Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • David Bedford2018
    • By David Bedford2018 8th Jul 18, 11:50 AM
    • 1Posts
    • 0Thanks
    David Bedford2018
    Goods delivered in error
    • #1
    • 8th Jul 18, 11:50 AM
    Goods delivered in error 8th Jul 18 at 11:50 AM
    Hi - have seen a number of posts re unsolicited goods and have my own views on this scenario but would welcome feedback:_
    I was watching an item on Ebay and was surprised to find that while I was off-line, a 'Buy It Now' transaction had been completed without my knowledge. This was on a saturday evening when the retailer was closed (early evening, no drink had been taken) but I contacted both Ebay and the retailer in writing within an hour of the transaction taking place to confirm that I had not bid and that I wished to cancel the transaction.
    The retailer confirmed that the order was cancelled and that they would cancel delivery (item had not yet been dispatched).
    However, item was then delivered later in the week and the retailer has not contacted me. Given that they had confirmed cancellation prior to dispatch and therefore knowingly sent me something I did not want, does this constitute unsolicited goods (or !!!! up...). Many thanks.

    NB - for info, this is the second time a bid appears to have been made on an item I was watching (not my doing) - which raises some concerns. With over 500+ 100% positive transactions on Ebay I know how it works, but this baffles me.
Page 1
    • mije1983
    • By mije1983 8th Jul 18, 12:09 PM
    • 3,361 Posts
    • 19,286 Thanks
    mije1983
    • #2
    • 8th Jul 18, 12:09 PM
    • #2
    • 8th Jul 18, 12:09 PM
    does this constitute unsolicited goods
    Originally posted by David Bedford2018
    No. Unsolicited goods would be me sending you something. We have had no contact, whereas in your situation someone with access to your account made the bid which was accepted. Whether that was an error at your end or eBay's, the retailer only sees a genuine bid for their item.

    It is wrongly delivered goods. Contact the retailer and make them aware. They will need to arrange collection at a time suitable to you.

    • rhinestonemaiden
    • By rhinestonemaiden 9th Jul 18, 10:16 AM
    • 73 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    rhinestonemaiden
    • #3
    • 9th Jul 18, 10:16 AM
    • #3
    • 9th Jul 18, 10:16 AM
    Mije1983 you are wrong I am afraid. You need to read up on your law before posting. It is clear from the post that the goods are unsolicited. The receiver does not have to do anything and can dispose of the goods as he or she wishes. In this case he/she has already been in touch with the retailer and done all that he could and still the retailer delivered, for whatever reason, it does not matter.

    So, hard luck on the retailer. Easiest way for those of you interested is to check the legislation wording as shown on Wikipedia. The consumer has more protection than ever before nowadays in this area. Unsolicited goods used to be a blooming nuisance for the consumer, but no longer, thank the Lord
    • neilmcl
    • By neilmcl 9th Jul 18, 10:35 AM
    • 11,244 Posts
    • 8,050 Thanks
    neilmcl
    • #4
    • 9th Jul 18, 10:35 AM
    • #4
    • 9th Jul 18, 10:35 AM
    Why would you watch a Buy it Now item, doesn't make a lot of sense unless there was also an option to bid?

    TBH, I've never heard of this happening where a watched item is purchased without your interaction, I suggest you post this on the ebay forum and also possibly raise a dispute if it is the case.

    This has nothing to do with unsolicited goods imho.
    • neilmcl
    • By neilmcl 9th Jul 18, 10:42 AM
    • 11,244 Posts
    • 8,050 Thanks
    neilmcl
    • #5
    • 9th Jul 18, 10:42 AM
    • #5
    • 9th Jul 18, 10:42 AM
    Mije1983 you are wrong I am afraid. You need to read up on your law before posting.
    Originally posted by rhinestonemaiden
    I believe it's you that's wrong and maybe you should look at the actual legislation rather than spending time reading on you first search result from Wikipedia.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 9th Jul 18, 10:48 AM
    • 4,507 Posts
    • 4,537 Thanks
    DoaM
    • #6
    • 9th Jul 18, 10:48 AM
    • #6
    • 9th Jul 18, 10:48 AM
    Mije1983 you are wrong I am afraid. You need to read up on your law before posting. It is clear from the post that the goods are unsolicited. The receiver does not have to do anything and can dispose of the goods as he or she wishes. In this case he/she has already been in touch with the retailer and done all that he could and still the retailer delivered, for whatever reason, it does not matter.

    So, hard luck on the retailer. Easiest way for those of you interested is to check the legislation wording as shown on Wikipedia. The consumer has more protection than ever before nowadays in this area. Unsolicited goods used to be a blooming nuisance for the consumer, but no longer, thank the Lord
    Originally posted by rhinestonemaiden
    1. There has already been an interaction between buyer and seller regarding these goods, therefore this is not unsolicited - as already said it is incorrectly delivered goods.

    2. As they are not unsolicited then the receiver cannot simply do what they like with them.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • rhinestonemaiden
    • By rhinestonemaiden 9th Jul 18, 11:20 AM
    • 73 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    rhinestonemaiden
    • #7
    • 9th Jul 18, 11:20 AM
    • #7
    • 9th Jul 18, 11:20 AM
    Neil and Doam. Prove I am wrong with actual quotes from the legislation. No good saying you "believe" I am wrong. The goods are clearly unsolicited
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 9th Jul 18, 11:35 AM
    • 4,507 Posts
    • 4,537 Thanks
    DoaM
    • #8
    • 9th Jul 18, 11:35 AM
    • #8
    • 9th Jul 18, 11:35 AM
    No, they clearly are not unsolicited ...

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5840148
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5832552

    But I really can't be bothered ... it happens too often that someone comes here full of exuberance but little real knowledge, and ends up disrupting the forum.

    Filling people with false hope by telling them what they want to hear is NOT helping them.
    Last edited by DoaM; 09-07-2018 at 11:39 AM.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • marliepanda
    • By marliepanda 9th Jul 18, 11:45 AM
    • 6,108 Posts
    • 13,008 Thanks
    marliepanda
    • #9
    • 9th Jul 18, 11:45 AM
    • #9
    • 9th Jul 18, 11:45 AM
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/30

    “unsolicited” means, in relation to goods sent to any person, that they are sent without any prior request made by him or on his behalf.

    Can it get any clearer...
    • rhinestonemaiden
    • By rhinestonemaiden 9th Jul 18, 11:49 AM
    • 73 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    rhinestonemaiden
    DoAM you have not provided proof in the form of legislation, just a couple of Moneysavingexpert threads (and we know how much value is in those, not much lol). You "can't be bothered" you say. Says it all really. And it is you, one of the naysayers on this forum, who is being destructive of people's hopes, not I.
    • rhinestonemaiden
    • By rhinestonemaiden 9th Jul 18, 11:57 AM
    • 73 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    rhinestonemaiden
    I have to say that since coming on to this Consumer Section of the forum I am shocked by the negativity and the willingness and readiness of some regular contributors on here to denigrate people's complaints. It is why I am weighing in here. On principle. It makes me wonder if these naysayers have a hidden agenda trying perhaps to put people off bringing genuine complaints to the Ombudsmen or to court. As I have said elsewhere, we have greater protection for consumers in the UK than almost anywhere else in the world. So great is that protection, that a court will bend over backwards to help consumers against bad companies, even where this consumers are ignorant of the law that applies. I have appeared in court many times with reference to consumer issues and I can safely say, I never saw the company that was stupid enough to fight the customer, actually win. In this thread these were unsolicited goods and any demand for repayment by the retailer is now a criminal offence in the magistrates court. Still waiting for your legislation quotes DoAM, otherwise hold your tongue. And naysayers with an agenda, also please do the same.
    • mije1983
    • By mije1983 9th Jul 18, 12:01 PM
    • 3,361 Posts
    • 19,286 Thanks
    mije1983
    DoAM you have not provided proof in the form of legislation, just a couple of Moneysavingexpert threads (and we know how much value is in those, not much lol). .
    Originally posted by rhinestonemaiden
    You say this, yet you have used wikipedia as a reference to back you up

    Easiest way for those of you interested is to check the legislation wording as shown on Wikipedia.
    Originally posted by rhinestonemaiden
    Can you link to legislation that says these goods ARE unsolicited?

    Marliepanda has linked to the relevant legislation.

    I have to say that since coming on to this Consumer Section of the forum I am shocked by the negativity and the willingness and readiness of some regular contributors on here to denigrate people's complaints
    Originally posted by rhinestonemaiden
    This is a consumer rights forum, not a consumer wants forum. Not all threads are going to have a happy ending!

    I can safely say, I never saw the company that was stupid enough to fight the customer, actually win.
    Originally posted by rhinestonemaiden
    Actually, the main reasons companies don't fight these small amounts is due to costs. It does not make business sense to fight a case that would cost them more than they would win (mostly).
    Last edited by mije1983; 09-07-2018 at 12:06 PM.

    • George Michael
    • By George Michael 9th Jul 18, 12:09 PM
    • 3,118 Posts
    • 4,185 Thanks
    George Michael
    Easiest way for those of you interested is to check the legislation wording as shown on Wikipedia.
    Originally posted by rhinestonemaiden
    Wikipedia, that bastion of knowledge that is so sure of what they post that they state:
    Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

    That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 9th Jul 18, 12:15 PM
    • 3,012 Posts
    • 4,294 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    Regardless of what the law says or doesn't say, if this were me I'd feel morally obliged to arrange for the item to be returned to it's owner rather than take advantage of someone's mistake.

    Do as you would wish to be done unto.
    • pinkshoes
    • By pinkshoes 9th Jul 18, 12:20 PM
    • 15,845 Posts
    • 21,766 Thanks
    pinkshoes
    Neil and Doam. Prove I am wrong with actual quotes from the legislation. No good saying you "believe" I am wrong. The goods are clearly unsolicited
    Originally posted by rhinestonemaiden
    Could you please quote the legislation that proves they are unsolicited?

    (Wikipedia is not legislation...)

    I'm thinking the 1971 unsolicited goods legislation:
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/30

    The OP had viewed the goods and commited to buy they (albeit in error) so the contract had been formed.

    Although it was cancelled, the goods were then sent in ERROR, so the OP has a duty of care to look after them until they are collected.
    Should've = Should HAVE (not 'of')
    Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')

    No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)
    • takman
    • By takman 9th Jul 18, 4:08 PM
    • 3,493 Posts
    • 3,131 Thanks
    takman
    I have to say that since coming on to this Consumer Section of the forum I am shocked by the negativity and the willingness and readiness of some regular contributors on here to denigrate people's complaints. It is why I am weighing in here. On principle. It makes me wonder if these naysayers have a hidden agenda trying perhaps to put people off bringing genuine complaints to the Ombudsmen or to court. As I have said elsewhere, we have greater protection for consumers in the UK than almost anywhere else in the world. So great is that protection, that a court will bend over backwards to help consumers against bad companies, even where this consumers are ignorant of the law that applies. I have appeared in court many times with reference to consumer issues and I can safely say, I never saw the company that was stupid enough to fight the customer, actually win. In this thread these were unsolicited goods and any demand for repayment by the retailer is now a criminal offence in the magistrates court. Still waiting for your legislation quotes DoAM, otherwise hold your tongue. And naysayers with an agenda, also please do the same.
    Originally posted by rhinestonemaiden
    If your making claims then the onus is on your to link to the relevant legislation and which bit backs up what your saying. Maybe if you did spend some time reading legislation rather than Wikipedia you might learn something!.

    The fact that you seem to think people on here have hidden agendas and that a court will always side with a consumer makes you sound very naive.
    • bris
    • By bris 9th Jul 18, 4:13 PM
    • 7,729 Posts
    • 6,715 Thanks
    bris
    Neil and Doam. Prove I am wrong with actual quotes from the legislation. No good saying you "believe" I am wrong. The goods are clearly unsolicited
    Originally posted by rhinestonemaiden
    Nonsense it's you who really needs to stop posting.


    The goods were bought by a buy it now, probably the OP or someone on their households fault because buy it now doesn't just happen.


    So I am saying I know you are wrong.
    • bris
    • By bris 9th Jul 18, 4:15 PM
    • 7,729 Posts
    • 6,715 Thanks
    bris
    Neil and Doam. Prove I am wrong with actual quotes from the legislation. No good saying you "believe" I am wrong. The goods are clearly unsolicited
    Originally posted by rhinestonemaiden

    Unsolicited goods are in actual fact a thing of the past, it was a long time ago when the law changed on this and killed the practice overnight.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 9th Jul 18, 4:19 PM
    • 4,507 Posts
    • 4,537 Thanks
    DoaM
    DoAM you have not provided proof in the form of legislation
    Originally posted by rhinestonemaiden
    Actually, you're the one going against the majority opinion, thus it's for you to prove your point not I.

    And it is you, one of the naysayers on this forum, who is being destructive of people's hopes, not I.
    Originally posted by rhinestonemaiden
    As I said earlier ... telling people what they want to hear is NOT helping them. Building up their hopes with false promises does them more harm than telling them the truth.

    As I said on another thread ... you really should just quietly go away as you obviously know very little and are not helping anyone at all.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • its_all_over
    • By its_all_over 9th Jul 18, 6:47 PM
    • 113 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    its_all_over
    Mije1983 you are wrong I am afraid. You need to read up on your law before posting. It is clear from the post that the goods are unsolicited. The receiver does not have to do anything and can dispose of the goods as he or she wishes. In this case he/she has already been in touch with the retailer and done all that he could and still the retailer delivered, for whatever reason, it does not matter.

    So, hard luck on the retailer. Easiest way for those of you interested is to check the legislation wording as shown on Wikipedia. The consumer has more protection than ever before nowadays in this area. Unsolicited goods used to be a blooming nuisance for the consumer, but no longer, thank the Lord
    Originally posted by rhinestonemaiden
    They are right and you are wrong, I'm afraid.

    Goods arriving from cancelled orders is one of the examples given by CAB for what does not constitute unsolicited goods.

    The OP has to take care of the goods and advise the retailer that they have received the goods in error.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,212Posts Today

7,052Users online

Martin's Twitter