Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think this (online) shop should refund me

151 replies

mrsfoof · 30/08/2022 16:32

I bought some things online at the end of May. I paid for first class post and got an email to say the order had been sent the next day. I've just realised that it never arrived so contacted the seller (an online shop, not Amazon / eBay) to ask for a refund.
The seller is refusing to refund because it's been 3 months and this was the first time I'd been in touch. Their reason is because it's too late for them to claim from Royal Mail for the lost parcel. That seems unfair - it's not my fault they can't claim anymore and I've not got the stuff I ordered.
Any ideas? Can I take them to court (seems a bit extreme as the order value was only £50 but I can't afford to lose this)? Annoyingly I didn't pay with PayPal.

OP posts:
ParvuliThankYouDebbie · 31/08/2022 16:32

NumptiesIncorporated · 31/08/2022 16:21

I would be very surprised if a small claims court would roles in ops favour.

I would think they would look at what's reasonable, and that the buyer should notify that the item has not been delivered before the deadline for getting compensation from your delivery company is up.

There might not be a maximum time stated - but honestly, who would have thought that there would need to be one? Nobody with any sense waits for three months before telling the seller the item didn't arrive.

Even if the OP claimed within the compensation deadline for Royal Mail - 80 days - the seller couldn’t have got their money back from RM because they already told they only keep records for six weeks.

HaveringWavering · 31/08/2022 16:35

NumptiesIncorporated · 31/08/2022 16:21

I would be very surprised if a small claims court would roles in ops favour.

I would think they would look at what's reasonable, and that the buyer should notify that the item has not been delivered before the deadline for getting compensation from your delivery company is up.

There might not be a maximum time stated - but honestly, who would have thought that there would need to be one? Nobody with any sense waits for three months before telling the seller the item didn't arrive.

Believe it or not, Small Claims Courts apply exactly the same law as Big Claims Court. I'm bored of explaining the law but take a look at my previous posts if you want to understand why the OP is entitled to a refund or replacement.

Small Claims Courts do not apply the law of public opinion, and they are not presided over by Judge Judy.

KermitlovesKeyLimePie · 31/08/2022 16:36

You are obviously buying way too much shit online if you have only just realised you haven't had.

I'd use this as an opportunity to look at my online spending tbh.

Novum · 31/08/2022 16:37

ZeroFuchsGiven · 31/08/2022 12:01

Who said it wasnt tracked? I use RM along with other couriers, all tracked! I still have a timeframe for when I can claim, You cant claim for non tracked either!

Show quote history

Fine, if it was tracked the seller had the option of checking for themselves whether the goods had been delivered at the relevant time.

NumptiesIncorporated · 31/08/2022 16:39

I've seen posts explaining the law. None of the ones I've seen give me any examples where someone has said they haven't received it after waiting a long period of time, and the court has ruled in their favour.

Until I see that, I remain sceptical that a court would force a business to reimburse them for an item that they haven't noticed they'd received until months or years after it was due to be delivered.

Novum · 31/08/2022 16:39

mountainsunsets · 31/08/2022 12:35

You're very keen on the legal position, but according to Citizens Advice:

Under the Consumer Rights Act, you can ask the seller to deliver the item again if the item wasn’t delivered either:

by an agreed date
within a reasonable time - usually within 30 days

Which shows that the company did nothing wrong as OP never contacted them within the 30 day timeframe to give them a chance to correct the problem.

Show quote history

It simply doesn't show that at all. CAB are simply suggesting steps a buyer can take if goods aren't delivered, it's not telling them they must do that or lose their right to have them delivered.

HaveringWavering · 31/08/2022 16:39

And I cannot emphasise enough that the seller's rights against the delivery company are of absolutely zero relevance to their legal obligations to the OP.

NumptiesIncorporated · 31/08/2022 16:40

Even if the OP claimed within the compensation deadline for Royal Mail - 80 days - the seller couldn’t have got their money back from RM because they already told they only keep records for six weeks

And that would then be the sellers responsibility. Easy.

Novum · 31/08/2022 16:41

mountainsunsets · 31/08/2022 12:58

It wasn't sent tracked, though. It was sent via normal 1st class delivery.

Neither party has any proof of anything. OP has an e-mail saying the order was sent the following day - that's it. She has no proof she didn't receive the parcel, and the company has no proof she did as it's now three months down the line and they only keep proof for six weeks.

Show quote history

So, by not bothering to keep proof, they take the risk of having a valid claim made against them. They can avoid that risk by retaining proof for longer.

HaveringWavering · 31/08/2022 16:43

NumptiesIncorporated · 31/08/2022 16:39

I've seen posts explaining the law. None of the ones I've seen give me any examples where someone has said they haven't received it after waiting a long period of time, and the court has ruled in their favour.

Until I see that, I remain sceptical that a court would force a business to reimburse them for an item that they haven't noticed they'd received until months or years after it was due to be delivered.

That's because no lawyer would ever advise a seller to defend a claim all the way to trial in such a scenario. A defendant pushing on to trial against legal advice will end up with a costs bill to pay on top of the value of the item.

Novum · 31/08/2022 16:47

NumptiesIncorporated · 31/08/2022 16:21

I would be very surprised if a small claims court would roles in ops favour.

I would think they would look at what's reasonable, and that the buyer should notify that the item has not been delivered before the deadline for getting compensation from your delivery company is up.

There might not be a maximum time stated - but honestly, who would have thought that there would need to be one? Nobody with any sense waits for three months before telling the seller the item didn't arrive.

Well, no, they would look at the law. It's a very long-established one and it would be amazing if they suddenly decided to depart from it in the manner you suggest. As has been pointed out, there are all sorts of very valid reasons why someone might not be able to check whether mail order goods had arrived. Friend of mine, for instance, has barely been at home for the last three months because her child has been seriously ill in hospital. Suppose, when she gets back, she suddenly realises that something she ordered back in May hasn't arrived - do you really think a court would tell her that she had no sense and would have to lose out yet further because she should have chased it up from her child's bedside?

NumptiesIncorporated · 31/08/2022 16:48

That's because no lawyer would ever advise a seller to defend a claim all the way to trial in such a scenario.

Nothing to do with the fact that the vast, vast majority of people don't wait months or years to notify the sender that an item hasn't arrived?

Novum · 31/08/2022 16:50

KermitlovesKeyLimePie · 31/08/2022 16:36

You are obviously buying way too much shit online if you have only just realised you haven't had.

I'd use this as an opportunity to look at my online spending tbh.

It's more likely that, because it was work-related, it's something that wouldn't really register till she needed it for work. It's not as if anyone orders pens, paper and envelopes and eagerly looks out for the delivery every day till it arrives.

NumptiesIncorporated · 31/08/2022 16:52

Novum · 31/08/2022 16:47

Well, no, they would look at the law. It's a very long-established one and it would be amazing if they suddenly decided to depart from it in the manner you suggest. As has been pointed out, there are all sorts of very valid reasons why someone might not be able to check whether mail order goods had arrived. Friend of mine, for instance, has barely been at home for the last three months because her child has been seriously ill in hospital. Suppose, when she gets back, she suddenly realises that something she ordered back in May hasn't arrived - do you really think a court would tell her that she had no sense and would have to lose out yet further because she should have chased it up from her child's bedside?

Show quote history

Ah, I see you possibly missed the bit where I said 'look at what's reasonable', or you took where I described what was reasonable in this case to mean that is what would be reasonable in every case.

That's ok.

But exceptional circumstances excepted, notifying the sender something hasn't arrived before the time to claim compensation seems like a reasonable ask.

Novum · 31/08/2022 16:54

NumptiesIncorporated · 31/08/2022 16:48

That's because no lawyer would ever advise a seller to defend a claim all the way to trial in such a scenario.

Nothing to do with the fact that the vast, vast majority of people don't wait months or years to notify the sender that an item hasn't arrived?

That's quite a large claim to make. Various examples have been given upthread of scenarios where someone might quite legitimately fail to realise for some time that ordered goods hadn't arrived. Are you suggesting they are all fictional and would never happen?

And, of course, going to court and claiming that "the vast majority of people don't wait" will get you absolutely nowhere as a legal argument.

Novum · 31/08/2022 16:56

NumptiesIncorporated · 31/08/2022 16:52

Ah, I see you possibly missed the bit where I said 'look at what's reasonable', or you took where I described what was reasonable in this case to mean that is what would be reasonable in every case.

That's ok.

But exceptional circumstances excepted, notifying the sender something hasn't arrived before the time to claim compensation seems like a reasonable ask.

Show quote history

It may well be, which is why people put that in their contract terms. But if they don't, they are stuck with the law as it is, and take the risk that they will have to redeliver if the seller contacts them several weeks later to say the goods haven't arrived.

Staggersaurus · 31/08/2022 17:11

I will speak to my bank to see if they can claim it back for me

You do realise this will hit the seller with a big charge back fee on top of the refund?

10HailMarys · 31/08/2022 17:12

it's not my fault they can't claim anymore

Well, sorry, but yes it is? You were told a parcel had been dispatched and then inexplicably didn't bother to follow it up for three months. For all the seller knows, you could have been using the item for three months and got bored with it and fancied getting your money back. Because you've left it for so long, they now can't actually do anything to check where the parcel might be.

NumptiesIncorporated · 31/08/2022 17:22

Novum · 31/08/2022 16:54

That's quite a large claim to make. Various examples have been given upthread of scenarios where someone might quite legitimately fail to realise for some time that ordered goods hadn't arrived. Are you suggesting they are all fictional and would never happen?

And, of course, going to court and claiming that "the vast majority of people don't wait" will get you absolutely nowhere as a legal argument.

Show quote history

Is it really a big claim to make? Are there really quite a lot of people that wait for three months plus before getting in touch with the seller to say something hasn't arrived? So much so that they are a significant minority?

Funny how I've never heard of that until today.

NumptiesIncorporated · 31/08/2022 17:27

It may well be, which is why people put that in their contract terms. But if they don't, they are stuck with the law as it is, and take the risk that they will have to redeliver if the seller contacts them several weeks later to say the goods haven't arrived

Interesting. If I buy something online and the shop says I have a week to return it, and the law says I have four weeks, the law takes priority. How come that's not the case here?

Travis1 · 31/08/2022 17:30

mrsfoof · 30/08/2022 20:59

Thanks for your opinions everyone. I've been told by the company that they only hold postal records for six weeks so don't have the tracking details for the parcel anymore, so I'm not sure if it ever said delivered or not.
It was sent first class on a Monday. I work out of the home in the week so it's possible that it was taken back to the post office as nobody would have been home if it arrived on a week day, but I didn't get a red card so who knows. It's definitely not at the post office now (I checked this afternoon).
I will speak to my bank to see if they can claim it back for me.

Can’t believe you’re still going to try and do a chargeback. Talk about an entitled cf. why do you think the company should be out of pocket for your incompetence?

HaveringWavering · 31/08/2022 17:58

NumptiesIncorporated · 31/08/2022 17:27

It may well be, which is why people put that in their contract terms. But if they don't, they are stuck with the law as it is, and take the risk that they will have to redeliver if the seller contacts them several weeks later to say the goods haven't arrived

Interesting. If I buy something online and the shop says I have a week to return it, and the law says I have four weeks, the law takes priority. How come that's not the case here?

A seller's obligations to consumers as to refunds etc are enshrined in statutory consumer rights law. The statutes say that any contractual term which purports to vary those terms in a way which curtails the consumer's statutory rights will be unenforceable aka null and void.

On the other hand, if a scenario is not the subject of specific legislation that cannot be contracted out of, then the default law applies. However contracting parties are free to agree their own terms by contract (their respective bargaining power determines which of them the contract eventually favours) and from that point on the relationship between them will be determined by a court looking at the wording of the contract and the default law is no longer of any relevance. Because that is what the law requires the court to do.

In consumer situations there are certain clauses that could be held to be unreasonably strict (eg I mentioned that requiring claim notice to be given within less than 30 days would probably not be allowed), but in a business-to-business relationship the parties could specify 24 hours and it would be upheld.

TeaKlaxon · 31/08/2022 18:00

NumptiesIncorporated · 31/08/2022 16:48

That's because no lawyer would ever advise a seller to defend a claim all the way to trial in such a scenario.

Nothing to do with the fact that the vast, vast majority of people don't wait months or years to notify the sender that an item hasn't arrived?

What the vast majority of people do is irrelevant.

What matters here is the legal position of the OP. And the legal position has been set out very clearly.

The terms and conditions between the seller and Royal Mail are not the buyers responsibility. The only thing relevant to the OP is the contract they have with the seller - which is to provide them with their order. The seller has failed to do that. It really is that simple.

Unless the seller specified that refunds would only be issued if notified within X days of expected delivery, they cannot refuse a refund.

TeaKlaxon · 31/08/2022 18:03

NumptiesIncorporated · 31/08/2022 16:52

Ah, I see you possibly missed the bit where I said 'look at what's reasonable', or you took where I described what was reasonable in this case to mean that is what would be reasonable in every case.

That's ok.

But exceptional circumstances excepted, notifying the sender something hasn't arrived before the time to claim compensation seems like a reasonable ask.

Show quote history

It would be a reasonable ask.

That’s why many companies have such an ask in their terms and conditions. If this company did not, that is their responsibility and not OP’s.

No one gets to unilaterally invent new terms of a contract after it’s been agreed.

TeaKlaxon · 31/08/2022 18:05

Staggersaurus · 31/08/2022 17:11

I will speak to my bank to see if they can claim it back for me

You do realise this will hit the seller with a big charge back fee on top of the refund?

Then they should probably abide by their legal obligations themselves rather than forcing the OP to go down that route.