Sent Item To Wrong Address

Legoman · 19 Jul 2007 at 21:45

Benjarghmin said:
There obviously is a maybe, or I would've been told by the CAB or ConsumerDirect that it is definitely not a possibility, as that is their job. However, they haven't, and they've said it's not a clear cut case and that I now have to speak to Trading Standards. So, it isn't clear cut, as you claim it to be.

CAB, Consumer Direct and Trading Standards are not staffed by qualified laywers. Of course they have to check what the law says. The same as a number of posters on here have.

Nebzor · 19 Jul 2007 at 21:45

Legoman said:
You assume. You don't know do you?

Exactly what law has he broken if he has requested his item back within a time limit?

I'll make it simple. IF THE GOODS ARE DEEMED UNSOLICITED BY THE LAW then he will have committed two offences under the UGA. Note the keyword. If. It's a possibility. The law isn't as clear cut as you'd like it to be (and I know that's a little hypocritical to when I was making my point, but I was just doing exactly what you are.) IF THEY ARE NOT DEEMED UNSOLICITED BY THE LAW, which is another possibility, then the receiver is in the wrong and will be forced to pay court costs and the value of the item.

Nebzor · 19 Jul 2007 at 21:46

Legoman said:
CAB, Consumer Direct and Trading Standards are not staffed by qualified laywers. Of course they have to check what the law says. The same as a number of posters on here have.

Oh yes, of course. But they have multiple years of experience with things like this, I assume the majority of us here do not.

Legoman · 19 Jul 2007 at 21:50

Benjarghmin said:
I'll make it simple. IF THE GOODS ARE DEEMED UNSOLICITED BY THE LAW then he will have committed two offences under the UGA. Note the keyword. If. It's a possibility. The law isn't as clear cut as you'd like it to be (and I know that's a little hypocritical to when I was making my point, but I was just doing exactly what you are.) IF THEY ARE NOT DEEMED UNSOLICITED BY THE LAW, which is another possibility, then the receiver is in the wrong and will be forced to pay court costs and the value of the item.

You're confusing a potential small claim by the OP with a request to send his item back within a time-limit.

Legoman · 19 Jul 2007 at 21:52

Benjarghmin said:
Oh yes, of course. But they have multiple years of experience with things like this, I assume the majority of us here do not.

If Trading Standards are so experienced with things like this then why are they taking five days to get back to you?

Explicit · 19 Jul 2007 at 21:53

Benjarghmin said:
I'll make it simple. IF THE GOODS ARE DEEMED UNSOLICITED BY THE LAW then he will have committed two offences under the UGA. Note the keyword. If. It's a possibility. The law isn't as clear cut as you'd like it to be (and I know that's a little hypocritical to when I was making my point, but I was just doing exactly what you are.) IF THEY ARE NOT DEEMED UNSOLICITED BY THE LAW, which is another possibility, then the receiver is in the wrong and will be forced to pay court costs and the value of the item.

Calm down.

Let me correct your inaccurate statement once again...

If the goods are unsolicited, the OP has committed no offences under UGA/Regs because he is a private seller. All it means is that he cannot recover his money or property. There are no offences or fines because he did not demand payment or threaten legal action in the course of a business.

If the goods are not unsolicited, the OP can recover his money.

Offences/fines are completely irrelevant, he is a private seller.

Nebzor · 19 Jul 2007 at 21:55

I give up. I'll post one more time.

If the items are deemed unsolicited, then he will have threatened legal action over unsolicited goods. That's how it works.

If the items aren't deemed unsolicited, then he is perfectly in his right to have demanded the items back.

There is no point either of us saying it's definitely one, or definitely the other. We have no experience in the law and so can only speculate. If people who deal with these situations often cannot come up with a simple answer, I doubt either of us can.

I can see exactly where you're coming from. I've not said you're wrong, and so there's really no need (in my opinion) to continually counter my views, as it only leads to confusion. There is no benefit to us saying one is right, because we could be completely wrong. I've successfully pointed out that it could go either way, and that two different scenarios can unfold relying on what the situation is deemed to be, solicited or unsolicited. We can only speculate as to whether or not they are, and speculation isn't reason for dismissal of a viewpoint.

Good luck with this, OP.

Edit:

Explicit said:
Calm down.

Let me correct your inaccurate statement once again...

If the goods are unsolicited, the OP has committed no offences under UGA/Regs because he is a private seller. All it means is that he cannot recover his money or property. There are no offences or fines because he did not demand payment or threaten legal action in the course of a business.

If the goods are not unsolicited, the OP can recover his money.

Offences/fines are completely irrelevant, he is a private seller.

I've not seen where it says private sellers are exempt from this law. I'll reread your post, though

Second edit: Found the part you're referring to. Seems like he is exempt, but then why would CAB/CD not tell me this? I know it sounds like I think they're God, but no offence to you, I'm going with the official voice with experience on this one. Not saying you're wrong, though!

Third edit: To Legoman underneath, he stated he has sent a letter requesting the goods or the value of the goods within 14 days. I also think he included that it will be taken to court if this is not satisfied, but I'm not sure about that one.

Legoman · 19 Jul 2007 at 21:57

Explicit said:
Calm down.

Let me correct your inaccurate statement once again...

If the goods are unsolicited, the OP has committed no offences under UGA/Regs because he is a private seller. All it means is that he cannot recover his money or property. There are no offences or fines because he did not demand payment or threaten legal action in the course of a business.

If the goods are not unsolicited, the OP can recover his money.

Offences/fines are completely irrelevant, he is a private seller.

We're not aware he has demanded payment or threatened legal action at all

Explicit · 19 Jul 2007 at 22:06

Legoman said:
We're not aware he has demanded payment or threatened legal action at all

Yep, I know that.

I'm trying to explain to Benjarghmin that the letter is not an issue because irrespective of whether or not it contains demands for payment or legal threats, he will not have committed an offence. Private sellers are exempt from fines.

Legoman · 19 Jul 2007 at 22:09

Benjarghmin said:
Third edit: To Legoman underneath, he stated he has sent a letter requesting the goods or the value of the goods within 14 days. I also think he included that it will be taken to court if this is not satisfied, but I'm not sure about that one.

Requesting the item back or the value of the item (as the recipient claimed he sold it) is not the same as demanding payment for it.

Only the OP can confirm whether he has stated he will start a small claim if this is not satisfied. Although I don't believe that would break any law.

I don't feel it would be a good idea to threaten legal action but only the OP can decide what he considers best.

Nebzor · 19 Jul 2007 at 22:10

Explicit said:
Yep, I know that.

I'm trying to explain to Benjarghmin that the letter is not an issue because irrespective of whether or not it contains demands for payment or legal threats, he will not have committed an offence. Private sellers are exempt from fines.

I know exactly what you're trying to say, you don't need to repeat it to me just because I don't decide to share your viewpoint. I'm still waiting to be proven wrong by Trading Standards. Edit to clarify: Yes. I am waiting to hear from them, as I don't take your word as the definitive word of the law. They've got the experience, so I take their word for it.

Legoman · 19 Jul 2007 at 22:11

Explicit said:
I'm trying to explain to Benjarghmin that the letter is not an issue because irrespective of whether or not it contains demands for payment or legal threats, he will not have committed an offence. Private sellers are exempt from fines.

That's exactly what I'm trying to do :rolleyes:

Hyper · 20 Jul 2007 at 13:58

He must have received the letter this morning because I recieved this e-mail from him:

HI Sam,

As previously confirmed I do consider this matter closed, however I made an agreement with the 2nd caller that next time I saw my friend I would see if he still has the money, amazingly he still has some of it - although I am not legally obligated to do so I feel it is the right thing to do and also I am a man of my word - I now have 55 pounds of the original 60 which I can make available to yourself - please let me know wether you would like this - as if not i would like to return the money to my friend ASAP.

Regards

Mr M Green

At first I would have happily taken that from him but now with all his lies etc I am not too sure.

Cupra · 20 Jul 2007 at 14:02

He is looking more and more scared every day m8.. id not take the money

Freedom · 20 Jul 2007 at 14:59

Wait till the 14 days are up then take it to a small claims court.

Dont talk or email him further.

sven256 · 20 Jul 2007 at 15:12

Hyper said:
He must have received the letter this morning because I recieved this e-mail from him:

At first I would have happily taken that from him but now with all his lies etc I am not too sure.

I would ask him for a replacement card over the money, as if it does go to court I can see you ending up with only £60 anyway as that's what he "claims" he sold it for.

Dave M · 20 Jul 2007 at 15:15

sven256 said:
I would ask him for a replacement card over the money, as if it does go to court I can see you ending up with only £60 anyway as that's what he "claims" he sold it for.

I can claim to have sold a bentley for a fiver but it doesn't mean it's commercial value is a fiver now does it?

The amount he sold it for (and has an invoice for) should be quite admissable to the court, or if not enough proof then an average of prices the same card sold for on ebay over the preceeding weeks - anything but the amount the defendant claims he sold it for (and has no proof of).

laissez-faire · 20 Jul 2007 at 15:37

Hyper said:
He must have received the letter this morning because I recieved this e-mail from him:

At first I would have happily taken that from him but now with all his lies etc I am not too sure.

Clarify your position; Say you are simply not open to any 'offers'. You want £120 or the original card back, otherwise a claim will be submitted to the small claims court. Advise him that there will be no further debate following this clarification.

Mr Joshua · 20 Jul 2007 at 16:54

Hyper said:
He must have received the letter this morning because I recieved this e-mail from him:

At first I would have happily taken that from him but now with all his lies etc I am not too sure.

Very good thread, I hope you get your money/card back.

reefoid · 20 Jul 2007 at 17:09

So now he feels "it is the right thing to do and also I am a man of my word" all of a sudden!!! Shame he didn't feel like that a few days ago. He knows he's in the wrong and is trying to get out of it with minimum cost to him. Stick to your guns - the card or £120. Good luck.