Recieved 'unpaid for' duplicate orders. Legal obligations??

[pablo2100]

Hi everyone, i tried searching but couldn't find any info that answered my questions.

I recently placed an order with a bulk protein powder and supplement company. My order arrived promptly as ever.

However for the next few days-week i recieved 3 duplicate orders.

i have not been charged for these orders only the original one.

After the 3rd duplicate order i contacted the company and advised them they must have an error and to cancel the order.

To be honest i was hoping they would just thank me for my honesty and leave it htere but they have asked me to return the unpaid for goods or pay the total outstanding at a 20% discount.

Now i know this seems cheeky but i wanted to know what my legal obligations on this matter are. It was there error. Am i legally obligated to return or pay for the goods??

Morrally i don't feel too bad about keeping the goods as i have given the company thousands of pounds of business steadily over the course of about 10 years, so if i am not legally bound to return the goods i would consider keeping them. Obviously if i am obligated to either return or pay then i will do so and be grateful of the discount offered by the company.

Any expert advice would be greatly appreciated. Personal opinions are perhaps not so helpful in this case as i don't want to email them stating something like "i don't believe i am legally obligated to return or pay for the goods as the error was entirely yours. And i intend to keep the goods in question" and then they come back all guns blazing.

Many thanks!

[Celestine]

Re: Recieved 'unpaid for' duplicate orders. Legal obligations??

Unsolicited items | Policies | BIS

"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."

[pablo2100]

Re: Recieved 'unpaid for' duplicate orders. Legal obligations??

Thanks for the reply celestine!

Do you think this still applies if the company was of the belief that goods had been requested due to a computer error or similar: "We have identified a discrepancy in the order process that has led to you receiving more than one order."

Thanks again for your info!

[Celestine]

Re: Recieved 'unpaid for' duplicate orders. Legal obligations??

Well if you ordered and paid for one item, then the discrepancy lies with them. In fact I'm sure most unsolicited goods arrive courtesy of just such a discrepancy!

Perhaps contact them enlightening them of the Unsolicited Goods & Services Act 1971 may jog their awareness!

[pablo2100]

Re: Recieved 'unpaid for' duplicate orders. Legal obligations??

Thanks so much for directing me to the correct legislation regarding this sort of matter, I have tried to do some reading on the subject and feel that due to this paragraph and it's contained intention and intent to collect the goods negates me being eligible to keep the foods under the unsolicited goods act.

"We do need to make arrangements to collect these items so your assistance and support in arranging this will be greatly appreciated. We can organise a collection of the products on a date and from a location that is most convenient to you. Alternatively, we can arrange for you to drop the products at your local Collect + Point should this be your preference.

If however, you would prefer to retain the products in this order, I will gladly reduce the amount payable by 20% as a gesture of goodwill. To this effect, a further payment is required and I would be grateful if you could contact me to make payment at your earliest convenience."

Therefore they are requesting payment if I choose, and if I don't they are offering collection. This seems to me to be working within the Act.

Am I interpreting the act and my situation correctly? I've not looked into anything like this before.

Many thanks

[CleverClogs]

Re: Recieved 'unpaid for' duplicate orders. Legal obligations??

Thanks so much for directing me to the correct legislation regarding this sort of matter, I have tried to do some reading on the subject and feel that due to this paragraph and it's contained intention and intent to collect the goods negates me being eligible to keep the foods under the unsolicited goods act.

"We do need to make arrangements to collect these items so your assistance and support in arranging this will be greatly appreciated. We can organise a collection of the products on a date and from a location that is most convenient to you. Alternatively, we can arrange for you to drop the products at your local Collect + Point should this be your preference.

If however, you would prefer to retain the products in this order, I will gladly reduce the amount payable by 20% as a gesture of goodwill. To this effect, a further payment is required and I would be grateful if you could contact me to make payment at your earliest convenience."

Therefore they are requesting payment if I choose, and if I don't they are offering collection. This seems to me to be working within the Act.

Am I interpreting the act and my situation correctly?

No and neither are they, as it can be a criminal offence contrary to the Regulation 24 (4) of the Distance Selling Regulations 2000 - link - to ask for payment for unsolicited goods.

Perhaps the vendor believes that the sort of person who ingests protein powder and supplements has, as their musculature developed, somehow lost the ability to think?

[pablo2100]

Re: Recieved 'unpaid for' duplicate orders. Legal obligations??



Indeed!

Well i can imagine this was not an isolated incident, if there was a problem with thtere ordering process it's more than likely it has either happened before or happened multiple times simultaniously.

From reading both the unsolicited goods act 1971

it's amendments

and the 'Distance selling regulations 2000'

I can see clearly that any request for payment for the goods is an offence.

The goods are indeed unsolicited

And that according to the Distance selling act 2000 all the sellers rights are "extinguished"

My confusion over wether i should persue.... persisted due to reading about allowing the time frame of 30 days for the seller to collect.

However it seems to me, due to the amendments that were made in 2000 that this 30 day collection period only applies to goods recieved before nov 1st 2000.

So my conclusion so far is that as i did not request the goods. All error was on their part. rendering the goods i have in my possesion "unsolicited goods" and due to the amendments of 2000, from the moment i recieved them i am within my rights to treat them as as unconditional gift.

Are there any lurking amendments or policies that give the sender any rights to collect. This is the only aspect i feel slightly unclear on. Despite it seeming quite clear. I am simply wondering about this because of the quite stern part in the original 1971 document stating that i need to allow collection if the sender wants to do so, albeit within a set timescale. (which in my case they are eager to do asap)

I did read somewhere about "error" on the part of the sender playing some part on deciding if the goods can be treated as unsolicited as opposed to if they were intentionally sent with the purpose of the recipient (me) buying them despite not requesting them. (as in an actual scam, of which i believe this situation not to be. I do believe it was simple error.)

I am certainly finding this an interesting area to delve into and i am really grateful to you guys for pointing me towards the relevant documents and search terms.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Recieved 'unpaid for' duplicate orders. Legal obligations??

Unless your life is so boring and humdrum that waiting for those berks to collect the goods they sent might be a welcome change, I really do not understand why one might wish to do that.

Tell them, in a letter or by email, that you will return the goods by Recorded Delivery and that you expect to be reimbursed in full for the postage.

[teaboy2]

Re: Recieved 'unpaid for' duplicate orders. Legal obligations??

Unless your life is so boring and humdrum that waiting for those berks to collect the goods they sent might be a welcome change, I really do not understand why one might wish to do that.

Tell them, in a letter or by email, that you will return the goods by Recorded Delivery and that you expect to be reimbursed in full for the postage.

I wouldn't do that to be honest, as your then risking a financial loss for the cost of postage as they are not legally obligated to reimburse your costs unless they have specifically agreed to so verbally or in writing. So sending your own letter informing them of such is no good unless they agree to reimburse you the postage cost.

I would go about it the way discribed below.

Simply ask them to send you a returns note and prepaid postage label (or instruct them to arrange for a courier to collect the goods) within 7 days, otherwise you will invoke your rights to treat the goods as unconditional gifts under the distance selling unsolicited goods leglisation and deem any request for payment as a criminal offense as defined by the same leglisation.

I myself run a company that sends out orders made over the phone or online, and have had the odd duplicate order sent or wrong label put on the wrong box during dispatch preperations (both usually down to human error in packing the orders), and the onus is on my company to pay the postage and collection costs not on the the person that received the goods if and only if i wish to recover the goods - which depends on their value, i.e. is it worth the postage cost to recover the goods or is it more financially viable to simply write of the goods as lost.

[pablo2100]

Re: Recieved 'unpaid for' duplicate orders. Legal obligations??

I believe that the comp[any would very much like to front the costs of the goods as tey cost of goods far outweighs the loss of paying for collection. However:

From further hunting i can't find anything that implies or states that once i have established that the goods are indeed unsolicited that i have any obligation to allow the sender to collect.

I would like to keep the goods as they would be very useful. As i have stated previously i have given this company thousands of pounds of business over 8-10 years or so, so morrally i don't feel bad for taking advantage of a little freebie caused by their error.


Distance selling regulations 2000

Section 24, subsections 1, 2, 3 and 6

***could anyone clarify the meaning of Section 24. Subsection 1 (a)***

The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000


Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com
"–verb (used with object), -quired, -quir·ing. 1. to come into possession or ownership of; get as one's own: to acquire property.


The objects were sent with the intent that i would be taking possesion of said objects. Albeit made in error. There was, at many stages in the order, packaging and delivery of said goods, an intention for me to take possesion/ownership of the goods. It was their error be it human or computer that led to that belief and therefore that intention.

If i had not contacted them i would most probabaly have several more repeat orders in my possesion. It was only after i contacted them to inform them of the probable order process error that they even became aware of the situation. It was when they recieveed my contact that their intention about the goods changed, but by this point the goods were already in my possesion and if the above is the correct interpretation of 24. (1) (a) my rights come into effect and the senders rights are extinguished.



Meaning i can keep the goods and do not need to allow for collection, organize return or make arrangements to pay for the goods.

Correct??

[elbmek]

Re: Recieved 'unpaid for' duplicate orders. Legal obligations??

I ordered, online, some American suction cups, for a particular use. They sent them very quickly but they were the wrong items, missing a small hook. I contacted the company who apologised and said that they would send out the correct ones, which they did, very promptly. I got them two days later, but they have not requested the return of the original incorrect items so I still have them, still in their original package. If they want them back they must contact me and pay! Otherwise, they stay here.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Recieved 'unpaid for' duplicate orders. Legal obligations??

If i had not contacted them i would most probabaly have several more repeat orders in my possesion. It was only after i contacted them to inform them of the probable order process error that they even became aware of the situation. It was when they recieveed my contact that their intention about the goods changed, but by this point the goods were already in my possesion and if the above is the correct interpretation of 24. (1) (a) my rights come into effect and the senders rights are extinguished.

Meaning i can keep the goods and do not need to allow for collection, organize return or make arrangements to pay for the goods.

Correct??

As a non-lawyer, I would say that was correct.

However, the question you must answer is not whether you have the right to those goods but whether you want to trade with that company ever again. You could insist on your rights this time and retain the goods as unsolicited gifts, but the company might be more than slightly reluctant ever again to supply you with whatever it was you bought from them.

If you return the excess items, get the postage up front, if you can, or a reply paid label - and get a certificate of posting, so they cannot claim you retained the goods.

[teaboy2]

Re: Recieved 'unpaid for' duplicate orders. Legal obligations??

I believe that the comp[any would very much like to front the costs of the goods as tey cost of goods far outweighs the loss of paying for collection. However:

From further hunting i can't find anything that implies or states that once i have established that the goods are indeed unsolicited that i have any obligation to allow the sender to collect.

I would like to keep the goods as they would be very useful. As i have stated previously i have given this company thousands of pounds of business over 8-10 years or so, so morrally i don't feel bad for taking advantage of a little freebie caused by their error.


Distance selling regulations 2000

Section 24, subsections 1, 2, 3 and 6

***could anyone clarify the meaning of Section 24. Subsection 1 (a)***

The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000


Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com
"–verb (used with object), -quired, -quir·ing. 1. to come into possession or ownership of; get as one's own: to acquire property.


The objects were sent with the intent that i would be taking possesion of said objects. Albeit made in error. There was, at many stages in the order, packaging and delivery of said goods, an intention for me to take possesion/ownership of the goods. It was their error be it human or computer that led to that belief and therefore that intention.

If i had not contacted them i would most probabaly have several more repeat orders in my possesion. It was only after i contacted them to inform them of the probable order process error that they even became aware of the situation. It was when they recieveed my contact that their intention about the goods changed, but by this point the goods were already in my possesion and if the above is the correct interpretation of 24. (1) (a) my rights come into effect and the senders rights are extinguished.



Meaning i can keep the goods and do not need to allow for collection, organize return or make arrangements to pay for the goods.

Correct??

Correct - though theres still the risk they will try to recover the goods or the value of the goods, via debt collection of legal action to challenge your claim.

They may use the fact you regularly purchased from them and the fact you knew the items were sent in error and the fact you would have received them as part of any future order you placed with them, means you accepted the goods with the view of aquiring them for future use as part of any legal challenge or defense of any legal challange from yourself. A judge maywell agree and deem your refusal to allow collection or return of the goods at their expense (not yours) as unreasonable and/or that the goods were not unsolicited as a result of the above and your past trading history with said company.

So the question is, is it worth the hassle?

Also as it is a result of an error then they are not in breach of section 4 and 5 of the distance selling regulations when demanding payment either, as they will have reasonable cause to belief payment is due.

And as you have regular business with this company and regularly purchase these products then you may fall foul or section 1 B as its clear that you would not have no reasonable cause to believe they were sent with the view to their being acquired for the purposes of a business - As you would know, as a result of your trading history with said company, that the company in question charges for such products.


Personally, if you use the products regularly is it not in your interests to take advantage of the discount offered instead of having them returned to the company, only for you then have to pay the full price on your next order of the same products? Remember they will be well with in there rights to refuse to sell any future products to you as a result of this, if you do not return or accept the discount offer.