Free Traffic Legal Advice
General discussion => The Flame Pit => Topic started by: andy_foster on February 07, 2026, 09:14:40 am
-
Not legislation but a HoC research paper:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05761/SN05761.pdf
Para 2.2:
"The trader is responsible for goods (including digital content) until they are in the physical possession of the consumer (or someone appointed by the consumer) or delivered to a nominated safe place. If goods are not delivered, a complaint should be made to the trader (with whom the consumer has a contract) rather than the courier, unless the consumer has arranged their own delivery service."
I think this is where I read it. The paper references CRA 2015, but I can't find a reference to this particular topic in that.
That is brilliant. I have found Evri's internal standards pamphlet on faceache - which supports my argument that dumping the parcels on my doorstep is negligent/not a proper delivery, but the obvious counter to that is that it is merely an internal statement of best practice. To discredit a glossy HoC publication you would need Lord Mandelson's (as he currently is) name on it.
The thing is, you only have a contract with the seller so I imagine any action you might take against the courier must be under tort.
Suing under contract (where viable) avoids the need to establish a duty of care, and failure to comply with that duty, causing the loss.
Other than the "neighbour principle" (was it reasonably forseeable that dumping my parcel on my doorstep in plain view of the street might lead to it being stolen?), the obligations of bailees (and indeed the term) was recently brought to my attention when a knuckle dragging clamper purported to rely on a very different provision in the relevant legislation to justify clamping a seizing a car for historical unpaid private parking invoices. That established that a bailee owed a duty of care regarding the other party's goods he held (if that were not already obvious from the neighbour principle).
Plenty of competent lawyers will tell you *always* do this or *never* do that - but they are *always* generalisations - plan A, unless or until the relevant facts say otherwise.
Having done a little more digging, it appears that AliExpress only accept service of legal papers by post at their office in Singapore, and whilst they have a presence in the UK, it appears to be subsidiary companies owned by them, but which in law are separate entities.
Apparently under UK law, as they sell to the UK (with UK pricing, etc.) the CRA 2015 applies, but that doesn't help with enforcing any judgment.
Going forward (and as general advice to others) the answer would seem to be to pay with PayPal (or credit card if over £100 and if you have a conscientious objection to PayPal)
-
The thing is, you only have a contract with the seller so I imagine any action you might take against the courier must be under tort.
Well, yes, but the point Andy keeps making is that the trader is probably not in the jurisdiction, or in any jurisdiction where an English judgment will readily be enforced. So what is the point in suing the trader?
-
Not legislation but a HoC research paper:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05761/SN05761.pdf
Para 2.2:
"The trader is responsible for goods (including digital content) until they are in the physical possession of the consumer (or someone appointed by the consumer) or delivered to a nominated safe place. If goods are not delivered, a complaint should be made to the trader (with whom the consumer has a contract) rather than the courier, unless the consumer has arranged their own delivery service."
I think this is where I read it. The paper references CRA 2015, but I can't find a reference to this particular topic in that.
The thing is, you only have a contract with the seller so I imagine any action you might take against the courier must be under tort.
-
As a matter of law, I agree that the seller is responsible. As indicated in my OP, unless the seller is generally the most appropriate defendant as contractual liabilities are strict. The issue is that the seller is either AliExpress, a large Chinese company, or a number of separate "marketplace" sellers selling under the AliExpress umbrella. This raises questions of what laws the contract of sale would be enforceable under. and the practicalities of enforcing judgment against either a large Chinese company, or a number of small Chinese dropshippers.
I disagree that the remedy lies solely with the seller. Where there is more than one party in the frame, the seller would generally be the default choice, but there may be reasons why it might be better to pursue another party - in this case the practically of enforcing any judgment.
The fact that one party is liable does not preclude other parties being liable, directly or vicariously. If I am injured by a trolley in Sainsburys, logically I would pursue Sainsburys in preference to suing the trolley boy who is likely to be impecunious. If I was injured by a premiership footballer who was employed by some tax-avoidance shell company based in the Cayman islands, I would be pursuing the footballer.
I agree that suing Evri for the vicarious liability of the seller for Evri's negligence under some statute that may or may not apply is, on the face of it, not the most cunning strategy when a straight case for negligence appears to have been made out, but I am struggling to see on what basis a claim against Evri for negligence would not succeed on the same evidence that a claim against whoever the seller is would succeed. In either case I would still need to prove loss.
When goods are bought “at a distance” the seller is responsible for them until they are "safely delivered into the possession of the buyer or their agent." Dumping them on your doorstep is not fulfilling that duty.
On the face of it, that is a very useful definition. Unfortunately, google is struggling to find a source for it, instead preferring to summarise the Sale of Goods Act 1979 which does not appear to contain that quote? Do you have a source for it?
-
From a quick skim, the applicable provision would potentially enable me to sue Evri under my contract of sale with AliExpress for Evri's failure to satisfy AliExpress' contractual obligation to deliver the goods to me.
I don’t think you should consider that, Andy.
When goods are bought “at a distance” the seller is responsible for them until they are "safely delivered into the possession of the buyer or their agent." Dumping them on your doorstep is not fulfilling that duty.
If you had provided a “safe place” or a neighbour’s address to leave the goods and they had disappeared from there, provided the courier could prove delivery to that place they would have, but obviously you didn’t.
I believe your remedy lies solely with the seller. How they decide to get the goods to you is their affair and if their contractor fails it is for them to sort out.
I find it odd that the seller has provided a refund for some goods but not others, even though they were sent in the same package. I imagine that may be to do with their automated system, which says “tilt” when a certain number of claims by the same buyer are made. But they should be able to sort that out manually. If they accept responsibility for one item in a parcel because of the failure of their courier, I can’t see how they can deny responsibility for any others contained in the same package.
-
It is my understanding that when sending goods, if you decline to pay extra for insurance (against the courier's negligence), you are deemed to have accepted the risk yourself) - or more specifically, there will be a term in the courier's contract which provides this.
The MSE site took legal advice about the 'parcel protection insurance' sold by delivery companies and posted this guide to it in 2024. The circumstances they describe aren't identical to yours but may be useful.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/should-i-get-parcel-protection-insurance/
Interesting read.
My assumptions regarding insuring against the courier's own negligence stem from limitations and tiers of limitations advertised by some couriers, coupled with an authority concerning commercial shipping (very much not a consumer law case) where the court found that a contractual clause restricting liability under negligence was valid - commercially, insurance against loss was a cost to be borne - it could be included in the shipping cost or the customer could (if so offered) choose to pay less for shipping and arrange for his own insurance.
I am struggling slightly with MSE's secondary contract point. The issue would seem to be whether or not the service provider could limit their liability for negligence (perform the service with reasonable care and skill) at all.
S. 49 (1)
(1) Every contract to supply a service is to be treated as including a term that the trader must perform the service with reasonable care and skill.
s. 57(4)
(4)That also means that a term of a contract to supply services is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would —
(a)exclude or restrict a right or remedy in respect of a liability under any of sections 49 to 52,
Obviously, there is the edge case scenario where the loss is caused by something other than the courier's failure to exercise reasonable care and skill, where insurance might be advantageous, but on the face of it, s. 57(4) CRA 2015 precludes any contractual provision restricting the courier's liability for negligence.
Obviously, absent the most contrived fiction regarding agency, the above has no direct bearing on my case*, but is IMHO useful to know and potentially improves the hive knowledge.
*It does address a point I raised, so to the extent that it is off-topic, it's my thread and it's in the Flame Pit.
-
Whether the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965 applies.
From a quick skim, the applicable provision would potentially enable me to sue Evri under my contract of sale with AliExpress for Evri's failure to satisfy AliExpress' contractual obligation to deliver the goods to me.
-
It is my understanding that when sending goods, if you decline to pay extra for insurance (against the courier's negligence), you are deemed to have accepted the risk yourself) - or more specifically, there will be a term in the courier's contract which provides this.
The MSE site took legal advice about the 'parcel protection insurance' sold by delivery companies and posted this guide to it in 2024. The circumstances they describe aren't identical to yours but may be useful.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/should-i-get-parcel-protection-insurance/
-
Whether the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965 applies.
-
Variously both have and have not exhausted customer services route, so might or might not being a potential legal case, but it occurred to me that there is much that I don't know and much that I think I probably know, but could be wrong, and also much that I would be interested to know, and might also be of use to others.
N.B. If this meaningfully becomes a "live case", I can move this thread to the appropriate forum. If anyone has any relevant knowledge, it would be greatly appreciated. If anyone wishes to share any completely unqualified opinions, not so much.
Much tat ordered from AliExpress - 30+ separate low value orders, the orders in question being consolidated into 2 parcels, due to be delivered by Evri. Paid though Google Pay (not using a credit card).
On 2nd Feb, Evri allegedly delivered both parcels by leaving them securely in my porch. "Proof of delivery" photos showed that they were simply dumped on my doorstep (which is clearly visible from both the main road and pavement) and that I do not have a porch. Got home 18 minutes later - no parcels. I have not received them, and nobody else has received them on my behalf. They were stolen.
Having immense fun trying to get any joy out of AliExpress' customer services (finding the link to contact them is just the start of this rollercoaster of dopamine). First 7 online refund requests went through instantly, then flood control kicked in, and the rest were batted back requiring further evidence from me from the courier that the parcels were missing. Having complained to Evri and got an email acknowledging that the parcels were unaccounted for, I uploaded this, most of the refund requests were rejected with no reason given, and 2 accepted. Have had great fun getting customer services to go off script to escalate the rejected requests (and no joy getting an accurate or meaningful answer as to why the rejected requests were rejected), and that is currently in limbo.
Obviously, plan A is always to escalate through AliExpress' customer services for a full refund for the missing items. However, if, as seems likely, that fails, or if someone else finds themselves in a similar situation, my initial thoughts are as follows (not necessarily in a coherent order) -
In general, the first party to look at is the party you have a contract with. This is because contractual liability is strict and does not require negligence. Have they failed to comply with their contractual obligations? Do they have a presence within the UK that I can potentially sue and recover my losses from?
If they are essentially a straw man, then trawling through the small print of their terms and then trying to determine whether any applicable exclusions would survive the CRA would be pointless. However, on the assumption that the contract is for the goods to be delivered, does the courier dumping the parcels on the doorstep and then running away constitute delivery if the goods are stolen and not received by the addressee (or by anyone else on his behalf)?
Obviously, the real issue is that the courier left the parcels insecurely (and fraudulently claimed to have left them in my porch) - assuming that the courier was not the porch pirate himself. I do not have a contract with Evri, but it seems pretty clear that they were negligent. Morally, there is little to choose between the company and the individual couriers, but that is neither here nor there - they were the bailee of my goods and left them where any passing ne'er-do-well could see and take them, breaching their legal duty of care. Unlike a gift, where transfer of ownership requires receipt (or deed), unless the contract of sale provides otherwise, when goods are purchased, ownership transfers to the purchaser when the seller objectively allocates those goods to the individual purchaser,
It is my understanding that when sending goods, if you decline to pay extra for insurance (against the courier's negligence), you are deemed to have accepted the risk yourself) - or more specifically, there will be a term in the courier's contract which provides this. However, in much the same way that Evri's "race to the bottom" business model relies heavily on customer not being the addressee (and vice versa), it is not immediately obvious how any agreement between the seller and Evri could enable Evri to avoid liability for their negligence to the addressee/owner of the goods.
Am I missing anything?