We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Right street - wrong postcode. Courier took a guess....
Comments
-
In most professional outfits these things are all dealt with automatically by computers which are just reading the postcode given in the UK a postcode cover an average of 15 properties (our postcode is unique to our building) it means it can very precisely be sorted and loaded into the van in the order its to be delivered without anyone looking at it to check the street address - particularly if we are talking small-medium parcels or letters.
Our local Amazon chap has a van full of yellow sack/box things, each one represents a few buildings (we're flats around here) and they are in order. So gets to the start point of his round, pulls out the first sack and drops off the top layer to building 1, second layer to building 2, third layer to building 3 by which time the sack is empty os he move the van along one parking block, pulls out the next one and starts again.
In most cases they won't be looking at the address, just the number because the system has already put all the parcels for the same street together. Plus these days many couriers are self employed and the commercials only really are viable if you can get through volume which means there isnt time to study the address, try to decipher which part may be wrong or such… gone are the days of the courier knocking and saying they've got something for the prior resident and asking what you want them to do with it because they know you buy name as they did the person that lived there 5 years ago.
2 -
Royal Mail certainly deliver to postcode as I have had mail addressed to a different town on the other side of the country but with my postcode.
0 -
I have used my MIL address in my name for delivery for umpteen orders and none of them have been physically delivered into my hands. Can I therefore claim for non delivery?
0 -
Mainly to avoid this kind of problem ,most sites have a postcode look up. I assume auto fill is to blame.
Regarding the courier, their process doesn't really have anything to with the customer but the delivery aspect is a service which must be carried out with due care and skill which extends to the courier as the retailer's obligation and a parcel with a mixed up address should indicate something is amiss. The issue is the driver is paid peanuts (probably per parcel) and doesn't want the headache of dealing with an undelivered parcel so it's easier to deliver it and hope it's right.
In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces0 -
The issue is the driver is paid peanuts
So, is the solution to pay the driver considerably more and increase the price of all products via mail order?
Or, would the collective consumer base still tend towards whichever supplier offered the lowest price and, hence, and alternative delivery service that undercuts the service paying the driver more?
Fundamentally, this is an error by the customer, yet the thread seems to be suggesting that the supplier should take responsibility. That seems an inequitable position.
3 -
Evri profit:
2024-25: Profit before tax hit £176 million (on revenues of £1.85 billion).
2023-24: Profit before tax more than doubled to £119 million (on revenues of £1.7 billion).
Driver here told me a few months (maybe 6?) ago they'd cut their pay per parcel fairly significantly.
Largest shareholder of Evri is the US private equity firm Apollo Global Management, less money for ordinary people, more money for billionaires.
It's unclear how much money is in tax havens globally but some estimates are 7-30 trillion US dollars (which is 6-23% of global GPD).
It's similar to people banging on about welfare handouts, it's all divide a conquer, argue among ourselves whilst the mega wealthy live it up.
The service should run well, it's the profit that is the problem and that money isn't going to those doing the legwork to run the service.
In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces1 -
I don't see it as an auto-fill problem.
The OP said:
"I put delivery address as:-
25 cat street, dogtown, DO10 1DG (which does not exist - there is no cat street in dogtown)"
From what other posters have put regarding postcode and house number, the courier did nothing wrong imho.
I can only see one source of fault here.
That is with the OP who actually started this thread with:
"Yes my fault."
I would think it incredibly unfair if either the retailer or courier suffered because of the admitted error by the OP.
2 -
What is fair is a matter of opinion (and I don't necessarily disagree with yours).
The question is consumer rights.
You have passing of risk which since the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis case and the concept of legitimate interest there may be a legal argument of nominating a safe place or delivering to an alternative address as being at the consumer's risk (once delivered).
However an invalid address raising questions of due care and skill, yes the OP failed in that but consumer rights are shewed towards the consumer.
All couriers have a mechanism for dealing with undeliverable mail or parcels and a parcel with an address on that doesn't exist should have been returned to sender.
In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces0 -
So, upthread, the extract taken (in isolation) from CRA quoted need to delivery to " a person". How is a "person" defined in the legistlation?
If an order is placed by "Mr X", does "Mr X" then become the "person"? If so, delivery to "Mrs X" would not be acceptable. So, the delivery could only be made when "Mr X" is at home and if the delivery is made while "Mr X" can't take the delivery - perhaps he is on the toilet - no-one else in the household could take the delivery on his behalf. I truly don't believe that is how "a person" is intended to be interpreted by the legislation, nor would such a literal interpretation be helpful.
Fundamentally, the OP made the mistake here and any attempt to pass blame and consquences to the retailer or the courier seem misplaced.
3 -
It says:
(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.
I think that is pretty clear. The regs are not just covering distance contracts and have been written to give the trader the obligation of simply delivering to the consumer or a person identified by them.
As I said above legitimate interest may possibly be a valid argument to override a strict definition of this but as it stands there is no case law (that I know of), nor any real source (again that I know of) that covers this topic and explains the reasoning behind it. I have seen a few places say risk passes if the customer nominates a safe place, but never a explanation as to how that is derived.
In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 355.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.8K Spending & Discounts
- 247.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 605K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.8K Life & Family
- 262.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards