Is this legal under Distance Selling Regs (or any other UK regualations)?

In article , Guy Fawkes
writes
Black Shuck wrote:
Comments?

Yes, you're a ****ing idiot and that sound you hear is everyone else on
here adding you to their do-not-touch-with-a-bargepole lists.

Not so. I have traded with Black Shuck. Everything went smoothly and
quickly.

Unlike many of the people I have dealt with on u.a.c, he had the
courtesy to email his thanks and confirm that everything had arrived and
was working.

I am, however, wary of dealing with those who bad-mouth others in
public.

--
John Blundell
Reply-to: address is valid.
Antispam From: address
These settings made for newsgroup, but may also appear in email replies.

You're not related to Tone are you?

He is also stupid enough to order goods delivered to a place where he
knew he wouldn't be and then bitch loudly and publicly about not being
able to receive them.

You are a ****wit. Get over it and start saving up for another brain
cell, the one you have is lonely.

smicker

Do you go on www.thedvdforums.co.uk ?
Some guy on there was ranting that Argos tried to deliver to his home
(knowing he wouldnt be in) and whammo - he wasnt in. They said they could
deliver to his neighbour, but he wasnt happy with that so asked for them to
re-direct it to a different location ie work. They said that would incur a
fee, he thought they were being unfair etc

James

On Thu, 06 May 2004 01:07:14 +0100, Black Shuck
wrote:


It's a real royal pain in the butt. The only reason I had the item send
to my home address (knowing nobody would be there to sign for it), was
the stupid system the stipulates you must deliver to the cardholders
address,

Lets see if I've got this right.

You ordered goods, to be sent to your home address knowing full well
there would be no one in to receive them.

The vendor sent the goods with a carrier who was unable to deliver
them to the address you requested they be sent to because, not
surprisingly, no one was in when they called.

They left a card with a contact number for you to get in touch to
arrange re-delivery. You presumably didn't call them so they
attempted to do as it said on the card and deliver the next day.

You knew there would be no one there to receive the goods the next
day either.

You now blame the courier company for failing to get an answer at an
empty house?

Is this legal?

What else would you presume it to be?

I may name and shame,

It would certainly be interesting to know your name but I'm not sure
what it would achieve.

I'm pretty sure, that
even if it's legal, it's certainly not a good way to do business.

Delivering the goods to the requested address on the day promised is
not a good way to do business?

Comments?

None.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Black Shuck wrote:
I purchased some items from a UK computer vendor, who foolishly decided
to put his companies reputation in the hands of Initial/CityLink.


In response to the original question about legality, DSR allows the seller
to require the buyer to pay for the cost of return carriage. However, this
has to be in the seller's Terms and Conditions, so check those. Of course,
you are not going to law about 19 Pounds, but it helps to know where the
legal high ground is. At the moment it looks like you're on the low ground
:-)

The snag with having the goods returned is that you will then have to go to
another supplier to repeat the process.

In article ,
says...
"Essex Computers" wrote in message
...


I dont thinl you should put City-Link at fault because they have afterall
delivered to the address they was contractced to, and think that citylink
score high here compared to other couriers who are happy to deliver to any
address or leave parcels wherever. One of the main reasons I chose to open
an account with them was becuase of that additional security.

Ah, but City Link have NOT delivered. The OP is asking them to re-attempt
delivery, presumably because he can arrange to be at home at another time,
and they are not being reasonable - it's not out of order to expect a
courier firm to make at least 1 redelivery attempt.

Err yes they are perfectly in order. THey have tried at least twice to
deliver it.


--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing anything
worthwhile.

Ah, but City Link have NOT delivered. The OP is asking them to re-attempt
delivery, presumably because he can arrange to be at home at another time,
and they are not being reasonable - it's not out of order to expect a
courier firm to make at least 1 redelivery attempt.

CityLink are happy to redeliver if asked. All the OP had to do was phone
them.

In article ,=20
says...

Reasonable - how big do you think their depot is if they keps every parce=
l
for an unlimited amount of time?
=20
THe Parceline depot I was a night trunker at had 3000 parcels a day=20
throughput. That completely filled the warehouse when they laid them=20
out for loading.=20

There'd be roughly the equivalent of 2 pallets worth of non deliveries=20
a day. You have to put a lid on it.=20

Also every time a redeliver is attampted thats =A3xx orf fuel and wages=20
taken out of any profit the carrier makes.

--=20
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing anything=20
worthwhile.

In article ,
says...
Black Shuck wrote:
I purchased some items from a UK computer vendor, who foolishly decided
to put his companies reputation in the hands of Initial/CityLink.


I seem to be one of the only ppl to post to sympathise with you. But
looks like that's going to be a dangerous opinion to entertain.

Yep.


--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing anything
worthwhile.

"Ben Bayliss" wrote in message
...
Black Shuck wrote:
I purchased some items from a UK computer vendor, who foolishly decided
to put his companies reputation in the hands of Initial/CityLink.


I seem to be one of the only ppl to post to sympathise with you. But
looks like that's going to be a dangerous opinion to entertain.

Try asking CityLink about a third delivery attempt. I had this problem
the other day, but they got the vendor to agree to a 'third delivery
attempt' charge. Apparently in comparison to the main delivery charge,
and return charges, it's insignificant. Maybe ask citylink to try this?


Citylink charge £3.50 per delivery attempt after the first 2 - with no
guarantee that will work after two failed ones I would be surprised if any
vendor would agree to keep throwing £3.50s at a consignment until the
customer decided to be at home for a delivery.
--

Niel Humphreys

says...

ISTM that the supplier has not performed under the meaning of the DSR - i.e.
the goods have not been delivered. I am astounded that Citylink will
neither attempt redelivery, nor redirect, and the distance from you to the
depot is hardly a short trip, as you state.

They have redelivered to the address supplied.

I would put pressure on the supplier to force CityLink to fulfil their
obligations. You could also try calling their head office: see
http://www.city-link.co.uk for details, and asking for the MD. Be
insistent, and you'll get his PA I should think.

They have fulfilled their obligations.

If you're unsuccessful and the consignment is returned to the vendor, I
should think that they would be obliged to either deliver or refund in full
to you.

Perhaps you'd like to think again.

They have not performed the contract until you receive the goods,
and you are acting reasonably in an attempt to get the goods delivered.

Giving a delivery address in the full knowledge that there will be no-
one there to receive it is not acting reasonably IMO. Whinging about
the problems caused by that unreasonable behaviour is even less so.

CityLink, who are acting for the vendor, are not acting reasonably - and
that is still a key concept in UK law.

They are acting perfectly reasonably IMO. If you disagree please say
why.

--
AndyT.

Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional!