I ordered a mobile phone from an Amazon marketplace retailer on
8/9/08. Proof of delivery was signed on 11/9/08 - certainly not by me
or my household. I have asked the neighbours and they deny receiving
any package.

Clearly the only way this could have happened is if the postman
knocked on the neighbour's doors given that none of my household were
in and got a signature from them instead. A barely legible signature
can be seen on Royal Mail's website. There is no other party that
could have reasonably been expected to sign for the item.

Between myself, the retailer or Royal Mail, who is responsible for the
lost item?

Cheers.

Adam wrote:
> I ordered a mobile phone from an Amazon marketplace retailer on
> 8/9/08. Proof of delivery was signed on 11/9/08 - certainly not by me
> or my household. I have asked the neighbours and they deny receiving
> any package.
>
> Clearly the only way this could have happened is if the postman
> knocked on the neighbour's doors given that none of my household were
> in and got a signature from them instead. A barely legible signature
> can be seen on Royal Mail's website. There is no other party that
> could have reasonably been expected to sign for the item.
>
> Between myself, the retailer or Royal Mail, who is responsible for the
> lost item?

Not you, so just let the other two sort it out by reference to their 
contract.

>I ordered a mobile phone from an Amazon marketplace retailer on
> 8/9/08. Proof of delivery was signed on 11/9/08 - certainly not by me
> or my household. I have asked the neighbours and they deny receiving
> any package.
>
> Clearly the only way this could have happened is if the postman
> knocked on the neighbour's doors given that none of my household were
> in and got a signature from them instead. A barely legible signature
> can be seen on Royal Mail's website. There is no other party that
> could have reasonably been expected to sign for the item.
>
> Between myself, the retailer or Royal Mail, who is responsible for the
> lost item?


Assuming it was a business to consumer transaction then the retailer is.

"Sale of Goods Act as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods to
Consumers Regulations 2002.

Section 20 Passing of risk

(4) In a case where the buyer deals as consumer... the goods remain
at the seller's risk until they are delivered to the consumer."

If the seller is a business they cannot alter this by any exclusion clauses 
so whether they like it or not they are responsible for the goods until they 
are safely delivered to the buyer.



Peter Crosland

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:25:17 +0100, Adam put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>I ordered a mobile phone from an Amazon marketplace retailer on
>8/9/08. Proof of delivery was signed on 11/9/08 - certainly not by me
>or my household. I have asked the neighbours and they deny receiving
>any package.
>
>Clearly the only way this could have happened is if the postman
>knocked on the neighbour's doors given that none of my household were
>in and got a signature from them instead. A barely legible signature
>can be seen on Royal Mail's website. There is no other party that
>could have reasonably been expected to sign for the item.
>
>Between myself, the retailer or Royal Mail, who is responsible for the
>lost item?

The retailer is responsible for delivering the item to you. If the one
they sent has failed to arrive, then they need to either send a
replacement or refund you.

The retailer, in turn, will be able to claim against Royal Mail, and
it would be reasonable for them to ask you to supply them with
evidence which will help their case (such as a written statement from
you explaining that you could not possibly have signed for the parcel
at the time it is alleged to have been delivered). But you are not
responsible for the lost item, and you are not responsible for dealing
with Royal Mail to try and get compensation.

Mark
-- 
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden 
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff

Steve Walker wrote:
> Adam wrote:
>> I ordered a mobile phone from an Amazon marketplace retailer on
>> 8/9/08. Proof of delivery was signed on 11/9/08 - certainly not by me
>> or my household. I have asked the neighbours and they deny receiving
>> any package.
>>
>> Clearly the only way this could have happened is if the postman
>> knocked on the neighbour's doors given that none of my household were
>> in and got a signature from them instead. A barely legible signature
>> can be seen on Royal Mail's website. There is no other party that
>> could have reasonably been expected to sign for the item.
>>
>> Between myself, the retailer or Royal Mail, who is responsible for the
>> lost item?
> 
> Not you, so just let the other two sort it out by reference to their 
> contract. 
> 
> 
> 

I had similar including a scribbled signature. The item was
found at the local sorting office! I complained but answer
came there none.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:25:17 퍝, Adam wrote:

> I ordered a mobile phone from an Amazon marketplace retailer on 8/9/08.
> Proof of delivery was signed on 11/9/08 - certainly not by me or my
> household. I have asked the neighbours and they deny receiving any
> package.
> 
> Clearly the only way this could have happened is if the postman knocked
> on the neighbour's doors given that none of my household were in and got
> a signature from them instead. A barely legible signature can be seen on
> Royal Mail's website. There is no other party that could have reasonably
> been expected to sign for the item.
> 
> Between myself, the retailer or Royal Mail, who is responsible for the
> lost item?
> 
> Cheers.


If someone registers and uses the phone the retailer should be able to 
get the details and prosecute for theft.

In the meantime the retailer will send another phone.

"Peter Crosland"  wrote in message 
news:OcmdnYcOXYKQc0rVnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> >I ordered a mobile phone from an Amazon marketplace retailer on
>> 8/9/08. Proof of delivery was signed on 11/9/08 - certainly not by me
>> or my household. I have asked the neighbours and they deny receiving
>> any package.
>>
>> Clearly the only way this could have happened is if the postman
>> knocked on the neighbour's doors given that none of my household were
>> in and got a signature from them instead. A barely legible signature
>> can be seen on Royal Mail's website. There is no other party that
>> could have reasonably been expected to sign for the item.
>>
>> Between myself, the retailer or Royal Mail, who is responsible for the
>> lost item?
>
>
> Assuming it was a business to consumer transaction then the retailer is.
>
> "Sale of Goods Act as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods to
> Consumers Regulations 2002.
>
> Section 20 Passing of risk
>
> (4) In a case where the buyer deals as consumer... the goods remain
> at the seller's risk until they are delivered to the consumer."
>
> If the seller is a business they cannot alter this by any exclusion 
> clauses
> so whether they like it or not they are responsible for the goods until 
> they
> are safely delivered to the buyer.

Are you saying that a proof of delivery is not adequate proof of that having 
happened? If all it takes to negate it is for the customer to claim that the 
goods did not arrive, signature notwithstanding, it would leave the retailer 
open to lots of fraudulent claims of non-delivery.

Colin Bignell

>> >I ordered a mobile phone from an Amazon marketplace retailer on
>>> 8/9/08. Proof of delivery was signed on 11/9/08 - certainly not by me
>>> or my household. I have asked the neighbours and they deny receiving
>>> any package.
>>>
>>> Clearly the only way this could have happened is if the postman
>>> knocked on the neighbour's doors given that none of my household were
>>> in and got a signature from them instead. A barely legible signature
>>> can be seen on Royal Mail's website. There is no other party that
>>> could have reasonably been expected to sign for the item.
>>>
>>> Between myself, the retailer or Royal Mail, who is responsible for the
>>> lost item?
>>
>>
>> Assuming it was a business to consumer transaction then the retailer is.
>>
>> "Sale of Goods Act as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods to
>> Consumers Regulations 2002.
>>
>> Section 20 Passing of risk
>>
>> (4) In a case where the buyer deals as consumer... the goods remain
>> at the seller's risk until they are delivered to the consumer."
>>
>> If the seller is a business they cannot alter this by any exclusion
>> clauses
>> so whether they like it or not they are responsible for the goods until
>> they
>> are safely delivered to the buyer.
>
> Are you saying that a proof of delivery is not adequate proof of that 
> having
> happened? If all it takes to negate it is for the customer to claim that 
> the
> goods did not arrive, signature notwithstanding, it would leave the 
> retailer
> open to lots of fraudulent claims of non-delivery.


I stated the law verbatim as above within the parenthesis. It may well mean 
that it causes a potential for fraud but that is not the consumer's problem. 
The retailer has to decide on the delivery method.  The law requires 
delivery to the customer and not just their address. Of course this can put 
the retailer in a difficult position but it is their choice.

Peter Crosland

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:35:15 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
 wrote:

>I stated the law verbatim as above within the parenthesis. It may well mean 
>that it causes a potential for fraud but that is not the consumer's problem. 
>The retailer has to decide on the delivery method.  The law requires 
>delivery to the customer and not just their address. 

I'm not at all sure that your interpretation is correct.  It is
certainly quite impractical.  Throughout the Sale of Goods Act
"delivery to the buyer/customer" or similar words plainly means to
their premises, agent or custodier rather than to a specific
individual.

If a customer puts a delivery address at which they will not be
present (for example a workplace or neighbour) and the person
accepting the goods makes away with them or misplaces them after
delivery then by your interpretation the seller must be the one to
bear the loss despite the arrangements having been made by the buyer.

Similarly if a parcel is delivered to the correct house but not signed
for by the buyer but by another in the house and not passed on to the
buyer you claim the seller would be responsible for the loss.  This is
plainly not what the law intends.

The rules of delivery are contained in S29.  

S29(2) states "Apart from any such contract, express or implied, the
place of delivery is the seller's place of business if he has one, and
if not, his residence; except that, if the contract is for the sale of
specific goods, which to the knowledge of the parties when the
contract is made are in some other place, then that place is the place
of delivery"

This indicates that delivery to the buyer takes place if the goods are
delivered to the correct place, the buyers residence or any other such
place as stated in the contract, not necessarily to the buyer
personally.

In S61, Interpretation, "delivery" means voluntary transfer of
possession from one person to another, not between specific
individuals.

In its simplest form delivery is the placing of the goods to be
transferred in the hands of the buyer but this is by no means the only
definition and I suggest the SOGA meaning is satisfied by delivering
the goods to the stated address, not to a named individual.

>Of course this can put the retailer in a difficult position but it is their choice.

It isn't really their choice as I'm not aware of any general courier
or postal service who will deliver to a named individual (and require
proof of identity) rather than an address.

In this case the sender has proof that delivery took place at the
requested location in accordance with the contract.  The onus is upon
the customer to show that proof is incorrect, that delivery couldn't
have occurred or didn't occur as described.  Often all that is needed
is a statement to this effect.

The OP's claim  that  :-

"Clearly the only way this could have happened is if the postman
knocked on the neighbour's doors given that none of my household were
in and got a signature from them instead. A barely legible signature
can be seen on Royal Mail's website. There is no other party that
could have reasonably been expected to sign for the item."

Is of course incomplete.  The goods may have been delivered to a
similar address, 43 Acacia Drive instead of 43 Acacia Avenue or a
number of other errors.  I've had a package turn up late once when
another person signed the wrong part of the postman's receipt card
(against my package rather than theirs) and the Postman didn't
realise.  My "signed for" package ended up back in the sorting office.

Either the buyer or seller can ask RM to investigate.

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 02:30:07 +0100, "nightjar" <cpb@ put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>
>"Peter Crosland"  wrote in message 
>news:OcmdnYcOXYKQc0rVnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> Assuming it was a business to consumer transaction then the retailer is.
>>
>> "Sale of Goods Act as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods to
>> Consumers Regulations 2002.
>>
>> Section 20 Passing of risk
>>
>> (4) In a case where the buyer deals as consumer... the goods remain
>> at the seller's risk until they are delivered to the consumer."
>>
>> If the seller is a business they cannot alter this by any exclusion 
>> clauses
>> so whether they like it or not they are responsible for the goods until 
>> they
>> are safely delivered to the buyer.
>
>Are you saying that a proof of delivery is not adequate proof of that having 
>happened? If all it takes to negate it is for the customer to claim that the 
>goods did not arrive, signature notwithstanding, it would leave the retailer 
>open to lots of fraudulent claims of non-delivery.

It can, yes. But there is a safeguard here, in that the retailer can
in turn claim against Royal Mail (or whatever carrier they use) for
failure to deliver correctly. If the carrier can show that the item
was, in fact, correctly delivered, then this not only absolves the
retailer from any requirement to replace the item or refund the
customer, it also provides evidence for a possible criminal
prosecution against the customer for fraud.

If the retailer suspects that the non-delivery claim is fake, they can
always try and bluff it out by refusing to send a replacement or
refund. It would then be up to the customer to take legal action
against the retailer in order to get the item or their money back. The
chances of a fraudster pursuing it that far are negligible; most will
simply give up and try it on somewhere else.

In practice, though, this simply isn't a problem for the majority of
retailers. 99% of the time, it turns out to be the fault of the
carrier. In all the time that I managed an online retailer, I never
had one case where I suspected this kind of fraud by the customer. I
did, however, have several cases where I had to make a claim against
the Post Office for non-delivery.

Falsely claiming non-delivery is more of an issue on the likes of
eBay, partly because it's easier to set up an untrackable delivery
address when patying with PayPal than it is when paying by credit
card, and partly because small-scale eBay sellers are perceived as an
easier target than large organisations.

Mark
-- 
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden 
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff

On 23 Sep, 12:25, Peter Parry  wrote:

> The OP's claim  that  :-
>
> "Clearly the only way this could have happened is if the postman
> knocked on the neighbour's doors given that none of my household were
> in and got a signature from them instead. A barely legible signature
> can be seen on Royal Mail's website. There is no other party that
> could have reasonably been expected to sign for the item."
>
> Is of course incomplete.  The goods may have been delivered to a
> similar address, 43 Acacia Drive instead of 43 Acacia Avenue or a
> number of other errors.  I've had a package turn up late once when
> another person signed the wrong part of the postman's receipt card
> (against my package rather than theirs) and the Postman didn't
> realise.  My "signed for" package ended up back in the sorting office.
>
> Either the buyer or seller can ask RM to investigate.

The first thing the seller asked for me to confirm when I contacted
her was my postal address. I confirmed it for her, so it is very
unlikely she posted it to the wrong address.

The phone itself was the cheapest pay-as-you-go phone I could find
(about £10 including postage).

"Adam"  wrote in message 
news:ac65f87d-1ce9-4e5a-945c-c4e62bb78796@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
....
> The first thing the seller asked for me to confirm when I contacted
> her was my postal address. I confirmed it for her, so it is very
> unlikely she posted it to the wrong address.

I have had goods delivered to me for the correct house number and road, but 
in the wrong town, despite the address being completely correct.

Colin Bignell

"Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
news:92bid4has1c2o7n9pvldov9gu96mkd483i@news.markshouse.net...
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 02:30:07 +0100, "nightjar" <cpb@ put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>>
>>"Peter Crosland"  wrote in message
>>news:OcmdnYcOXYKQc0rVnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>> Assuming it was a business to consumer transaction then the retailer is.
>>>
>>> "Sale of Goods Act as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods to
>>> Consumers Regulations 2002.
>>>
>>> Section 20 Passing of risk
>>>
>>> (4) In a case where the buyer deals as consumer... the goods remain
>>> at the seller's risk until they are delivered to the consumer."
>>>
>>> If the seller is a business they cannot alter this by any exclusion
>>> clauses
>>> so whether they like it or not they are responsible for the goods until
>>> they
>>> are safely delivered to the buyer.
>>
>>Are you saying that a proof of delivery is not adequate proof of that 
>>having
>>happened? If all it takes to negate it is for the customer to claim that 
>>the
>>goods did not arrive, signature notwithstanding, it would leave the 
>>retailer
>>open to lots of fraudulent claims of non-delivery.
>
> It can, yes. But there is a safeguard here, in that the retailer can
> in turn claim against Royal Mail (or whatever carrier they use) for
> failure to deliver correctly. If the carrier can show that the item
> was, in fact, correctly delivered, then this not only absolves the
> retailer from any requirement to replace the item or refund the
> customer, it also provides evidence for a possible criminal
> prosecution against the customer for fraud.

However, the carrier is going to rely on the signature as proof that the 
goods were delivered correctly. Unless there is some requirement for the 
customer to provide proof that it was not, the supplier is not going to get 
anywhere with a claim.

> If the retailer suspects that the non-delivery claim is fake, they can
> always try and bluff it out by refusing to send a replacement or
> refund. It would then be up to the customer to take legal action
> against the retailer in order to get the item or their money back. The
> chances of a fraudster pursuing it that far are negligible; most will
> simply give up and try it on somewhere else.

I have had someone who was obviously using a stolen or cloned credit card 
phone up and demand to know why their goods had not been delivered. However, 
they did not hang on while the member of staff who took the call came to ask 
me and never came back.

> In practice, though, this simply isn't a problem for the majority of
> retailers. 99% of the time, it turns out to be the fault of the
> carrier. In all the time that I managed an online retailer, I never
> had one case where I suspected this kind of fraud by the customer. I
> did, however, have several cases where I had to make a claim against
> the Post Office for non-delivery.

I ahd one case where the customer had said to leave the package behind the 
flowerpot. About a week after we had sent out a replacement, the customer 
phoned back and paid for the parcel, with the explaaination that she had 
found the package behind a different flower pot from the one she expected. 
Fortunately, we have very little go astray normally.

Colin Bignell

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:00:24 +0100, "nightjar" <cpb@ put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>
>"Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
>news:92bid4has1c2o7n9pvldov9gu96mkd483i@news.markshouse.net...
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 02:30:07 +0100, "nightjar" <cpb@ put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>>>
>>>"Peter Crosland"  wrote in message
>>>news:OcmdnYcOXYKQc0rVnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>>> Assuming it was a business to consumer transaction then the retailer is.
>>>>
>>>> "Sale of Goods Act as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods to
>>>> Consumers Regulations 2002.
>>>>
>>>> Section 20 Passing of risk
>>>>
>>>> (4) In a case where the buyer deals as consumer... the goods remain
>>>> at the seller's risk until they are delivered to the consumer."
>>>>
>>>> If the seller is a business they cannot alter this by any exclusion
>>>> clauses
>>>> so whether they like it or not they are responsible for the goods until
>>>> they
>>>> are safely delivered to the buyer.
>>>
>>>Are you saying that a proof of delivery is not adequate proof of that 
>>>having
>>>happened? If all it takes to negate it is for the customer to claim that 
>>>the
>>>goods did not arrive, signature notwithstanding, it would leave the 
>>>retailer
>>>open to lots of fraudulent claims of non-delivery.
>>
>> It can, yes. But there is a safeguard here, in that the retailer can
>> in turn claim against Royal Mail (or whatever carrier they use) for
>> failure to deliver correctly. If the carrier can show that the item
>> was, in fact, correctly delivered, then this not only absolves the
>> retailer from any requirement to replace the item or refund the
>> customer, it also provides evidence for a possible criminal
>> prosecution against the customer for fraud.
>
>However, the carrier is going to rely on the signature as proof that the 
>goods were delivered correctly. Unless there is some requirement for the 
>customer to provide proof that it was not, the supplier is not going to get 
>anywhere with a claim.

If it went to court, the customer could fairly easily demonstrate that
the signature is not his.

Mark
-- 
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden 
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff

On 25 Sep, 21:45, Mark Goodge 
wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:00:24 +0100, "nightjar" <cpb@ put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
 If it went to court, the customer could fairly easily demonstrate
that
> the signature is not his.
>
> Mark

I've often wondered how you prove "that's not my signature". If you
want to pull a scam, you just scribble "M Mouse" and later point out
that you don't have a tail. When I sign for RD letters, the postie
never asks for proof that that's my real signature.

I sometimes get RD letters popped through my letterbox without the
postie knocking. I assume they just scribble something themselves if
they're in a hurry. Indeed, last week when he did knock but neither of
us had a pen to hand he just said "don't bother" and went away.

Chris

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:50:04 +0100, chrisj.doran@proemail.co.uk put
finger to keyboard and typed:

>On 25 Sep, 21:45, Mark Goodge 
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:00:24 +0100, "nightjar" <cpb@ put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
> If it went to court, the customer could fairly easily demonstrate
>that
>> the signature is not his.
>>
>> Mark
>
>I've often wondered how you prove "that's not my signature". If you
>want to pull a scam, you just scribble "M Mouse" and later point out
>that you don't have a tail. When I sign for RD letters, the postie
>never asks for proof that that's my real signature.
>
>I sometimes get RD letters popped through my letterbox without the
>postie knocking. I assume they just scribble something themselves if
>they're in a hurry. Indeed, last week when he did knock but neither of
>us had a pen to hand he just said "don't bother" and went away.

It's the prevalance of such practices which tend to tilt the balance
in favour of the customer when it comes to disputing that they
actually signed for something :-)

Mark
-- 
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden 
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff

"Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
news:sacqd417l53vqmrcg2ral6nbtp85lkrbe5@news.markshouse.net...
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:50:04 +0100, chrisj.doran@proemail.co.uk put
> finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>>On 25 Sep, 21:45, Mark Goodge 
>>wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:00:24 +0100, "nightjar" <cpb@ put finger to
>>> keyboard and typed:
>>>
>> If it went to court, the customer could fairly easily demonstrate
>>that
>>> the signature is not his.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>
>>I've often wondered how you prove "that's not my signature". If you
>>want to pull a scam, you just scribble "M Mouse" and later point out
>>that you don't have a tail. When I sign for RD letters, the postie
>>never asks for proof that that's my real signature.
>>
>>I sometimes get RD letters popped through my letterbox without the
>>postie knocking. I assume they just scribble something themselves if
>>they're in a hurry. Indeed, last week when he did knock but neither of
>>us had a pen to hand he just said "don't bother" and went away.
>
> It's the prevalance of such practices which tend to tilt the balance
> in favour of the customer when it comes to disputing that they
> actually signed for something :-)
>
Posties are a law onto themselves.  I've had them putting those 'sorry you 
were out' cards through when I was in and know they didn't knock.