Sent Item To Wrong Address

Hyper · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:28

Ahh well, thats what I was recommend to do by a lot of people including a Barclays adviser so I will let you know if I am £5000 down anytime soon

dayloon · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:28

I really think you're making a mistake and it's going to cause you more stress and money in the long run. Found this on another legal website :

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

Cuchulain · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:28

Hyper said:
Morning lads,

This topic seems to have caused a bit of a stir, just keep it clean as I dont want it getting locked.

I sent off a letter this morning via Royal Mail 1st Class Recorded so he should receive it tomorrow and he has 14 days from when he receives it to either return the item or pay up the full amount it was sold for on ebay.

If not, off to the small claims court I go

Will keep you all updated

Good work that man. Glad you didn't rely on the information given by morons who believe everything they've Googled.

Darg · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:30

Well my dad used to work in the Royal Mail so I asked him about this today. Note he probably worked there before this amendment.

Anyway he said that it is the obligation of the receiver to keep the item in good condition and available for the sender to pick up. Basically he doesn't have to send the item back to you but he has to keep it there in good condition for you to go and pick up yourself.

A decent person would be willing to send it back if reimbursed the full cost + trouble which seems to be what you were offering to do.

If he did even contact the post office then they wouldn't have told him that it was his. What they might have said according to him was that 'he must keep it'. This could easily be misinterpreted as meaning the item belonged to him. They actually would have meant that he must keep it in order for you to pick up.

Hope this can provide some help.

Nebzor · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:31

Hyper said:
Ahh well, thats what I was recommend to do by a lot of people including a Barclays adviser so I will let you know if I am £5000 down anytime soon

Well mate, I sincerely hope you haven't shot yourself in the foot. I'm not too sure if a Barclays advisor is a superior law figure than those who wrote the laws, but sure, good luck.

Dave M · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:32

Benjarghmin said:
The law is not "interpretable" in the sense of what the definition of unsolicited goods are. Once again..

Of course law is interpretable, case law is the basis of every judgment and case law is nothing more than the interpretation of a particular judge.

Hyper · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:32

Thanks for that Darq, I phoned RM yesterday and they gave me a similar reply saying that they would never just tell any they could 'keep' an item.

Legoman · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:32

Benjarghmin said:
For anyone who has the ability to read, it is clearly stated.

Absolutely:

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.

The UGA was drafted to prevent a type of underhand inertia selling whereby companies or individuals would send an item followed by an invoice demanding payment.

It was not drafted to make it legal to keep an item that was sent in error.

The graphics card is not unsolicited under the terms of the UGA. It was sent in error and is not covered.

Nebzor · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:33

Telescopi said:
Of course law is interpretable, case law is the basis of every judgment and case law is nothing more than the interpretation of a particular judge.

Not when a definition is specifically given. You're talking about the judgment upon application of law, not definitions of terms used in law.

Nebzor · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:34

Legoman said:
It was not drafted to make it legal to keep an item that was sent in error.

The graphics card is not unsolicited under the terms of the UGA. It was sent in error and is not covered.

You still seem to think that I believe the UGA was designed to give us all free stuff? And do you have any solid proof that accidental delivery errors void the UGA? I've said all along I'm open to this, but I've found nothing saying it does.

Darg · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:35

I've always wondered why so many people on this board called me Darq.. the curve of the g doesn't show up because of the underline :rolleyes:

Anyway good luck Hyper I'll be keeping an eye on this thread.

Nebzor · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:36

I'm going to ring up the CAB and see what they think, give me a second.

wordy · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:37

Hyper said:
Ahh well, thats what I was recommend to do by a lot of people including a Barclays adviser so I will let you know if I am £5000 down anytime soon

As someone already said, anyone with any deccency realises that making an honest mistake should not end up costing you £120.

Hope you get it sorted soon mate.

Cupra · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:38

all the judgemtns are on hyper being a vat registerd company sending things out to ppl then asking for money and HE IS NOT it was a genuine mistake. so all your sale of goods act's mean nothing in a civil suit.. make sure you do real gogling before you post disheartenin bildge on here ppl, words of encouragment for a fellow ocuker.

Legoman · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:39

Benjarghmin said:
You still seem to think that I believe the UGA was designed to give us all free stuff? And do you have any solid proof that accidental delivery errors void the UGA? I've said all along I'm open to this, but I've found nothing saying it does.

I believe that the key part of the UGA is "demanding payment"

Cuchulain · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:40

Benjarghmin said:
I'm going to ring up the CAB and see what they think, give me a second.

It's just a shame that you're only going to ring them in a vain attempt to prove yourself right rather than help the OP. Sad ....

Nebzor · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:41

Legoman said:
I believe that the key part of the UGA is "demanding payment"

That is a small section of it referring to that being an offence. I am referring to the part where it says unsolicited items can be kept and called an unconditional gift.

Edit: Maybe I am sad, but it will help both of us out either way. I don't really care what you think of me

Legoman · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:45

Benjarghmin said:
That is a small section of it referring to that being an offence. I am referring to the part where it says unsolicited items can be kept and called an unconditional gift.

When the intent was that it was sent unsolicted instead of being sent in error.

Nebzor · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:47

Legoman said:
When the intent was that it was sent unsolicted instead of being sent in error.

Which is what we're trying to figure out, whether it is classed as unsolicited as it wasn't asked for, or whether the fact it was a mistake voids that.

Edit: On phone to CAB now.

Legoman · 19 Jul 2007 at 10:50

Benjarghmin said:
Which is what we're trying to figure out, whether it is classed as unsolicited as it wasn't asked for, or whether the fact it was a mistake voids that.

Agreed

However, some posters are claiming that anything sent in error is unsolicited and can be kept under the terms of the UGA.