Free Traffic Legal Advice

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?

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/

Quote from: andy_foster on February 07, 2026, 09:14:40 am

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.

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?

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?