is why, AFAIK, you can forward a letter free of charge if the recipient has moved or is even temporarily staying somewhere else. 

However as @Renfrewman has pointed out (and so have I in the past) RM will only provide proof of delivery to a place and not a person!

It is all a total mess and given that there is currently no legal obligation for any British subject to have any proof of identity I can't see how delivery to the personal possession of a named person can ever be proved!

It's to addresses, not persons.

Royal Mail's Universal Service Obligation (USO) is the legal requirement to deliver letters, large letters, and parcels to all addresses across the UK.

Royal Mail say:

We are legally obliged to deliver all addressed mail, which includes mail that is addressed "To the Occupier" (or with any other generic recipient information), as well as mail that is personally addressed to you by name.

Okell

I'm pretty certain that we've had many many threads where we've had people complain that goods have "disappeared" after being left outside their front door or in some other unsecured part of their property or even on the pavement. 

Those are the only issues where it's necessary to consider whether goods have been correctly delivered into the physical possession of the consumer

I don't think I've ever seen a thread where someone has complained about something going missing after it had been correctly delivered to the correct address.  When such a thread appears it would be the right time to consider whether delivery to an address constitutes physical possession.  But that hasn't happened yet.