DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 108971--------------------------------------------------
Porch pirates - potentially live case
By: andy_foster Date: February 7, 2026, 3:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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?
#Post#: 109003--------------------------------------------------
Re: Porch pirates - potentially live case
By: Southpaw82 Date: February 7, 2026, 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Whether the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965 applies.
#Post#: 109063--------------------------------------------------
Re: Porch pirates - potentially live case
By: PallasAthena Date: February 8, 2026, 4:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=andy_foster link=topic=9831.msg108971#msg108971
date=1770455680]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. [/quote]
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.
HTML https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/should-i-get-parcel-protection-insurance/
#Post#: 109076--------------------------------------------------
Re: Porch pirates - potentially live case
By: andy_foster Date: February 8, 2026, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Southpaw82 link=topic=9831.msg109003#msg109003
date=1770475617]
Whether the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965 applies.
[/quote]
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.
#Post#: 109084--------------------------------------------------
Re: Porch pirates - potentially live case
By: andy_foster Date: February 8, 2026, 8:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=PallasAthena link=topic=9831.msg109063#msg109063
date=1770546493]
[quote author=andy_foster link=topic=9831.msg108971#msg108971
date=1770455680]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. [/quote]
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.
HTML https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/should-i-get-parcel-protection-insurance/
[/quote]
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)
[quote]
(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.[/quote]
s. 57(4)
[quote](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, [/quote]
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.
#Post#: 109096--------------------------------------------------
Re: Porch pirates - potentially live case
By: NewJudge Date: February 8, 2026, 12:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]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.[/quote]
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.
#Post#: 109107--------------------------------------------------
Re: Porch pirates - potentially live case
By: andy_foster Date: February 8, 2026, 12:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
[quote]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.[/quote]
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?
#Post#: 109119--------------------------------------------------
Re: Porch pirates - potentially live case
By: NewJudge Date: February 8, 2026, 3:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Not legislation but a HoC research paper:
HTML 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.
#Post#: 109120--------------------------------------------------
Re: Porch pirates - potentially live case
By: Southpaw82 Date: February 8, 2026, 3:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=NewJudge link=topic=9831.msg109119#msg109119
date=1770586540]
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.
[/quote]
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?
#Post#: 109126--------------------------------------------------
Re: Porch pirates - potentially live case
By: andy_foster Date: February 8, 2026, 4:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=NewJudge link=topic=9831.msg109119#msg109119
date=1770586540]
Not legislation but a HoC research paper:
HTML 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.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
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)
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page