Parcel delivered and signed for, but not by me - where does the law stand?
news.eternal-september.org
whether it's the right form to name them here) and paid for next-day
delivery. Despite bing in all day, nobody called and when I entered the
tracking number on the courier's website, it said that the parcel had been
delivered this morning.
I emailed the courier to query this and managed to get the retailer on the
phone: I was told that there was a signature and my name on the delivery
form. A name is easily copied from the label on the parcel, one imagines,
although I'd be interested to know what the signature looks like! They have
asked the courier company to interview the delivery driver; I have checked
with my neighbours and none have accepted any parcels.
Something has clearly gone amiss, and while I'm hopeful that the retailer
will honour my order, I'd be interested to know where the law stands on
this, especially when there's a spurious signature on a delivery note which,
I presume, bears little resemblance to mine. While I'd like to be positive
about the retailer's willingness to sort out the problem, it would be nice
to have a relevant reference to consumer law in my back pocket if I need
it...
Cheers.
Steve Walker
> I ordered a few bits from a large, river-based online retailer (not
> sure whether it's the right form to name them here)
You caution is appreciated. This is how it works :
If the other party to the dispute is identifiable, then nobody is allowed to
be sharply crtical of their behaviour, ethics, honesty etc. The moderators
are not prepared to put their family homes and pensions on the line to
defend your freedom of speech in a defamation hearing.
If you withhold the specific identity and just describe in generic terms,
then the gloves are off and you'll get the full range of advice and opinion
which our fantastic, eclectic community can deliver. Rule if thumb is
therefore best not to identify unless it's vital to the question.
> Something has clearly gone amiss, and while I'm hopeful that the
> retailer will honour my order, I'd be interested to know where the
> law stands on this, especially when there's a spurious signature on
> a delivery note which, I presume, bears little resemblance to mine.
> While I'd like to be positive about the retailer's willingness to
> sort out the problem, it would be nice to have a relevant reference
> to consumer law in my back pocket if I need it...
In legal terms there is no doubt that unless the goods are delivered to your
address and signed for by an occupant there, you are entitled to a refund.
It has often been suggested that some couriers falsify sigs and throw the
package on the doorstep, but if it's not your sig and you can show you were
elsewhare at the supposed time of delivery, you should have no trouble from
a large reputable online dealer.
Ian Jackson
Steve Walker <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
>In legal terms there is no doubt that unless the goods are delivered to your
>address and signed for by an occupant there, you are entitled to a refund.
>It has often been suggested that some couriers falsify sigs and throw the
>package on the doorstep, but if it's not your sig and you can show you were
>elsewhare at the supposed time of delivery, you should have no trouble from
>a large reputable online dealer.
The OP said they were in all day, so they don't have an alibi.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Owain
> >... if it's not your sig and you can show you were
> >elsewhare at the supposed time of delivery, you should have no trouble from
> >a large reputable online dealer.
> The OP said they were in all day, so they don't have an alibi.
The OP might not have been at home alone, of course.
Any number of citizens of good repute may be able to state that they
were with the OP at the appropriate time and there was no delivery.
Owain
news.eternal-september.org
(and shaming).
The problem I have is that I was at home all day waiting for the delivery,
and while I am hugely confident that any signature is going to be
demonstrably not mine, the retailer has simply sent out a form email - which
included the text "[insert number here]", for example - it's going to be my
word against the driver's.
> "Steve Walker" wrote in message news:8l2ght...@mid.individual.net...
Steve Walker
> Many thanks for the prompt reply, and I'm glad I was hesitant about
> naming (and shaming).
>
> The problem I have is that I was at home all day waiting for the
> delivery
Then you can assert with complete confidence that the goods were *not*
delivered to your home and that the driver is dishonest or mistaken. In the
inlikely event that this reached a small claims court, you would undoubtedly
win unless the delivery signature resembled your own.
I'm sure that a large, reputable supplier will know better than to expect
you to prove your own innocence.
Roland Perry
2010, Steve Walker <spam...@beeb.net> remarked:
>It has often been suggested that some couriers falsify sigs and throw the
>package on the doorstep
The main thing they seem to do is falsely claim you weren't at home.
I've literally had a courier tiptoe to the front door and poke a card
through saying I wasn't at home, when I was the other side of the door!
One can only assume that for some reason they don't actually have the
parcel with them (in their van), and are trying to justify a delay.
--
Roland Perry
robert
>
> I emailed the courier to query this and managed to get the retailer on
> the phone: I was told that there was a signature and my name on the
> delivery form. A name is easily copied from the label on the parcel, one
> imagines, although I'd be interested to know what the signature looks
> like! They have asked the courier company to interview the delivery
> driver; I have checked with my neighbours and none have accepted any
> parcels.
>
it on the handheld terminal then hand the terminal to you for your
signature,
so plenty of opportunity for someone else to read the name and sign on
your behalf.
Old Codger
> I ordered a few bits from a large, river-based online retailer (not sure
> whether it's the right form to name them here) and paid for next-day
> delivery. Despite bing in all day, nobody called and when I entered the
> tracking number on the courier's website, it said that the parcel had
> been delivered this morning.
I have had similar with a national organisation. Involved a "guaranteed
delivery before 1pm". At 2:30pm, whilst I was being assured by the
sender that their local office had advised delivered before the
deadline, the package was delivered. The initial response to my letter
to head office was to send a copy of the delivery signature sheet
showing my signature. When I responded by pointing out that it only
proved that the package had been delivered, but not when, I was told
that local managers "sometimes" asked the delivery drivers, before they
left, for estimated delivery times and entered these into the records.
More recently, I have returned three times to find "signed for" packages
on the doorstep. On one occasion the package was addressed to a neighbour.
A week or two back I was expecting a small "signed for" package and was
within "door bell" distance all day. I heard a package delivered
through the letter box. It was the expected package.
Who was the phantom signatory for these packages? It certainly was no
one at my address.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
zaax
Hasn't this delivery Company been on watchdog recently with people saying
exactly what you are saying about their new delivery company.
--
zaax
Piers Finlayson
We had a signed for parcel delivered when we weren't in and the
signature (seen online) was P Orch.
Owain
> We had a signed for parcel delivered when we weren't in and the
> signature (seen online) was P Orch.
At least it wasn't W Heelybin.
I did eventually get my ebay purchase back from the recycling site...
Owain
steve robinson
Its common practice within some courier companies for the driver to
sign them off as he loses money if he returns with any packages or
will not be paid for a re delivery attempt
chrisj...@proemail.co.uk
U N'Dercar was mentioned in another group. As it happened, a kind
tealeaf removed the parcel to prevent the inevitable.
My signature is unrecognisible on forms or PDAs, as standing at the
front door with nothing to rest on, it's impossible to write properly.
I believe one company actually photographs the door the parcel was
delivered to, but if it's an estate with 1000 identical doors ...
Chris
Scion
> Many thanks for the prompt reply, and I'm glad I was hesitant about
> naming (and shaming).
>
> The problem I have is that I was at home all day waiting for the
> delivery, and while I am hugely confident that any signature is going
> to be demonstrably not mine, the retailer has simply sent out a form
> email - which included the text "[insert number here]", for example -
> it's going to be my word against the driver's.
You need to ask the retailer for a copy of the P.o.D. (Proof of Delivery)
which will be a copy of all of or part of the delivery docket but will
include the signature. The retailer can get this from the courier; it is a
standard and frequent request when delivery is in doubt and should not cost
you anything.
TimB
> In message <8l2ghtF56...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:50:03 on Tue, 23 Nov
> 2010, Steve Walker <spam-t...@beeb.net> remarked:
>
> >It has often been suggested that some couriers falsify sigs and throw the
> >package on the doorstep
>
> The main thing they seem to do is falsely claim you weren't at home.
> I've literally had a courier tiptoe to the front door and poke a card
> through saying I wasn't at home, when I was the other side of the door!
>
> One can only assume that for some reason they don't actually have the
> parcel with them (in their van), and are trying to justify a delay.
> --
> Roland Perry
More likely, they have too many parcels to complete their rounds and
still get home on time. Posting a card takes seconds, knocking on a
door and waiting is precious minutes.
Piers Finlayson
Passport service does this and then asks you questions about your own
front door. (According to the wife.)
tim....
"Owain" <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote in message
news:cbf1506a-3d32-4629...@v19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Can't speak for the OP but if I were expecting a delivery of goods and there
was someone else in the house at the expected time, I wouldn't be taking a
day off to wait for that delivery.
tim
Dr Zoidberg
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1gcGcKe3...@perry.co.uk...
I've had the same from Royal Mail.
I've seen them pull up in a van, run down the drive, shove a pre-written
card through and then run.
All the courier firms have the same thing happen and all will deny it
--
Alex
Martin Bonner
> news.eternal-september.org wrote:
> > I ordered a few bits from a large, river-based online retailer (not
> > sure whether it's the right form to name them here)
>
> You caution is appreciated. This is how it works :
>
> If the other party to the dispute is identifiable, then nobody is allowed to
> be sharply crtical of their behaviour, ethics, honesty etc.
Note that Steve said "identifiable", not "named". The retailer in
this case has been pretty unambiguously identified.
That is actually a general point: either name the party explicitly (if
it is really significant), or don't even hint at their identity
(although the area of business is fine).
Man at B&Q
> "Owain" <spuorgelg...@gowanhill.com> wrote in message
I would if I *needed* what was being delivered before leaving the
house. It's not that unusual.
MBQ
Man at B&Q
> On 23/11/2010 18:35, news.eternal-september.org wrote:
>
> > I ordered a few bits from a large, river-based online retailer (not sure
> > whether it's the right form to name them here) and paid for next-day
> > delivery. Despite bing in all day, nobody called and when I entered the
> > tracking number on the courier's website, it said that the parcel had
> > been delivered this morning.
>
> I have had similar with a national organisation. Involved a "guaranteed
> delivery before 1pm". At 2:30pm, whilst I was being assured by the
> sender that their local office had advised delivered before the
> deadline, the package was delivered. The initial response to my letter
> to head office was to send a copy of the delivery signature sheet
> showing my signature. When I responded by pointing out that it only
> proved that the package had been delivered, but not when, I was told
> that local managers "sometimes" asked the delivery drivers, before they
> left, for estimated delivery times and entered these into the records.
>
> More recently, I have returned three times to find "signed for" packages
> on the doorstep. On one occasion the package was addressed to a neighbour.
>
> A week or two back I was expecting a small "signed for" package and was
> within "door bell" distance all day. I heard a package delivered
> through the letter box. It was the expected package.
>
> Who was the phantom signatory for these packages? It certainly was no
> one at my address.
presumably they were at your address when they signed it, just the
wrong side of the door.
Our postie, whom we trust implicitly, will, with our agreement, sign
on our behalf for things that will fit through the letterbox with the
normal mail. I've never seen what he actually uses as a signature! It
saves a lot of hassle for all concerned and has never caused a
problem.
MBQ
Owen Dunn
> Note that Steve said "identifiable", not "named". The retailer in
> this case has been pretty unambiguously identified.
Er, really? He said they were online and `river-based', which doesn't
identify it to me. It's an interesting wheeze, though - presumably if
they're a `moveable mooring' they're exempt from business rates...
(S)
news.eternal-september.org
Just to clarify, I was at home alone all day and nobody called, no cards
came through the letterbox and none of my neighbours (who I know reasonably
well) took any parcels in.
The retailer is now claiming that the courier has investigated the matter
fully and is satisfied that the parcel has been delivered with a signature
and my name on the delivery note/machine - although I have not yet seen any
proof of delivery - so I must call the police. The order was for around
£1,300, so it's a reasonable sum.
While I've no objection to putting a call into my local police station, this
seems to me to be an abrogation of responsibility - the parcel has clearly
gone missing from within the retailer's delivery system (or rather, the
company which they have contracted to fulfil the delivery) so surely it's
incumbent on them to report this to the police? I also have the suspicion
that they are going to use this as a delaying tactic.
My point to the retailer remains that any criminal issue with theft from
within their network is theirs to report; but the civil issue - the
incomplete contract between me and them for the supply of the items - is a
separate matter and still requires a resolution.
I am also extremely suspicious that they have not made adequate notes of the
conversations and issues that I have raised with them, but they are refusing
to give me a copy of any notes they have.
Nightjar <"cpb"@
I once had a courier card a High Street shop during opening hours. The
courier company was 'unable to explain how that happened'.
Colin Bignell
Roland Perry
on Wed, 24 Nov 2010, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@"
<"insertmysurnamehere>"@giganews.com> remarked:
> I once had a courier card a High Street shop during opening hours. The
>courier company was 'unable to explain how that happened'.
I had a famous international courier company fail to deliver a package
c/o my 5* hotel in a major USA city on the apparent grounds that there
was no-one in! The reception was staffed 24x7, naturally.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
to keyboard and typed:
>Many thanks to all for their input.
>
>Just to clarify, I was at home alone all day and nobody called, no cards
>came through the letterbox and none of my neighbours (who I know reasonably
>well) took any parcels in.
>
>The retailer is now claiming that the courier has investigated the matter
>fully and is satisfied that the parcel has been delivered with a signature
>and my name on the delivery note/machine - although I have not yet seen any
>proof of delivery - so I must call the police. The order was for around
>£1,300, so it's a reasonable sum.
The retailer is wrong.
>While I've no objection to putting a call into my local police station, this
>seems to me to be an abrogation of responsibility - the parcel has clearly
>gone missing from within the retailer's delivery system (or rather, the
>company which they have contracted to fulfil the delivery) so surely it's
>incumbent on them to report this to the police? I also have the suspicion
>that they are going to use this as a delaying tactic.
I would suggest that it's best not to go along with their request, since
you are under no obligation to do so and doing so may later give the
impression that you have accepted responsibility.
In any case, if they are saying that it is your signature on the machine
then they are coming close to accusing you of attempting to defraud them.
If that is the case, then it most certainly is them who should be reporting
the matter to the police, with you named as prime suspect! If, however,
they do not believe that you are lying, then they have no grounds
whatsoever for attempting to shift liability onto you as the goods remain
their responsibility until sucessfully delivered to the destination.
I would suggest that you should stand your ground and insist on seeing a
copy of the proof of delivery.
>My point to the retailer remains that any criminal issue with theft from
>within their network is theirs to report; but the civil issue - the
>incomplete contract between me and them for the supply of the items - is a
>separate matter and still requires a resolution.
You are right.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Steve Walker
> The retailer is now claiming that the courier has investigated the
> matter fully and is satisfied that the parcel has been delivered
> with a signature and my name on the delivery note/machine -
> although I have not yet seen any proof of delivery - so I must call
> the police. The order was for around £1,300, so it's a reasonable
> sum.
> While I've no objection to putting a call into my local police
> station, this seems to me to be an abrogation of responsibility -
> the parcel has clearly gone missing from within the retailer's
> delivery system (or rather, the company which they have contracted
> to fulfil the delivery) so surely it's incumbent on them to report
> this to the police? I also have the suspicion that they are going
> to use this as a delaying tactic.
I agree. They are suggesting that your property has been stolen, which
gives them a nice back door. You should remind them that in fact it is
their property which has been stolen. Until such time as they deliver to
you the purchased goods, they are in breach of the retail contract.
Given their poor attitude, I would be tempted to cancel the order and
request a full refund under DSR (in writing). Tell your credit card
company (in writing) that a refund has been requested, and that you will
hold them jointly liable should a civil case become necessary.
Steve Walker
Yeah, Martin makes a good point though - clues which would reliably identify
to the ordinary reader are pointless. Name them, or else just say "a high
street retailer", "a major chain of bookmakers" etc. It's very rare that
the specific name adds any value to the debate, ime.
news.eternal-september.org
Thanks for the reassurance. Is there any relevant consumer law which states
that the responsibility for an ordered item lies with the retailer until the
item is accepted by the customer? It would be useful to be able to quote
something at them!
The Todal
"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:xvl*ep...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> In article <8l2ght...@mid.individual.net>,
> Steve Walker <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
>>In legal terms there is no doubt that unless the goods are delivered to
>>your
>>address and signed for by an occupant there, you are entitled to a refund.
>>It has often been suggested that some couriers falsify sigs and throw the
>>elsewhare at the supposed time of delivery, you should have no trouble
>>from
>>a large reputable online dealer.
>
> The OP said they were in all day, so they don't have an alibi.
I regularly order from a well known online retailer. The other day one of my
parcels was delivered to a house up the road and the chap took it to my
house, apologising for the fact that he had ripped off the cardboard
packaging already because he assumed it must be for him.
As a matter of law, the seller only discharges his obligations when the
goods are delivered to you and it is the seller who bears the risk of the
goods being lost in the post.
Steve Walker
> Thanks for the reassurance. Is there any relevant consumer law
> which states that the responsibility for an ordered item lies with
> the retailer until the item is accepted by the customer? It would
> be useful to be able to quote something at them!
www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf
see 3.17, 3.20, 3.23 and especially 3.36
Adam Funk
> I regularly order from a well known online retailer. The other day one of my
> parcels was delivered to a house up the road and the chap took it to my
> house, apologising for the fact that he had ripped off the cardboard
> packaging already because he assumed it must be for him.
>
> As a matter of law, the seller only discharges his obligations when the
> goods are delivered to you and it is the seller who bears the risk of the
> goods being lost in the post.
Is that true only for consumer sales, or does it also apply to
business purchases?
Gio
"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:8l5clq...@mid.individual.net...
Well done :-) I would think page 22 and section 3.36 is the way forward.
Gio
Mark Goodge
typed:
>On 2010-11-24, The Todal wrote:
For a B2B transaction it would depend on the wording of the contract. The
law doesn't stipulate either way in such cases.
geoff
news.eternal-september.org <inv...@invalid.invalid> writes
How was this paid - should you get the C card company involved?
--
geoff
geoff
<ceb72f74-b31d-4aef...@o14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Owain <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> writes
I sent out an item "Leave safe or with neighbour"
ythe driver of a certain green /yellow coloured van (can you guess who
it is yet children ?) left it IN a wheelie bin that got collected, never
to be seen again
--
geoff
geoff
<bf58b9d3-833f-4e6b...@s9g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
chrisj...@proemail.co.uk writes
code that they give you
--
geoff
Owain
>> The OP might not have been at home alone, of course.
> was someone else in the house at the expected time, I wouldn't be taking a
> day off to wait for that delivery.
But the OP might have decided that, as he had to wait in for a
delivery anyway, that would be a convenient day to have someone come
round and paint the front hall etc.
Owain
Geoff Berrow
<ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Martin Bonner <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Note that Steve said "identifiable", not "named". The retailer in
>> this case has been pretty unambiguously identified.
>
>Er, really? He said they were online and `river-based', which doesn't
>identify it to me.
I rather think that the name is based on that of a river.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
news.eternal-september.org
Visa Debit card (I don't use credit cards) so I think Section 75 doesn't
apply.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:05:04 +0000, "Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net>
>wrote:
>Although that does answer the OP's question, I'm not sure that it really
>helps him. The present dispute is not about what is the duty of a supplier to
>deliver, or their liability if they fail to do so - it is about whether or
>not the item was delivered. This is a dispute about the facts and not about
>the law.
If the recipient says that he didn't receive the item, then either a) he is
lying, or b) the item hasn't been delivered, since by definition delivery
hasn't been made until received by the recipient. The company may possibly
suspect that (a) applies, but unless they can prove it to the satisfaction
of a court then they have to act on the understanding that (b) is the case.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
From: Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated
Subject: Re: Parcel delivered and signed for, but not by me - where does the law stand?
X-Posted-Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:35:26 +0000
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:40:05 +0000
Organization: The Good Stuff Company of the UK
Message-ID: <674se6lt3g225912s...@news.markshouse.net>
References: <4cec3925$0$2522$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk> <ceb72f74-b31d-4aef...@o14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <bf58b9d3-833f-4e6b...@s9g2000vby.googlegroups.com> <4cecc995$0$12161$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk> <icjlr9$4fv$1...@news.eternal-september.org> <hlsqe61aa989740rh...@news.markshouse.net> <icjtam$5iq$1...@news.eternal-september.org> <8l5clq...@mid.individual.net> <kt8re6h34gjpg636n...@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.553
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Ulm-Charter: http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.legal.moderated.html
X-Ulm-Info-1: Submissions uk-legal-...@usenet.org.uk
X-Ulm-Info-2: Technical complaints only sysadmin (at) moderation.org.uk
X-Ulm-Info-3: Human moderators uk-legal-mode...@usenet.org.uk
X-Comment: The moderators express no opinion about this article.
X-Robomod: {R}UUM ©2003 Richard Ashton richard (at) moderation.org.uk
X-Robomod-Trace: 10417020101125082019NA manual
Approved: uk-legal-moderated moderators <uk-legal-...@moderation.org.uk>
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 00:00:04 +0000, Anthony R. Gold put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:05:04 +0000, "Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net>
>wrote:
>Although that does answer the OP's question, I'm not sure that it really
>helps him. The present dispute is not about what is the duty of a supplier to
>deliver, or their liability if they fail to do so - it is about whether or
>not the item was delivered. This is a dispute about the facts and not about
>the law.
If the recipient says that he didn't receive the item, then either a) he is
lying, or b) the item hasn't been delivered, since by definition delivery
hasn't been made until received by the recipient. The company may possibly
suspect that (a) applies, but unless they can prove it to the satisfaction
of a court then they have to act on the understanding that (b) is the case.
tim....
"Geoff Berrow" <blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h46re6p8f47oebd0h...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:50:02 +0000, Owen Dunn
> <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Martin Bonner <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Note that Steve said "identifiable", not "named". The retailer in
>>> this case has been pretty unambiguously identified.
>>
>>Er, really? He said they were online and `river-based', which doesn't
>>identify it to me.
>
> I rather think that the name is based on that of a river.
This must be a "local" thing, but for the life of me I can't work out the
name of the company from the supplied information.
Do I know a delivery company called -
Thames - No
Medway - No
Humber - No
Severn - No
Trent - No
Forth - No
Tyne - No
Mersey - No
Tamar - No
Exe - No
Ouse - No
Clyde - No
Avon - No
Dee - No
Tees - No
Obviously I am missing something in my life :-(
tim
Adrian
they were saying:
>>>> Note that Steve said "identifiable", not "named". The retailer in
>>>> this case has been pretty unambiguously identified.
>>>Er, really? He said they were online and `river-based', which doesn't
>>>identify it to me.
>> I rather think that the name is based on that of a river.
> This must be a "local" thing, but for the life of me I can't work out
> the name of the company from the supplied information.
>
> Do I know a delivery company called -
>
> Thames - No
> Medway - No
> Humber - No
> Severn - No
> Trent - No
> Forth - No
> Tyne - No
> Mersey - No
> Tamar - No
> Exe - No
> Ouse - No
> Clyde - No
> Avon - No
> Dee - No
> Tees - No
>
> Obviously I am missing something in my life :-(
Clearly.
Think a much, much bigger river, a bit further away and with rather more
Piranha in it - and not the delivery company itself, but the retail
website.
Andrew May
Is is the premises that makes it a B2B contract or the recipient? I know
a lot of people order things to be delivered to a work address. I can't
imagine that that would that be classed as B2B just because it is being
delivered to a business.
Andrew
Man at B&Q
> news.eternal-september.org wrote:
> Given their poor attitude, I would be tempted to cancel the order and
> request a full refund under DSR (in writing).
Surely you need to be able to return the goods, or make them available
for collection, to do that.
MBQ
Adrian
were saying:
>> Think a much, much bigger river, a bit further away and with rather
>> more Piranha in it - and not the delivery company itself, but the
>> retail website.
> Ah! Orinoco! Obviously! Aren't they based near Wimbledon, though they
> have branch called The Casiquiare canal that links up with some kind of
> comic shop somewhere.
See? It was obvious all along...
tim....
"Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8l6o6f...@mid.individual.net...
Clearly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh!
I didn't need the clue now you have explained that I an not looking for the
name of the deliver company
tim
Martin Bonner
> Is is the premises that makes it a B2B contract or the recipient? I know
> a lot of people order things to be delivered to a work address. I can't
> imagine that that would that be classed as B2B just because it is being
> delivered to a business.
The recipient. The retailer may have terms which purport to make
recipient liable. If, as a matter of fact, the recipient is a
consumer (not a business), those terms have no effect.
Geoff Berrow
<tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I rather think that the name is based on that of a river.
>
>This must be a "local" thing, but for the life of me I can't work out the
>name of the company from the supplied information.
>
>Do I know a delivery company called -
>
>Thames - No
>Medway - No
>Humber - No
>Severn - No
>Trent - No
>Forth - No
>Tyne - No
>Mersey - No
>Tamar - No
>Exe - No
>Ouse - No
>Clyde - No
>Avon - No
>Dee - No
>Tees - No
>
>Obviously I am missing something in my life :-(
That's almost amazing.
Ste
> "Geoff Berrow" <blthe...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:h46re6p8f47oebd0h...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:50:02 +0000, Owen Dunn
> > <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
You could have Dee-HL?
Owain
> > Think a much, much bigger river, a bit further away and with rather
> > more Piranha in it
> have branch called The Casiquiare canal that links up with some kind of
> comic shop somewhere.
Could be the Royal Maya-l.
Owain
Adam Funk
> Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:20:04 +0000, Adam Funk put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>>
>>> On 2010-11-24, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>>> I regularly order from a well known online retailer. The other day one of my
>>>> parcels was delivered to a house up the road and the chap took it to my
>>>> house, apologising for the fact that he had ripped off the cardboard
>>>> packaging already because he assumed it must be for him.
>>>>
>>>> As a matter of law, the seller only discharges his obligations when the
>>>> goods are delivered to you and it is the seller who bears the risk of the
>>>> goods being lost in the post.
>>> Is that true only for consumer sales, or does it also apply to
>>> business purchases?
>>
>> For a B2B transaction it would depend on the wording of the contract. The
>> law doesn't stipulate either way in such cases.
That makes sense.
> Is is the premises that makes it a B2B contract or the recipient? I know
> a lot of people order things to be delivered to a work address. I can't
> imagine that that would that be classed as B2B just because it is being
> delivered to a business.
I can't see how it would be "B2B" or not based on the delivery
address, rather than the status of the buyer.
Sara
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
It took me a little head-scratching.
--
Sara
Winter in the park can be a bit of a sod.
Steve Firth
> Think a much, much bigger river, a bit further away and with rather more
> Piranha in it - and not the delivery company itself, but the retail
> website.
Hmmm? Maplin?
AnthonyL
I suggest you double check -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/4082599.stm seems
to indicate that Visa Debit cards do have purchase protection.
--
AnthonyL
GB
named? The retailer has done nothing wrong at all. The legal issue of
whether the retailer is liable has been dealt with.
The only remaining issue is whether the OP is believed. My guess is that he
will be, but that is just a matter of evidence. Interestingly, how would the
retailer go about getting a copy of the OP's signature to compare the PoD
with?
Percy Picacity
news:4cee70b0$0$2504$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk:
> Surely, the important issue here is that the delivery company have
> not been named? The retailer has done nothing wrong at all. The
> legal issue of whether the retailer is liable has been dealt with.
>
I do not agree. The retailer has the duty to compensate the OP. In
this case the courier has no contract with the OP, and has no relevant
duty to him other, perhaps, than not to defame him. The situation may
be legally slightly different if the courier is Royal Mail however.
> The only remaining issue is whether the OP is believed. My guess
> is that he will be, but that is just a matter of evidence.
> Interestingly, how would the retailer go about getting a copy of
> the OP's signature to compare the PoD with?
>
>
>
>
--
Percy Picacity
Scion
In a Thames van? With Avon tyres? Perhaps a Tyned delivery, by Severn
O'Clock? (OK, I'll get me coat and go Forth)
tim....
"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4cee70b0$0$2504$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
If it got that far a member of the court will do it.
But until it gets to court the "evidence" of the OP that that "this is not
my signature" is sufficient proof.
tim
Ian Jackson
<a...@b.invalid> writes
probably taking the Piddle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Piddle
--
Ian
Roland Perry
Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Scion <a...@b.invalid> remarked:
>In a Thames van? With Avon tyres? Perhaps a Tyned delivery, by Severn
>O'Clock? (OK, I'll get me coat and go Forth)
And the supplier seems to be in-de-Nile about the parcel having been
lost in transit (sic gloria, or otherwise). That's just in-Seine.
--
Roland Perry
Adrian
were saying:
>>In a Thames van? With Avon tyres? Perhaps a Tyned delivery, by Severn
>>O'Clock? (OK, I'll get me coat and go Forth)
> And the supplier seems to be in-de-Nile about the parcel having been
> lost in transit (sic gloria, or otherwise). That's just in-Seine.
Wye?
Roland Perry
Nov 2010, Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> And the supplier seems to be in-de-Nile about the parcel having been
>> lost in transit (sic gloria, or otherwise). That's just in-Seine.
>
>Wye?
Yukon work that out for yourself, Darling.
--
Roland Perry
CJM
"Man at B&Q" <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c8bc19c7-2228-4350...@o15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Yes, you have to 'restore' the goods to them. Given that the OP doesn't have
the goods, he can't.
Roland Perry
2010, CJM <cjmu...@gmail.removethis.com> remarked:
>>> Given their poor attitude, I would be tempted to cancel the order and
>>> request a full refund under DSR (in writing).
>>
>> Surely you need to be able to return the goods, or make them available
>> for collection, to do that.
>
>Yes, you have to 'restore' the goods to them. Given that the OP doesn't
>have the goods, he can't.
If the goods haven't arrived within 30days, then cancel the order
because of that.
--
Roland Perry
Ben Harris
Regulation 17(1) explicitly says that regulation 17 "applies where a
contract is cancelled under regulation 10 after the consumer has
acquired possession of any goods under the contract". In this case, the
consumer hasn't acquired such possession, so the obligation to restore
the goods doesn't apply.
--
Ben Harris
v.me...@i.do.not.believe.it
Or they might have Wensum where else.
GB
> "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in
> news:4cee70b0$0$2504$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk:
>
>> Surely, the important issue here is that the delivery company have
>> not been named? The retailer has done nothing wrong at all. The
>> legal issue of whether the retailer is liable has been dealt with.
>>
>
> I do not agree. The retailer has the duty to compensate the OP.
Yes, that's the bit almost everybody agrees with. I don't think anyone can
blame the retailer for wanting to investigate this a bit further before
doling out £1300.
> In
> this case the courier has no contract with the OP, and has no relevant
> duty to him other, perhaps, than not to defame him.
My point was that some nasty things have been said about couriers. As long
as that's in general terms, the moderators can sleep easy in their beds.
> The situation may
> be legally slightly different if the courier is Royal Mail however.
Well, as long as nobody identifies who the couriers are ....
GB
>>Interestingly, how
>> would the
>> retailer go about getting a copy of the OP's signature to compare
>> the PoD with?
>
> If it got that far a member of the court will do it.
Yes, but the retailer really wants a copy of the signature in use at the
time of the delivery.
tim....
In order for this "want" to be reasonable they have first to acknowledge
that the goods might have gone missing. They have so far failed to do this
tim
CJM
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:DS3rg8zb...@perry.co.uk...
Exactly. DSRs don't help in this case, but they OP can always cancel the
order - actually, I thought the law said 28 days, but either way the
principle is sound.
CJM
"CJM" <cjmu...@gmail.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:8lhcsu...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Exactly. DSRs don't help in this case, but they OP can always cancel the
> order - actually, I thought the law said 28 days, but either way the
> principle is sound.
Correction: I though different legislation came to bear, but it's still the
DSRs and you were right about 30 days:
"19. (1) - Unless the parties agree otherwise, the supplier shall perform
the contract within a maximum of 30 days beginning with the day after the
day the consumer sent his order to the supplier."
Of course, the order might contain some other agreement of performance....
Ian Jackson
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>If the recipient says that he didn't receive the item, then either a) he is
>lying, or b) the item hasn't been delivered, since by definition delivery
>hasn't been made until received by the recipient. The company may possibly
>suspect that (a) applies, but unless they can prove it to the satisfaction
>of a court then they have to act on the understanding that (b) is the case.
This falls well short of being helpful, I'm afraid. The company may
well "have to" act on that understanding, but the OP has said that
they are failing to do so.
What the OP wants is a way to force the company to comply.
To the OP: I would suggest writing a letter threatening court action.
Don't waste any more time being given the run-around by call centres.
Except: if you bought on a credit card, see if your credit card
company will help. They are legally jointly liable, if it was
actually a credit (not debit) card. But again, if the call centre
doesn't seem to want to help, don't waste your effort trying to
browbeat the phone slaves there.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
news.eternal-september.org
refusing to refund or reissue the order.
Their position is that the courier has a signature accompanying my name on
the delivery note/machine (a copy of which the retailer has not seen and has
not sent me), and so the delivery was completed. They remain adamant that I
should call the police as the parcel has been stolen from me.
Having paid with a Visa Debit card, I've spoken to my bank but they want a
30-day wait before they get involved and it could take some time after that
before they issue a refund.
martin
bah! I hate that kind of thing.
Letter before action, wait your 30 days to see what Visa do, then
Moneyclaim Online. It's really not scary at all, even if you do have to
see them in court.
Good luck
John Briggs
> is refusing to refund or reissue the order.
>
> Their position is that the courier has a signature accompanying my name
> on the delivery note/machine (a copy of which the retailer has not seen
> and has not sent me), and so the delivery was completed. They remain
> adamant that I should call the police as the parcel has been stolen from
> me.
Point out to them that, legally speaking, it has been stolen from them.
(Use the phrase "I have been advised that...") Point out also that if
you do contact the police it would be to report a fraud (or conspiracy
to defraud) committed by them.
--
John Briggs
Ian Jackson
news.eternal-september.org <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Just to update the situation, the retailer has now come back to me and is
>refusing to refund or reissue the order.
>
>Their position is that the courier has a signature accompanying my name on
>the delivery note/machine (a copy of which the retailer has not seen and has
>not sent me), and so the delivery was completed. They remain adamant that I
>should call the police as the parcel has been stolen from me.
They are wrong. The parcel was stolen from them, not from you, and
therefore it is up to them to take the loss.
As I say, you should write them a letter clearly setting out the facts
and demanding a refund. Say in the letter that if you don't get a
refund within 21 days you will go to court. Send the letter by
Recorded Signed For.
If they don't pay up, sue them. Just write down the same stuff you've
told us on the court form or (in abbreviated form!) in the box on the
Money Claim Online website.
>Having paid with a Visa Debit card, I've spoken to my bank but they want a
>30-day wait before they get involved and it could take some time after that
>before they issue a refund.
As it was a debit card they don't share legal liability. You're
probably best off pursuing only the retailer.
news.eternal-september.org
My local Trading Standards office tells me that because the retailer is
headquartered in Luxembourg, they can't act. That's despite the website
being a .co.uk, the order being shipped form their UK warehouse, and
delivery being fulfilled wholly within England. They've referred me to the
European Consumer Centre...
Grr!
Roland Perry
1 Dec 2010, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>
>>Having paid with a Visa Debit card, I've spoken to my bank but they want a
>>30-day wait before they get involved and it could take some time after that
>>before they issue a refund.
>
>As it was a debit card they don't share legal liability. You're
>probably best off pursuing only the retailer.
Visa Debit cards allow a chargeback, which would be the appropriate
remedy in this case.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
to keyboard and typed:
>Just to update the situation, the retailer has now come back to me and is
>refusing to refund or reissue the order.
>
>Their position is that the courier has a signature accompanying my name on
>the delivery note/machine (a copy of which the retailer has not seen and has
>not sent me), and so the delivery was completed. They remain adamant that I
>should call the police as the parcel has been stolen from me.
As others have said, you need to remain firm on the point that the item has
not been delivered to you and therefore it has not been stolen from you.
John Briggs' suggestion of using the phrase "I have been advised that..."
is a good one, as it makes it clear that you aren't just trying it on with
no knowledge of the law.
>Having paid with a Visa Debit card, I've spoken to my bank but they want a
>30-day wait before they get involved and it could take some time after that
>before they issue a refund.
That's not unreasonable, although I agree that it's irritating. But the
fact that you can insist on a chargeback - even if it takes time to process
- is a useful stick to beat them with; just point out that you have
initiated the process and will be completing it if you don't get a
satisfactory remedy from the retailer.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Steve Walker
The 30 day wait is mindless tosh from a junior call centre operative.
There's no event left to wait for, the story is complete, they just need to
decide whether they're going to complete a refund or not.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think you've had good advice from Martin and Ian.
Send the retailer a simple, clear letter by recorded delivery, with a copy
to your Debit Card bankers -
-----
On X date I ordered Y product and paid Z for it. Payment was made on my
Visa card XXXXX, under order number XXXXX. Delivery to my home was part
of the contracted purchase. You have not delivered the goods to my home,
and I am giving you notice of my intention to cancel the order under the
Distance Selling Regulations.
I understand that an attempt has been made to complete this contract, but
that the goods were lost or stolen before they were delivered to my home.
I can say this with complete confidence because I was at my home throughout
that day, and no deliveries were made or attempted by any courier.
I therefore expect that you either deliver the purchased product Y to my
home address or provide me with a full refund of £Z by Friday 18th December,
or I shall without further notice commence a legal action via Moneyclaim
Online.
--------
The important thing is then to act on it - their customer services will be
overwhelmed with whining customers at this time of year, and they will
almost certainly fob you off with more excuses and delays, suggestions that
you report it to the Police etc. If you want to be taken seriously then
you have to instigate proceedings - their legal department will then take
over, and almost certainly settle immediately. Make sure you ask for the
court costs as part of the settlement.
martin
> news.eternal-september.org wrote:
> On X date I ordered Y product and paid Z for it. Payment was made on my
> Visa card XXXXX, under order number XXXXX. Delivery to my home was part
> of the contracted purchase. You have not delivered the goods to my home,
> and I am giving you notice of my intention to cancel the order under the
> Distance Selling Regulations.
>
> I understand that an attempt has been made to complete this contract, but
> that the goods were lost or stolen before they were delivered to my home.
> I can say this with complete confidence because I was at my home throughout
> that day, and no deliveries were made or attempted by any courier.
>
> I therefore expect that you either deliver the purchased product Y to my
> home address or provide me with a full refund of £Z by Friday 18th December,
> or I shall without further notice commence a legal action via Moneyclaim
> Online.
>
> --------
>
> The important thing is then to act on it - their customer services will be
> overwhelmed with whining customers at this time of year, and they will
> almost certainly fob you off with more excuses and delays, suggestions that
> you report it to the Police etc. If you want to be taken seriously then
> you have to instigate proceedings - their legal department will then take
> over, and almost certainly settle immediately. Make sure you ask for the
> court costs as part of the settlement.
>
>
Sorry mods - just in case this was lost, I minimally cut.
I think this is the perfect response.
This guys good :) Don't forget it costs money to do the claim and that
is all claimable - IF YOU INCLUDE IT - doh!
John Briggs
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 12:20:06 +0000, news.eternal-september.org put finger
> to keyboard and typed:
>
>> Just to update the situation, the retailer has now come back to me and is
>> refusing to refund or reissue the order.
>>
>> Their position is that the courier has a signature accompanying my name on
>> the delivery note/machine (a copy of which the retailer has not seen and has
>> not sent me), and so the delivery was completed. They remain adamant that I
>> should call the police as the parcel has been stolen from me.
>
> As others have said, you need to remain firm on the point that the item has
> not been delivered to you and therefore it has not been stolen from you.
> John Briggs' suggestion of using the phrase "I have been advised that..."
> is a good one, as it makes it clear that you aren't just trying it on with
> no knowledge of the law.
Actually, it gives the misleading impression that you have received
expert legal advice - which is, of course, the intention :-)
--
John Briggs
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Their position is that the courier has a signature accompanying
> my name on the delivery note/machine (a copy of which the
> retailer has not seen and has not sent me), and so the delivery
> was completed. They remain adamant that I should call the
> police as the parcel has been stolen from me.
While I agree with the others that they are responsible for the loss,
not you, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to file a police
report. That would show you're not just trying it on, because you
would not likely face a charge of filing a false police report if you
had in fact received the goods.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>"news.eternal-september.org" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I disagree. As Anthoiny Gold has already pointed out, he's not actually
claiming to be the victim of a crime - and, as far as he is aware, no crime
has actually taken place, since sheer incompetance is probably far more
likely a cause of the non-delivery - so he hasn't really got anything to
report to the police. The police will tell him to go away, anyway, if he
attempts to report it along those lines. "You ordered goods, but you never
received them? That's a civil matter, sir".
But, more importantly, he needs to make sure that he doesn't act in a way
which contradicts his stated position that the goods were never delivered
to him. The only way that the police would take him seriously is if he were
to tell them that he knows the goods were actually delivered and therefore
they must have been stolen from his premises - but that, of course, is
precisely what he cannot admit to if he wants any recompense from the
retailer (and, of course, that's also precisely why they want him to take
that route).
dd
signature. I do not think a charge back is applicable either.
If what the original poster is trying to do ie: get his money back and the
other posters suggesting how he does this by claiming via "Money claim" or
"chargeback" etc it may encourage people to falsify signatures.
What it needs is delivery firm drivers to have a good memory, or carry a
type of webcam with them to get facial identity of the recipient which will
put a stop to this to the activity..
Does the recipient live in a "dodgy" part of the Country with people that
may be inclined to sign for a package with a false name ?
DS
"Anthony R. Gold" <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ik1ef6lkclfs2hf9m...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 02:05:04 +0000, "Stuart A. Bronstein"
> The problem is one of standing. The OP's position, with which I agreed, is
> that the missing goods were never his property. It is unclear to me that
> the
> police will a accept a report of theft unless he claimed to be the victim,
> which would be inconsistent with, and perhaps damaging to, his true
> position.
> Or is he to report it as a witness, when he has only witnessed messages
> from
> the shipper?
>
> Tony
Stuart A. Bronstein
>> While I agree with the others that they are responsible for the
>> loss, not you, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to
>> file a police report. That would show you're not just trying
>> it on, because you would not likely face a charge of filing a
>> false police report if you had in fact received the goods.
>
> The problem is one of standing. The OP's position, with which I
> agreed, is that the missing goods were never his property. It is
> unclear to me that the police will a accept a report of theft
> unless he claimed to be the victim, which would be inconsistent
> with, and perhaps damaging to, his true position. Or is he to
> report it as a witness, when he has only witnessed messages from
> the shipper?
His signature was forged and property meant for him was obtained
fraudulently as a result. The goods were not delivered to him, so he
never became the legal owner of them, I agree. But he certainly had
an interest in them.
Ian Jackson
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <cde*ep...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 13:40:05 on Wed,
>>probably best off pursuing only the retailer.
>
>Visa Debit cards allow a chargeback, which would be the appropriate
>remedy in this case.
I don't know what the contract between the merchant and the vendor
says. But in law the OP has no right to insist that their card
company do a chargeback. So if the OP's card company can't be
persuaded to do so by asking the call centre nicely, it's not worth
pursuing that angle.
The OP should threaten, and then take, legal action against the
vendor.
Ian Jackson
Steve Walker <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
>I'm not a lawyer, but I think you've had good advice from Martin and Ian.
>Send the retailer a simple, clear letter by recorded delivery, with a copy
>to your Debit Card bankers -
An excellent sample letter there.
>The important thing is then to act on it - their customer services will be
>overwhelmed with whining customers at this time of year, and they will
>almost certainly fob you off with more excuses and delays, suggestions that
>you report it to the Police etc. If you want to be taken seriously then
>you have to instigate proceedings - their legal department will then take
>over, and almost certainly settle immediately. Make sure you ask for the
>court costs as part of the settlement.
Yes. It is very unlikely that you will actually have to attend court.
Ian Jackson
Anthony R. Gold <tg...@panix.com> wrote:
>The problem is one of standing. The OP's position, with which I agreed, is
>that the missing goods were never his property. It is unclear to me that the
>police will a accept a report of theft unless he claimed to be the victim,
Quite so. In general the police nowadays refuse to accept reports of
crimes other than from the victim. I assume this is just a way to
keep the crime figures down.
Ian Jackson
><spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>> His signature was forged and property meant for him was obtained
>> fraudulently as a result. The goods were not delivered to him, so he
>> never became the legal owner of them, I agree. But he certainly had
>> an interest in them.
>
>report just the identity theft which clearly was an offence against himself
>and would yield the crime report number that this "river" seller so craves.
I think the vendor's referral of the OP to the police is just a tactic
aimed at making pursuing their complaint hasslesome, in the hope that
this will make the OP go away.
The OP should have none of it and if I were them I would certainly not
involve the police. As another person has said, incompetence (coupled
with the kind of low-end cover-up that reportedly many courier
companies engage in, such as the forgery of signatures just to
misstate delivery times etc.) would be a quite plausible explanation,
and there are other scenarios that are equally plausible. It's not
necessary to suppose that the courier has actually stolen the package.
In any case none of this is the OP's problem and the OP should ignore
the vendor's attempt to make it the OP's problem.
Steve Walker
> I've been reading this post, the fact is the retailer or delivery
> firm has a signature. I do not think a charge back is applicable
> either.
> If what the original poster is trying to do ie: get his money back
> and the other posters suggesting how he does this by claiming via
> "Money claim" or "chargeback" etc it may encourage people to
> falsify signatures.
Are you saying he should accept the loss of his money?
Steve Walker
If they processed it immediately, yes. But expecting the OP to suck up a
false >£1k charge for a full month is unacceptable.
Steve Walker
> In article <jtlff6p90desgqkku...@4ax.com>,
> Anthony R. Gold <tg...@panix.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:50:04 +0000, "Stuart A. Bronstein"
>> <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>> His signature was forged and property meant for him was obtained
>>> fraudulently as a result. The goods were not delivered to him,
>>> so he never became the legal owner of them, I agree. But he
>>> certainly had an interest in them.
>>
>> If not one of ownership, what is the nature of that interest?
>> Maybe he should report just the identity theft which clearly was
>> an offence against himself and would yield the crime report number
>> that this "river" seller so craves.
>
> I think the vendor's referral of the OP to the police is just a
> tactic aimed at making pursuing their complaint hasslesome, in the
> hope that this will make the OP go away.
Of course it is. And when he rings them in a few weeks when nothing has
happened they will express sympathy, and wish him good luck that the Police
catch the horrible culprits. And then they'll click the 'case closed' box
on their CRM dabase.
the Omrud
> In article<ik1ef6lkclfs2hf9m...@4ax.com>,
> Anthony R. Gold<tg...@panix.com> wrote:
>> The problem is one of standing. The OP's position, with which I agreed, is
>> that the missing goods were never his property. It is unclear to me that the
>> police will a accept a report of theft unless he claimed to be the victim,
>
> Quite so. In general the police nowadays refuse to accept reports of
> crimes other than from the victim. I assume this is just a way to
> keep the crime figures down.
It would certainly keep the reported murder rate down.
--
David