Sent Item To Wrong Address

[divine`]

The law was amened. You no longer have to wait before the item is yours to do with as you see fit.

You do be right...

Unsolicited goods and services

Unsolicited goods are those which have been sent to you 'out of the blue' and which you have not ordered. The Distance Selling Regulations state that you can treat these goods as an 'unconditional gift'; in other words, you can keep them or give them away, sell them, use them or destroy them, and the trader cannot expect you to have to pay for them.

The Regulations make it a criminal offence to demand payment or threaten legal action to obtain payment for unsolicited goods or services.

Unsolicited Items

Under the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971, (as amended) it is an offence to demand payment for goods known to be unsolicited, in other words, they were sent to a person without any prior request made by them or on their behalf.

Someone who receives goods in these circumstances may retain them as an unconditional gift, and does not have to pay for or return any unwanted goods. Anyone who receives a demand for payment for unsolicited goods should report the matter to their local Trading Standards Department.

However, in the case of unsolicited goods received before 1 November 2000, the recipient is required to give notice to the sender to collect them within 30 days, or otherwise to wait for 6 months, before being able to treat the goods as their own property.

However, depending how one interprets 'Out of the blue' and 'any prior request' means none of that may apply, as there was a prior request, albeit for a different item. I don't know. Ask someone qualified rather than a bunch of geeks who are no doubt bashing through google like I am.

 

[Jono]

Id get some proper advice before you go sending anything to anyone.

I agree with this.
I don't know how the law stands with this. I would hope it was up to him to either wait for a certain length of time before being the owner of the goods, or contact the sender (if details provided), but did I just read that this is no longer the case?

That sucks if it is.
CAB. Tomorrow. First thing.

edit - reading the above post. The law would seem to be on his side. He wins, you lose. Drop it (still go to CAB, just to check) - or YOU could be prosecuted

 

[dbmzk1]

You do be right...

However, depending how one interprets 'Out of the blue' and 'any prior request' means none of that may apply, as there was a prior request, albeit for a different item. I don't know. Ask someone qualified rather than a bunch of geeks who are no doubt bashing through google like I am.

There is no interpreting to be done. I have ordered from OcUK before. However, if a shiny new processor turned up tomorrow it would still be mine. Just because you have had dealings with someone before does not mean they are exempt from the law.

I agree with what others have said though - see the CAB first thing.

...
edit - reading the above post. The law would seem to be on his side. He wins, you lose. Drop it (still go to CAB, just to check) - or YOU could be prosecuted

That's what I've been trying to say all along

 

[divine`]

That's what I've been trying to say all along

What you needed to do was quote yourself with some massive quotes from DTI and TS

 

[Adz]

However, depending how one interprets 'Out of the blue' and 'any prior request' means none of that may apply, as there was a prior request, albeit for a different item. I don't know. Ask someone qualified rather than a bunch of geeks who are no doubt bashing through google like I am.

There was a prior request. He just sent the wrong goods.

I'm 99.9% sure the law is on your side here. The unsolicited goods laws are designed to protect vulnerable consumers from unscrupulous companies, not to let some idiot on eBay rip people off over an honest mistake.

As I've said before, even if you weren't LEGALLY in the right, the sight of court papers would more than likely make him cough up regardless.

 

[divine`]

There was a prior request. He just sent the wrong goods.

He didn't *just* send the wrong goods though did he?

He sent the correct one earlier that week, than managed to incorrectly send the graphics to that same recipient rather than the new one it was meant to go to.

Would that not render the second delivery 'unsolicited goods' ?

As dbmzk1 said. If I ordered a graphics card from OcUK and I recieved it, then a nice 30" TFT turned up a week later aswell, that I had not ordered, would that, or would it not be 'unsolicited goods'?

 

[Ewanb75]

Also, while your at it, point out his spelling mistakes, and everyone here should reply to his email and tell him what a knob he is being.

Also, am sorry to say, but if i got sent something by mistake, anything, and then received an email saying it was in error, and could i post it on and i will re-imburse you, i would....

 

[wesley]

i'm a little confused here

1) you sold and sent an item to "matthew" few weeks ago
2) you sold an item (gfx card) to "david" but sent it to "matthew" ?

if so, then its unsolicited goods

 

[divine`]

i'm a little confused here

1) you sold and sent an item to "matthew" few weeks ago
2) you sold an item (gfx card) to "david" but sent it to "matthew" ?

if so, then its unsolicited goods

That's how i'm reading it.

 

[Hyper]

1) you sold and sent an item to "matthew" few weeks ago
2) you sold an item (gfx card) to "david" but sent it to "matthew" ?(

Yes thats what has happend.

 

[ONESHOTKILL]

That guy sounds like a slimeball,he must have thought the card came from the magic royal mail fairys.

 

[sven256]

i'm a little confused here

1) you sold and sent an item to "matthew" few weeks ago
2) you sold an item (gfx card) to "david" but sent it to "matthew" ?

if so, then its unsolicited goods

Thats not quite true as there was prior contact between the two parties ,with a sale only a few weeks before hand. So if a case was taken to court you would be highly likely to win the case due to the fact it was clearly a error on the sellers part.

Also the fact im not even sure (would have to look it up) if the Unconditional Goods and Services Act 1971 would even apply to a private sale.

 

[Gog]

A person who, not having reasonable cause to believe there is a right to payment, in the course of any trade or business makes a demand for payment, or asserts a present or prospective right to payment, for what he knows are unsolicited goods sent (after the commencement of this Act) to another person with a view to his acquiring them for the purposes of his trade or business, shall be guilty of an offence and on summary conviction shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

Sounds to me like there must be prior intent to send unsolicited goods. I don't think that sending something to the wrong address by accident is covered. If I get the chance I'll check BAILII at work tomorrow to see if I can see any clarification from the High Court - I'm intrigued now

 

[g0th2000]

Distance selling regs definately only apply to businesses.

As far as I can read from the Unconditional Goods act (if it even applies to individuals..) the receiver of the goods has to be the intended recipient so goods sent 'in error' would not be covered. This is again common sense, you can't have simple typo's potentially costing companies millions, it'd be silly, and people do make mistakes!

If it went to court then the receiver would likely be trying to prove that as far as he could tell he was the intended recipient based on the goods being addressed to him. However it would be quite easy for Hyper to show it was a genuine mistake using his ebay communications with the intended buyer etc, small claims court tends to be an area where common sense still rules and I think they would find in favour of Hyper as the other bloke has clearly been a berk if he's sold the goods so quickly (probably on the back of 'pub talk' with his mate ). My bet is the card is still sat on his desk.

 

[Berger]

Go give him an unsolicited brick through the window.

 

[Jet]

There is no way the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act applies in this case.

a) he isn't a business or trader, he's an individual and therefore the Act won't apply to him;

b) there have been dealings between them before so more likely to be a mistake;

c) the aim of the Act is clear and is obviously not meant to cover these situations. Therefore the court wouldn't enforce it. Do people not think that this situation may have arisen in the last 30 years since the Act was passed?

Get some proper legal advice but don't give up, I think you're in the right.

And this:

case law stipulates that if a case of the same nature is raised it must be handled the same way as a previous case - its what all the top lawyers use - hence why they are so expensive.

is hilarious, he sounds like he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

 

[Doohickey]

Go give him an unsolicited brick through the window.

Hahaha

"Read the exemptions:

These Regulations do not apply to contracts:

* via auction.[20]"

That is interesting, however this guy never actually entered into any auction for the item that he received, and since he already received the correct item which he won, I don't think this exemption is applicable.

However:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002334.htm

His case is simply:

The recipient may, as between himself and the sender, use, deal with or dispose of the goods as if they were an unconditional gift to him.

The rights of the sender to the goods are extinguished.

However, the above is ONLY applicable given the following conditions:

(a) unsolicited goods are sent to a person ("the recipient") with a view to his acquiring them;

(b) the recipient has no reasonable cause to believe that they were sent with a view to their being acquired for the purposes of a business; and

(c) the recipient has neither agreed to acquire nor agreed to return them.

All 3 must be met for him to assume the goods as an unconditional gift.

(a) is not met, seeing as he was NOT the intended recipient in this case; he can obviously argue against this, but he's going to have be awfully convincing to convince anyone otherwise. As mentioned previously, this clause applies to businesses delivering goods, unsolicited, to their INTENDED recipients, and I don't believe that it should in this case.

(b) YES the recipient DOES have reasonable cause to believe that the item was sent with a view to it being acquired for the purposes of a business/transaction; unless he is used to receiving second hand graphics cards randomly for free.

(c) he has a right to, of course, seeing as he never agreed to acquire the item.


Anyway, my point here is that his right to use/dispose/sell/whatever, the item, is not applicable. Therefore you should seek further advice, I firmly believe you have a leg to stand on legally, and of course morally.

 

[stoofa]

I don't see how it can be anything other than unsolicited goods.

The receiver gets a package sent to him.
Why should he magically know it was a mistake?
For all he knows somebody is sending him a free card.
(Thankfully we haven't yet developed a way where we can be found guilty for thoughts as we'd all be doing time).
As the package was addressed to him why shouldn't he see the item simply as a gift and do with it as he pleases?

If there had been a spelling mistake on the package, if it had been sent to the wrong address, if this, if that then there would be a good case.
However this package was not simply delivered to the wrong person or the wrong address.
It was sent to Mr. Smith in Smithtown
Sure, the sender didn't mean to, but that is his mistake, not Mr. Smith's, not Royal Mail.
The only person who has made a mistake at any point is the sender.
As Mr. Smith didn't ask for the goods to be sent to him they were unsolicited and thanks to the 2000 ammendment in the law he could simply get rid of them without the need to wait.

Even if this did get to court it would be your responsibility to prove "what was running through his mind" when he received the card.

I'm all for getting behind somebody in the forums when they are in the right.
But when the only person who has made a mistake is the OP and the law appears to be on the side of the receiver...
All this "You're in the right mate" isn't helping the situation.
Nor is attempting to convince the OP that he is legally correct or the law is on his side.
Before you go to the CAB tomorrow (remember they are also not trained lawyers - far from it) take along a copy of the relevent information from the DTI website and ask them if they feel that might make a difference.

 

[Doohickey]

I don't see how it can be anything other than unsolicited goods.

The receiver gets a package sent to him.
Why should he magically know it was a mistake?
For all he knows somebody is sending him a free card.
(Thankfully we haven't yet developed a way where we can be found guilty for thoughts as we'd all be doing time).
As the package was addressed to him why shouldn't he see the item simply as a gift and do with it as he pleases?

Yes the package was addressed to him.

BUT the OP will undoubtedly have documentation and evidence of:

• The item being sent

• The intended recipient

• Transfer of money for this item, from the intended recipient and himself

• The Royal Mail tracking number proving that he was the sender

Yes, the above shows that the OP made a mistake, but it also invalidates what you say about the recipient having a right to do what he pleases with the item, because it shows that he must not have been the intended recipient; this is also stated in the amendment (see my above post).

 

[dayloon]

Sorry to say this but I also think he's covered by the unsolicited goods act. I think you're just gonna have to put this one down to experience and drop it. If you go to a small claims court i suspect you'll loose and end up even more out of pocket