Zavvi threatens shoppers after accidental PS Vita deliveries

[+Eternal Tempest MVC]

There's an ethical decision, and legal decision.

 

It may be legal given the circumstances to keep it, but it may not an ethical decision. 

 

What I find odd is Zavvi is going about this the wrong way, ask nicely first, throw in some sort of freebie or credit.

And *if* there in the legal right to get it back, then hit the group that refuses to give it back.

However, Zavvi from customer service perspective should allow them to keep it. 

[riahc3]

Hello,

I personally would tell them to come and pick it up if they want it back.

Of course, they dont expect costumers to actually ship it...right?

 

 

In all honesty if you really wanted to keep it, did they ship tracked? If it was just standard delivery then it would go down to their word against yours and I suspect for the cost of a Vita, it really isnt worth the court case costs when you have very little evidence it was actually recieved.

Even if they shipped tracked it, when the delivery arrives, you signed that you recieved a game, not a console. That console technically does not exist.

 

 

I have no sympathy for companies that do crap like this.

 

Happened to me once where I was shipped 2 of something by mistake. I actually contacted the company about it and instead of saying "thanks," they wanted ME to pay return shipping back to them!

 

Sorry but if you ship something to me either you pay all fees to get it back or come and get it - or I am keeping it.

Had a similar experenice with Dell: They sent me another monitor after I reported one that was broken and after a few weeks they contacted me to have it back. I gave them the "Ill be there at 11AM" (when Im working) so the guy finds noone at home :p After that, I held onto it for about 2 months when someone came by and FINALLY picked it up (thats a resume of the long story)

[riahc3]

Hello,

There's an ethical decision, and legal decision.

 

It may be legal given the circumstances to keep it, but it may not an ethical decision.

What are these "ethics" that you speak of?

[MikeChipshop Member]

Why are people still thinking they need to throw their oar in here when Haggis was correct many posts back...

 

Anarkii is Correct

 

---------------

 

The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations say you have a right to keep goods delivered to you that you didn?t ask for. But if goods are sent to you by mistake, you need to contact whoever sent them to let them know and ask them to collect the goods. You might get goods sent by mistake if they are meant for someone else or you?ve been sent duplicate or extra items on top of what you ordered.

If you receive goods you have not ordered and which haven?t been sent by mistake, you can treat the goods as an unconditional gift and you can do what you want with them.

Do you have to return the goods?

You have no obligation to return the goods to the trader or allow the trader to collect the goods. However, it would be reasonable for you to contact the trader to explain what has happened and give them a chance to collect the goods from you.

 

Any one that runs an online business in the UK should and would know this. They are just trying their luck.

[fusi0n]

In all honesty if you really wanted to keep it, did they ship tracked? If it was just standard delivery then it would go down to their word against yours and I suspect for the cost of a Vita, it really isnt worth the court case costs when you have very little evidence it was actually recieved.

If it didn't require a signature.. They would be SOL.. It wouldn't be worth their time or money to fight it.. Even if it did require a signature.. they would have to use their lawyers and money.. it would cost them way more than a Vita.. 

[Mr.Perfect]

Some of you would be the same as the people you hear on the news that a bank error gave them a million dollars in their account. " Welp, since it's in my account it must be mine to keep and use" and the next thing you know they're in jail or owe the bank.

[MikeChipshop Member]

Some of you would be the same as the people you hear on the news that a bank error gave them a million dollars in their account. " Welp, since it's in my account it must be mine to keep and use" and the next thing you know they're in jail or owe the bank.

 

As stated several times, they are well within their rights to legally keep the goods. 

[LaP]

I don't think that's true. You're not entitled to something because it got sent to you. Its not your property and if you don't return it, you can be hit with legal action.

 

I don't think you have the obligation to return it either. The one who sent it by mistake probably has this obligation.

 

Time is money and i don't see why this guy would lose his time because of the company own mistake.

[Sandor]

I don't think that's true. You're not entitled to something because it got sent to you. Its not your property and if you don't return it, you can be hit with legal action.

 

Ignoring the fact it would cost them far more to pursue legal action than what they've lost due to their own incompetence.

 

Or the customer just calls up and says "Stop bugging me. I got my game. I never received any PS Vita"

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

Why are people still thinking they need to throw their oar in here when Haggis was correct many posts back...

 

 

Any one that runs an online business in the UK should and would know this. They are just trying their luck.

 

Because he is wrong. Goods sent by mistake don't count as unsolicited in the UK. Ergo, the consumer can't keep them:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Protection_(Distance_Selling)_Regulations_2000#Unsolicited_goods

 

EDIT: perhaps, I am reading this backwards and the ORIGINAL (Unsolicited Goods Act) said what I just stated but the new one doesn't?

[MikeChipshop Member]

Because he is wrong. Goods sent by mistake don't count as unsolicited in the UK. Ergo, the consumer can't keep them:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Protection_(Distance_Selling)_Regulations_2000#Unsolicited_goods

 

EDIT: perhaps, I am reading this backwards and the ORIGINAL (Unsolicited Goods Act) said what I just stated but the new one doesn't?

 

The sales of goods act (2000, i think) states that the consumer may keep any goods that were either purposefully or mistakenly delivered to their address if they were the intended recipient. i.e. the company had put their name and address on the package. So long as the customers had not intended to order the Vita's then the goods remain unsolicited. 

 

Legally, keeping them is sound, ethically though, had Zavvi not been ###### about it then i would have been on their side. Now they're trying to throw some weight around, sod 'em.

[Haggis Veteran]

Also have already confirmed that money is governed by a completely different set of rules than goods are

 

a quick google search would confirm this for you

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

The sales of goods act (2000, i think) states that the consumer may keep any goods that were either purposefully or mistakenly delivered to their address if they were the intended recipient. i.e. the company had put their name and address on the package. So long as the customers had not intended to order the Vita's then the goods remain unsolicited. 

 

Legally, keeping them is sound, ethically though, had Zavvi not been ###### about it then i would have been on their side. Now they're trying to throw some weight around, sod 'em.

 

Can anyone find the actual text from the provision on either the original or the 2000 act online? I'd like to see what the actual wording is w.r.t. to what "unsolicited" and "mistake" are defined as but I can't seem to find it. 

 

Upon re-reading the wiki text, I DO believe that it is saying that that both the the original and 2000 acts state that that goods delivered by mistake are still the property of the sender. The question I have is if it counts as a mistake if the recipient was the intended recipient of whatever was sent (as you are saying essentially).

[MikeChipshop Member]

Can anyone find the actual text from the provision on either the original or the 2000 act online? I'd like to see what the actual wording is w.r.t. to what "unsolicited" and "mistake" are defined as but I can't seem to find it. 

 

To be honest with you, no. I'm only going off what i (thought i?) new from almost a decade ago.

If someone can find the actual modern document i'll be happy to be proven wrong.

[Brian M. Veteran]

It's a tricky situation.

There's a fine line between unsolicited and a mistake. The whole point of the unsolicited goods rule was to stop companies sending things, and then demanding payment or return - which used to be a big problem in this country.

If Zavvi delivered the item ordered and the vita in the same box then that could be considered a mistake - if they have delivered the vita but not the game, and are withholding dispatch of the game until you return the vita - *that* is illegal - that's pretty much what the unsolicited goods rule was designed to prevent. You bought and paid for an item. The fact they sent something else has no bearing on that.

One thing to bear in mind - you would be well within your rights to charge them a handling and/or storage fee for the vita. You're going to have to stay at home for them to collect it, which is an inconvenience (if you work mon-fri, 9-5 it may even be impossible), or go to the post office to post it. Send them an invoice for ?5/day for storage from delivery date to the collection date, plus ?15/hour for the time slot they give you on the day of collection, double time if it's outside 9-5 mon-fri. Once they have paid they can organise collection. I bet they'll soon go away if you send them that.

Zavvi would be better off just swallowing the loss - the bad publicity they've already got from this has probably cost them more than the vitas already.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

To be honest with you, no. I'm only going off what i (thought i?) new from almost a decade ago.

If someone can find the actual modern document i'll be happy to be proven wrong.

 

Same. The problem is that we are all reading secondary text. Who knows if what we are reading is backed up by the laws :-)

[InTheSwiss]

In the UK if you are sent goods by mistake it is up to the sender to reclaim the items. There is no legal need for the recipient to do so although it is generally seen as the "right thing to do". As it is a mistake of the sender it is their responsibility to reclaim the items. While Zavvi has sent letters to those recipients that alone does not actually mean anything in the eyes of the law. They need to arrange for the item to be collected or to offer compensation to the recipient to return the item if they are unable to collect. This is all covered in easy to understand terms as part of the Distance Selling Regulations. I am amazed so many people here are blindly saying "totally incorrect" when they know nothing about the actual law on this matter.

 

You can read all about it at http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_common_problems_with_products_e/consumer_problems_with_delivery_e/consumer_unsolicited_goods_e/youve_received_goods_or_services_you_didnt_ask_for_distance_sales.htm

[InTheSwiss]

Can anyone find the actual text from the provision on either the original or the 2000 act online? I'd like to see what the actual wording is w.r.t. to what "unsolicited" and "mistake" are defined as but I can't seem to find it. 

 

Upon re-reading the wiki text, I DO believe that it is saying that that both the the original and 2000 acts state that that goods delivered by mistake are still the property of the sender. The question I have is if it counts as a mistake if the recipient was the intended recipient of whatever was sent (as you are saying essentially).

 

It is available here http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_common_problems_with_products_e/consumer_problems_with_delivery_e/consumer_unsolicited_goods_e/youve_received_goods_or_services_you_didnt_ask_for_distance_sales.htm

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

In the UK if you are sent goods by mistake it is up to the sender to reclaim the items. There is no legal need for the recipient to do so although it is generally seen as the "right thing to do". As it is a mistake of the sender it is their responsibility to reclaim the items. While Zavvi has sent letters to those recipients that alone does not actually mean anything in the eyes of the law. They need to arrange for the item to be collected or to offer compensation to the recipient to return the item if they are unable to collect. This is all covered in easy to understand terms as part of the Distance Selling Regulations. I am amazed so many people here are blindly saying "totally incorrect" when they know nothing about the actual law on this matter.

 

You can read all about it at http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_common_problems_with_products_e/consumer_problems_with_delivery_e/consumer_unsolicited_goods_e/youve_received_goods_or_services_you_didnt_ask_for_distance_sales.htm

 

I saw this website also. Did you see the wiki link I posted? It says something different. This is why I'd like to see the text of the actual regulations because I have a feeling the web is full of lots of misinformation by non-lawyers (including myself).

 

EDIT: to clarify, the link you posted is secondary interpretation of the regulations... not the actual regulation text.

[InTheSwiss]

I saw this website also. Did you see the wiki link I posted? It says something different. This is why I'd like to see the text of the actual regulations because I have a feeling the web is full of lots of misinformation by non-lawyers.

 

EDIT: the link you posted is secondary interpretation of the regulations... not the actual regulation text.

 

I would trust the CAB more than I trust Wikipedia.

[sparkymcg]

Happened to me a few years ago when I ordered a DVD and they sent out a DVD box set of something else by mistake, then they sent me the right dvd out and asked me to send back the wrong item.

I looked up to see what my rights where and if I remember correctly it is up to the company to pick up the goods and if they haven't collected the goods within 6 months then the goods become your legal possession. 

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

I would trust the CAB more than I trust Wikipedia.

 

I wouldn't blindly trust them, especially considering their article is inconsistent.

 

They say things like:

 

The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations say you have a right to keep goods delivered to you that you didn?t ask for. But if goods are sent to you by mistake, you need to contact whoever sent them to let them know and ask them to collect the goods.

 

Then say something different a few paragraphs later:

 

You have no obligation to return the goods to the trader or allow the trader to collect the goods. However, it would be reasonable for you to contact the trader to explain what has happened and give them a chance to collect the goods from you.

 

 

They also specifically say:

 

"If you receive goods you have not ordered and which haven?t been sent by mistake, you can treat the goods as an unconditional gift and you can do what you want with them."

 

So what happens if the goods are a mistake? Do you get to keep them as an unconditional gift or not? Do you have to contact the seller and ask them to pickup the goods or not? Problem is that the article is written poorly, so you can't really tell. 

 

But, I do think they are "attempting" to say mistaken goods require you to contact the seller and ask them to pick them up; whereas, if they weren't mistakenly sent, you can just do whatever you want.

 

Also, based on their final paragraph, I'd imagine that this particular case falls under substitute goods and that none of the article applies.

[InTheSwiss]

I wouldn't blindly trust them, especially considering their article is inconsistent.

 

They say things like:

 

 

Then say something different a few paragraphs later:

 

 

They also specifically say:

 

 

So what happens if the goods are a mistake? Do you get to keep them as an unconditional gift or not? Do you have to contact the seller and ask them to pickup the goods or not? Problem is that the article is written poorly, so you can't really tell. 

 

But, I do think they are "attempting" to say mistaken goods require you to contact the seller and ask them to pick them up; whereas, if they weren't mistakenly sent, you can just do whatever you want.

 

Also, based on their final paragraph, I'd imagine that this particular case falls under substitute goods and that none of the article applies.

 

Well that is partly why laywers and judges are paid so much, we need experts to interpret such things. I do now have a link to the exact legislation and even if I did a lot of legislation requires some kind of formal education to even begin to understand it which is why we have things such as the CAB to begin with.

 

I agree the article is not fantastically written. However it does appear that Zavvi are trying their luck and it has backfired on them. The way I have read things is that a) if you are sent something by mistake it is the "right" but not actually a legal requirement to contact the seller to inform them of their mistake and b) they have to arrange collection of the item from you. The word "mistake" is a horrible word and would not be used in legislation as it is too ambiguous. A "mistake" to who? The sender? Well surely everything they do is then a mistake so that they can always claim it back?

 

The recipients received these items in an unsolicited manner. They did not ask for them in any way. It is not a substitute as they did not ask for the item in the first place. It is totally unsolicited. They had asked for another item that is in no way similar to what they were sent. This is a Zavvi ###### up but I do not believe they can force somebody who received the item to return it. If they attempt to request money for the item they will also be breaking the law so the best they could have done would be to ask nicely but they cocked that up too.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

Well that is partly why laywers and judges are paid so much, we need experts to interpret such things. I do now have a link to the exact legislation and even if I did a lot of legislation requires some kind of formal education to even begin to understand it which is why we have things such as the CAB to begin with.

 

I agree the article is not fantastically written. However it does appear that Zavvi are trying their luck and it has backfired on them. The way I have read things is that a) if you are sent something by mistake it is the "right" but not actually a legal requirement to contact the seller to inform them of their mistake and b) they have to arrange collection of the item from you. The word "mistake" is a horrible word and would not be used in legislation as it is too ambiguous. A "mistake" to who? The sender? Well surely everything they do is then a mistake so that they can always claim it back?

 

The recipients received these items in an unsolicited manner. They did not ask for them in any way. It is not a substitute as they did not ask for the item in the first place. It is totally unsolicited. They had asked for another item that is in no way similar to what they were sent. This is a Zavvi **** up but I do not believe they can force somebody who received the item to return it. If they attempt to request money for the item they will also be breaking the law so the best they could have done would be to ask nicely but they cocked that up too.

 

We can't really arguing about the terms unsolicited or mistake, I'm sure the actual legal documents specify exactly what both of those mean. The same goes for the term substitute. Legal definitions don't necessarily reflect common sense. I could entirely see the law being written in such a way that since they ordered something and received something else, it counts as substitute instead, but who knows?

 

I also don't necessarily agree that legislation is hard to read. If the relevant sections are only a few sentences then it could be pretty simple and straight forward.

[MightyJordan]

 

Consumer watchdog Which? has told Eurogamer that it believes customers will have to return the PlayStation Vita consoles sent in error by Zavvi.

 

"If a consumer has received goods by mistake then they are not legally entitled to keep them," a Which? spokesperson explained, contradicting some of the advice offered below from other sources.

 

And, should Zavvi follow through on its threat and sue customers, Which? believes that a UK court may actually side with the retailer.

 

"In any legal action the ruling is likely to be that the item should be returned because it was sent in error," the company concluded.

 

The final deadline has now passed for customers to return their PlayStation Vitas. Its unknown how many remain in the wild.

 

Zavvi has yet to respond to Eurogamer's repeated requests for comment.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-12-10-zavvi-threatens-customers-with-legal-action-after-accidentally-sending-free-vitas

 

So there we go; the law is unfortunately against the customers here.