I have had a recent problem where my credit card had been compromised.
During a period before I noticed, there was a fraudulent purchase on Ebay
and I received a package from a supplier. I contacted the supplier to inform them of the situation, because I had by this time got the transaction
cancelled on my credit card and didn't want anyone to be out of pocket.

I had an answer from the supplier who were going to look into the event, but would require me to send the package back to them if they find they had not been paid. I am quite willing to do this, but not at my expense.

Is there a legal obligation for me to spend money to return the item.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/11/2023 15:23, sid wrote:

I have had a recent problem where my credit card had been compromised.
During a period before I noticed, there was a fraudulent purchase on
Ebay and I received a package from a supplier. I contacted the supplier
to inform them of the situation, because I had by this time got the transaction cancelled on my credit card and didn't want anyone to be out
of pocket.

I had an answer from the supplier who were going to look into the event,
but would require me to send the package back to them if they find they
had not been paid. I am quite willing to do this, but not at my expense.

Is there a legal obligation for me to spend money to return the item.

I think you are a bailee (look it up to see the ramifications), so you
should keep the item safe for the supplier to collect.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/11/2023 15:23, sid wrote:

I have had a recent problem where my credit card had been compromised.
During a period before I noticed, there was a fraudulent purchase on
Ebay and I received a package from a supplier. I contacted the supplier
to inform them of the situation, because I had by this time got the transaction cancelled on my credit card and didn't want anyone to be out
of pocket.

You generally don't have time to notice. In a few hours after the card
has been skimmed it will be making magnetic tape transactions all over
the world until the bank fraud team notices. It might be better these
days with AI. Its a very long while since I had a card skimmed.

Chip and PIN has partly put paid to that but there are other scams that
can fake the PIN entered correctly response from a doctored terminal.

I had an answer from the supplier who were going to look into the event,
but would require me to send the package back to them if they find they
had not been paid. I am quite willing to do this, but not at my expense.

Is there a legal obligation for me to spend money to return the item.

My recollection is that since they are unsolicited goods not ordered by
you it is sufficient to tell them where they can be collected from or
ask them to provide a postage free returns sticker to go on the package.
IANAL

It will help to have a crime reference number for the bank card fraud.
Don't expect to ever hear anything back from the bank or police :(

Even companies done for millions get nowhere fast with Inaction Fraud.

--
Martin Brown

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 15:23:15 -0000, "sid" <me@home.uk> wrote:

I have had a recent problem where my credit card had been compromised.
During a period before I noticed, there was a fraudulent purchase on Ebay
and I received a package from a supplier. I contacted the supplier to inform >them of the situation, because I had by this time got the transaction >cancelled on my credit card and didn't want anyone to be out of pocket.

I had an answer from the supplier who were going to look into the event, but >would require me to send the package back to them if they find they had not >been paid. I am quite willing to do this, but not at my expense.

Is there a legal obligation for me to spend money to return the item.

No. But, as an involuntary bailee, you do have an obligation to take care of the itme and take reasonable steps to make the item available for return to them at their expense. Saying that you will post it back if they supply a prepaid label, or send you the cost of the postage, would be entirely reasonable.

To expand on that a bit, the item remains the property of the supplier if it has not been paid for, so it doesn't become yours even though you received
it without asking for it. So you aren't entitled to take any action which amounts to appropriation, you have to treat it as their property. But,
equally, you are not under any obligation to incur any expense in returning
it to them. So they have a choice: either they can arrange the return themselves (sending a courier to collect it or sending you a prepaid postage label would be the two most common methods), or they can abandon the goods
into your possession, at which point they do become yours. Which they choose
is likely to depend on the value of the goods and whether or not they can reasonably be returned into stock if they do get them back.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3 Nov 2023 at 20:48:28 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 15:23:15 -0000, "sid" <me@home.uk> wrote:

I have had a recent problem where my credit card had been compromised.
During a period before I noticed, there was a fraudulent purchase on Ebay
and I received a package from a supplier. I contacted the supplier to inform >> them of the situation, because I had by this time got the transaction
cancelled on my credit card and didn't want anyone to be out of pocket.

I had an answer from the supplier who were going to look into the event, but >> would require me to send the package back to them if they find they had not >> been paid. I am quite willing to do this, but not at my expense.

Is there a legal obligation for me to spend money to return the item.

No. But, as an involuntary bailee, you do have an obligation to take care of the itme and take reasonable steps to make the item available for return to them at their expense. Saying that you will post it back if they supply a prepaid label, or send you the cost of the postage, would be entirely reasonable.

To expand on that a bit, the item remains the property of the supplier if it has not been paid for, so it doesn't become yours even though you received
it without asking for it. So you aren't entitled to take any action which amounts to appropriation, you have to treat it as their property. But, equally, you are not under any obligation to incur any expense in returning it to them. So they have a choice: either they can arrange the return themselves (sending a courier to collect it or sending you a prepaid postage label would be the two most common methods), or they can abandon the goods into your possession, at which point they do become yours. Which they choose is likely to depend on the value of the goods and whether or not they can reasonably be returned into stock if they do get them back.

Mark

For completeness, I believe the above does not apply when you have
deliberately been sent unsolicited goods by a firm, who then expect payment or return.


--
Roger Hayter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/11/2023 15:23, sid wrote:

I have had a recent problem where my credit card had been compromised.
During a period before I noticed, there was a fraudulent purchase on
Ebay and I received a package from a supplier. I contacted the supplier
to inform them of the situation, because I had by this time got the transaction cancelled on my credit card and didn't want anyone to be out
of pocket.

I had an answer from the supplier who were going to look into the event,
but would require me to send the package back to them if they find they
had not been paid. I am quite willing to do this, but not at my expense.

Is there a legal obligation for me to spend money to return the item.

If it's value is small, the shipper may say keep it/dispose of it.
Otherwise, tell them you will post it back if they give you a prepaid
addressed label that you can print and use.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/11/2023 20:48, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 15:23:15 -0000, "sid" <me@home.uk> wrote:

I have had a recent problem where my credit card had been compromised.
During a period before I noticed, there was a fraudulent purchase on Ebay
and I received a package from a supplier. I contacted the supplier to inform >> them of the situation, because I had by this time got the transaction
cancelled on my credit card and didn't want anyone to be out of pocket.

I had an answer from the supplier who were going to look into the event, but >> would require me to send the package back to them if they find they had not >> been paid. I am quite willing to do this, but not at my expense.

Is there a legal obligation for me to spend money to return the item.

No. But, as an involuntary bailee, you do have an obligation to take care of the itme and take reasonable steps to make the item available for return to them at their expense. Saying that you will post it back if they supply a prepaid label, or send you the cost of the postage, would be entirely reasonable.

To expand on that a bit, the item remains the property of the supplier if it has not been paid for, so it doesn't become yours even though you received
it without asking for it. So you aren't entitled to take any action which amounts to appropriation, you have to treat it as their property. But, equally, you are not under any obligation to incur any expense in returning it to them. So they have a choice: either they can arrange the return themselves (sending a courier to collect it or sending you a prepaid postage label would be the two most common methods), or they can abandon the goods into your possession, at which point they do become yours. Which they choose is likely to depend on the value of the goods and whether or not they can reasonably be returned into stock if they do get them back.

Is there a time limit in which they are expected to arrange for it to be
sent back or collected?

--

Jeff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3 Nov 2023 21:38:01 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

For completeness, I believe the above does not apply when you have >deliberately been sent unsolicited goods by a firm, who then expect payment or >return.

Yes, indeed. But in this case it's clear from the OP's decription that the situation doesn't fall into the remit of the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act, so that point is of academic interest.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/11/2023 20:48, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 15:23:15 -0000, "sid" <me@home.uk> wrote:

I have had a recent problem where my credit card had been compromised.
During a period before I noticed, there was a fraudulent purchase on Ebay
and I received a package from a supplier. I contacted the supplier to inform >> them of the situation, because I had by this time got the transaction
cancelled on my credit card and didn't want anyone to be out of pocket.

I had an answer from the supplier who were going to look into the event, but >> would require me to send the package back to them if they find they had not >> been paid. I am quite willing to do this, but not at my expense.

Is there a legal obligation for me to spend money to return the item.

No. But, as an involuntary bailee, you do have an obligation to take care of the itme and take reasonable steps to make the item available for return to them at their expense. Saying that you will post it back if they supply a prepaid label, or send you the cost of the postage, would be entirely reasonable.

To expand on that a bit, the item remains the property of the supplier if it has not been paid for, so it doesn't become yours even though you received
it without asking for it. So you aren't entitled to take any action which amounts to appropriation, you have to treat it as their property. But, equally, you are not under any obligation to incur any expense in returning it to them. So they have a choice: either they can arrange the return themselves (sending a courier to collect it or sending you a prepaid postage label would be the two most common methods), or they can abandon the goods into your possession, at which point they do become yours. Which they choose is likely to depend on the value of the goods and whether or not they can reasonably be returned into stock if they do get them back.

I agree with all that. It becomes more difficult when the supplier does
none of the above, and goes silent. At what point can the OP assume the
goods have abandoned into his possession?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 09:09:23 +0000, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 03/11/2023 20:48, Mark Goodge wrote:

To expand on that a bit, the item remains the property of the supplier if it >> has not been paid for, so it doesn't become yours even though you received >> it without asking for it. So you aren't entitled to take any action which
amounts to appropriation, you have to treat it as their property. But,
equally, you are not under any obligation to incur any expense in returning >> it to them. So they have a choice: either they can arrange the return
themselves (sending a courier to collect it or sending you a prepaid postage >> label would be the two most common methods), or they can abandon the goods >> into your possession, at which point they do become yours. Which they choose >> is likely to depend on the value of the goods and whether or not they can
reasonably be returned into stock if they do get them back.

Is there a time limit in which they are expected to arrange for it to be
sent back or collected?

No. The recipient is only obliged to make the goods available for collection for a reasonable time. There's no definition of "reasonable", it would be assessed according to the circumstances.

To give a couple of examples, if someone received an erroneous delivery of a crate of bricks onto their driveway (maybe intended for a similarly numbered house in a different street), which prevented them from getting their car
onto it, then it would be entirely reasonable to expect the sender to remove them on the same or next working day, and failing that the recipient would
be entitled to take whatever steps were necessary to regain the use of his drive - including disposing of the bricks if it came to that. But, on the
other hand, if someone was sent, say, an item of jewellery, then it would be perfectly reasonable for them to just put it in a cupboard for as long as it takes for the sender to decide what to do about. Eventually, of course, even that would become unreasonable, but that would be a matter of weeks rather
than days.

It also depends on how the goods came to be in the recipient's possession.
If it was due to a clear error on the part of the sender or their agent (eg,
a delivery company), then a shorter timescale would be appropriate. But if
the sender or their agent is not at fault (as in the case dscribed by the
OP), then it would be reasonable to give them a bit longer.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 11:31:04 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:

On 03/11/2023 20:48, Mark Goodge wrote:

To expand on that a bit, the item remains the property of the supplier if it >> has not been paid for, so it doesn't become yours even though you received >> it without asking for it. So you aren't entitled to take any action which
amounts to appropriation, you have to treat it as their property. But,
equally, you are not under any obligation to incur any expense in returning >> it to them. So they have a choice: either they can arrange the return
themselves (sending a courier to collect it or sending you a prepaid postage >> label would be the two most common methods), or they can abandon the goods >> into your possession, at which point they do become yours. Which they choose >> is likely to depend on the value of the goods and whether or not they can
reasonably be returned into stock if they do get them back.

I agree with all that. It becomes more difficult when the supplier does
none of the above, and goes silent. At what point can the OP assume the
goods have abandoned into his possession?

At the moment, I think we can assume that the OP and the supplier are in a position of informal discussion regarding the item (they've said "post it
back to us", and he's said "sure, just send me a pre-paid label and I'll
drop it into a postbox"). So the clock hasn't started ticking yet.

If they don't respond to informal discussion with a suitable solution, or if they continue repeating their request for him to return the item at his expense, that's the point at which it would be appropriate for him to send a formal notice that he requires the sender to collect the goods within a
certain period of time (21 or 28 days seem to be the rule of thumb here). It would be sensible to include with this a copy of any previous communication
in which he states that he will accept a pre-paid postage label as
fulfulment of this obligation (assuming the item is small enough for him to send by post at no significant inconvenience to himself)[1]. The notice
should explicitly state that if the item is not collected (or postage paid)
by the end of that period then it will be presumed to have been abandoned
into the possession of the recipient.

That's the only way that the recipient can create a definite cut-off point
at which he is entitled to assume that the sender no longer requires the
goods back. If he simply lets them go quiet without serving a formal notice
of collection then it could be months, or even years, before it gets to a
point where a court would agree that the goods had been abandoned.

[1] For avoidance of doubt, the recipient is under no obligation whatsoever
to arrange return postage, even with a pre-paid label. He can simply require the sender to collect the goods (or send a courier to collect them). But if
the item is small enough to post, it's probably less inconvenient to do so
than waste his time sitting at home waiting for someone to arrive to pick up the item[2].

[2] If the sender arrives to collect the item within the deadline, but is unable to do so because the OP is out, then that would, at the very least, reset the clock, and could potentially make the OP liable to pay for the
goods and/or reimburse the sender for their costs in making the unsuccessful collection attempt.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/11/2023 11:36, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 09:09:23 +0000, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 03/11/2023 20:48, Mark Goodge wrote:

To expand on that a bit, the item remains the property of the supplier if it
has not been paid for, so it doesn't become yours even though you received >>> it without asking for it. So you aren't entitled to take any action which >>> amounts to appropriation, you have to treat it as their property. But,
equally, you are not under any obligation to incur any expense in returning >>> it to them. So they have a choice: either they can arrange the return
themselves (sending a courier to collect it or sending you a prepaid postage
label would be the two most common methods), or they can abandon the goods >>> into your possession, at which point they do become yours. Which they choose
is likely to depend on the value of the goods and whether or not they can >>> reasonably be returned into stock if they do get them back.

Is there a time limit in which they are expected to arrange for it to be
sent back or collected?

No. The recipient is only obliged to make the goods available for collection for a reasonable time. There's no definition of "reasonable", it would be assessed according to the circumstances.

To give a couple of examples, if someone received an erroneous delivery of a crate of bricks onto their driveway (maybe intended for a similarly numbered house in a different street), which prevented them from getting their car onto it, then it would be entirely reasonable to expect the sender to remove them on the same or next working day, and failing that the recipient would
be entitled to take whatever steps were necessary to regain the use of his drive - including disposing of the bricks if it came to that. But, on the other hand, if someone was sent, say, an item of jewellery, then it would be perfectly reasonable for them to just put it in a cupboard for as long as it takes for the sender to decide what to do about. Eventually, of course, even that would become unreasonable, but that would be a matter of weeks rather than days.

It also depends on how the goods came to be in the recipient's possession.
If it was due to a clear error on the part of the sender or their agent (eg, a delivery company), then a shorter timescale would be appropriate. But if the sender or their agent is not at fault (as in the case dscribed by the OP), then it would be reasonable to give them a bit longer.

A rather long time ago (1972) my parents moved into a flat. A week later
a new B&D hammer drill was left in a package outside their front door.
We had no forwarding address for the previous tenant, and no return
address for the supplier. At the time, I thought I'd read somewhere that
if goods weren't reclaimed in 3 months, they could be used as though
they belonged to whoever was at the flat where they were delivered. I
still have that drill!

--

Jeff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-11-04, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 04/11/2023 11:36, Mark Goodge wrote:

It also depends on how the goods came to be in the recipient's possession. >> If it was due to a clear error on the part of the sender or their
agent (eg, a delivery company), then a shorter timescale would be
appropriate. But if the sender or their agent is not at fault (as in
the case dscribed by the OP), then it would be reasonable to give
them a bit longer.

A rather long time ago (1972) my parents moved into a flat. A week later
a new B&D hammer drill was left in a package outside their front door.
We had no forwarding address for the previous tenant, and no return
address for the supplier. At the time, I thought I'd read somewhere that
if goods weren't reclaimed in 3 months, they could be used as though
they belonged to whoever was at the flat where they were delivered. I
still have that drill!

I imagine you were thinking of the then-recent Unsolicited Goods and
Services Act 1971. The period was 6 months though, not 3, and it only
applied if you had been sent the drill with the intention that you
then purchase it. That bit's been replaced now by the Consumer
Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 15:36:08 +0000, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 04/11/2023 11:36, Mark Goodge wrote:

It also depends on how the goods came to be in the recipient's possession. >> If it was due to a clear error on the part of the sender or their agent (eg, >> a delivery company), then a shorter timescale would be appropriate. But if >> the sender or their agent is not at fault (as in the case dscribed by the
OP), then it would be reasonable to give them a bit longer.

A rather long time ago (1972) my parents moved into a flat. A week later
a new B&D hammer drill was left in a package outside their front door.
We had no forwarding address for the previous tenant, and no return
address for the supplier. At the time, I thought I'd read somewhere that
if goods weren't reclaimed in 3 months, they could be used as though
they belonged to whoever was at the flat where they were delivered. I
still have that drill!

I think three months is a typical rule of thumb for cases where you have no contact details, and reasonable attempts to ascertain them have been unsuccessful, and therefore you're not in a position to serve a collection notice on anyone and all you can do is wait and see if anyone contacts you.

But, as with anywhere that the law uses the word "reasonable", it can be different if the circumstances are different.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/11/2023 18:04, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 15:36:08 +0000, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 04/11/2023 11:36, Mark Goodge wrote:

It also depends on how the goods came to be in the recipient's possession. >>> If it was due to a clear error on the part of the sender or their agent (eg,
a delivery company), then a shorter timescale would be appropriate. But if >>> the sender or their agent is not at fault (as in the case dscribed by the >>> OP), then it would be reasonable to give them a bit longer.

A rather long time ago (1972) my parents moved into a flat. A week later
a new B&D hammer drill was left in a package outside their front door.
We had no forwarding address for the previous tenant, and no return
address for the supplier. At the time, I thought I'd read somewhere that
if goods weren't reclaimed in 3 months, they could be used as though
they belonged to whoever was at the flat where they were delivered. I
still have that drill!

I think three months is a typical rule of thumb for cases where you have no contact details, and reasonable attempts to ascertain them have been unsuccessful, and therefore you're not in a position to serve a collection notice on anyone and all you can do is wait and see if anyone contacts you.

But, as with anywhere that the law uses the word "reasonable", it can be different if the circumstances are different.

Mark

With something like a B&D drill, there's very little downside if it goes
wrong. Presumably, the worst that can happen is you end up paying for it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/11/2023 15:23, sid wrote:

I have had a recent problem where my credit card had been compromised.
During a period before I noticed, there was a fraudulent purchase on
Ebay and I received a package from a supplier. I contacted the supplier
to inform them of the situation, because I had by this time got the transaction cancelled on my credit card and didn't want anyone to be out
of pocket.

I had an answer from the supplier who were going to look into the event,
but would require me to send the package back to them if they find they
had not been paid. I am quite willing to do this, but not at my expense.

Is there a legal obligation for me to spend money to return the item.

There has been lots of helpful advice in this thread, but I feel I must
point out a major issue which nobody appears to have considered.

The package was delivered to your home address.

How did this happen? Either your Ebay account has been compromised and
the bad actor has access to your personal information, or the fraudster
has obtained your address by some other means.

This leads onto more serious considerations. When you are negotiating
with the seller, how do you know it is not the fraudster impersonating
the true seller? If you arrange for a pickup, how do you know that the "courier" is genuine?

Consider that the fraudster ordered the item to be delivered to your
home address and, therefore, how will they collect the package from you (assuming that they wanted it in the first place)?

All I'm suggesting is that you exercise some degree of caution when
arranging the return of the package, so that you don't compound the fraud.

--
DaverN

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The senders address on the label is a UK Ltd Co. (the supplier), and it was them that I contacted. I have heard no more from them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)