[HN Gopher] B.C. woman buried in Amazon packages she did not ask... ___________________________________________________________________ B.C. woman buried in Amazon packages she did not ask for and does not want Author : hnuser0000 Score : 121 points Date : 2023-08-09 15:05 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.cbc.ca) (TXT) w3m dump (www.cbc.ca) | water9 wrote: | Most women I know would consider this the blessing of a lifetime. | When life gives you a horse, check it's teeth first. | pavel_lishin wrote: | > _Most women I know would consider this the blessing of a | lifetime._ | | Most women you know want a mountain of boxes of clothes & shoes | that are probably not their size nor their preferred style? | water9 wrote: | Glad you don't know my mother | pavel_lishin wrote: | Most women you know are your mother? | water9 wrote: | Don't judge me. | altairprime wrote: | Have you confirmed that belief with then? | mensetmanusman wrote: | He has binders full of women he has confirmed this with. | water9 wrote: | Yearbooks actually | legitster wrote: | > The Better Business Bureau (BBB) told CBC that it sounded like | a vendor-return scheme that's common in the US but rarer in | Canada, where foreign sellers dodge fees associated with storing | and shipping return items by sending the items anywhere but their | own addresses. | | So someone is dropshipping products from China. Because they are | not fulfilled by Amazon, they would have to pay return shipping | to... probably nowhere useful in China. So the seller says "screw | it!" and just tells customers to ship their crappy returns to an | address they pull out of a hat. Am I understanding the scam | correctly? | | Would it not be pretty easy to at least figure out the seller | responsible? | cyanydeez wrote: | Knowing Amazon, they probably queried the address and it came | up to a bunch of sellers who equate to some product owners | annual bonus and are probably a single entity gaming the system | by having multiple accounts with fake brands. | seeknotfind wrote: | Uh? They are addressed to her? She's opening them? Sell them! | Profit! What's the issue here? Sounds great. | thenerdhead wrote: | > "It's easier and cheaper for the sellers to have [returned | products] sent to this random address than having it sent to | China," said Hothi. "It could be that the warehouse has asked | the seller to remove their unsold products from fulfilment | centres, or their contract is ending." | | Not everyone is motivated by financial gain. Also to resell | garbage products is a full time job that many wouldn't find | worthwhile... | damnesian wrote: | > It could be that the warehouse has asked the seller to | remove their unsold products from fulfilment centres | | And probably the seller can claim them as "lost" and add them | to operational losses. | | I would believe this, knowing what I know about the | restaurant industry and their need to demonstrate "drawdown" | to calculate losses. | wccrawford wrote: | I wouldn't assume that "returned goods" can be sold at all, and | UPS is charging her fees for some of the deliveries. | UniverseHacker wrote: | These are shoes returned to a likely dishonest and fraudulent | seller... if they had any value they wouldn't be dumping them | on her like this. It's also possibly illegal for her to sell | them. | sumtechguy wrote: | Apparently some sellers keep their stuff on amazon shelves. | Amazon will sometimes charge a stocking fee or a fee to send | the stuff back if your business goes belly up. So the sellers | will just pick a victim and dump their whole inventory on | them because it is cheaper to ship them out than to continue | to keep them stocked at amazon. But that may be wrong so | someone with better insight could correct me if I have this | wrong. This could be a side effect of the way Amazon works | with 3rd party. | RetroTechie wrote: | > if they had any value they wouldn't be dumping them on her | like this. | | A good percentage of online bought items are returned. Often, | nothing wrong with the product. | | Wrong size, color different from expected, customer changed | their mind or bought elsewhere in the meantime, bought 3, | picked 1 or 2 most liked & returned the other, bought for | specific occasion but item arrived too late, item looked good | on website but fabric doesn't feel right, etc, etc. Many | possible reasons. | | For seller, return shipping might be more costly than just | dump product. Or was forced to clear stock due to storage | costs. Doesn't mean item is worthless, just worthless to | _seller_. | | But forcing random person to deal with this somehow vs. | seller doing that themselves, is of course asshat way to run | a business. | whycome wrote: | I mean the RCMP told her to keep them... She did some due | dilligence of sorts | vkou wrote: | The RCMP aren't legal experts. | clmay wrote: | I'm not sure how things work up there, but in the US you can | refuse any unopened package by taking it back to the nearest | carrier facility and telling them you refuse it. | | This applies whether the package was dropped off or handed | directly to you, signed for, taken into possession, or not. If | the original seal is intact, the carrier must accept the refusal. | | It's unfortunate that she opened any of them, because now the | above doesn't apply and she probably technically took on some | legal risk/liability by doing so. | | Usually just because a package has been misdelivered, but you | still know it's not for you, you still haven't gained the right | to open it. | | Still, hopefully someone will help her find a way out of her | predicament. | stuff4ben wrote: | > Usually just because a package has been misdelivered, but you | still know it's not for you, you still haven't gained the right | to open it. | | Not true. https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/what-do-if-youre- | billed-th... | | _By law, companies can't send unordered merchandise to you, | then demand payment. That means you never have to pay for | things you get but didn't order. You also don't need to return | unordered merchandise. You're legally entitled to keep it as a | free gift._ | SoftTalker wrote: | If it's addressed to you, then yes. But if the mail carrier | mistakenly delivers you a package addressed to someone else, | you don't automatically get to keep it. | [deleted] | chungy wrote: | It's worth noting that the article is about a Canadian woman. | Given that both the US and Canada have legal systems | originating in Britain, there's a great deal of commonality | in the legal code, but what the FTC says about US law does | not necessarily apply to Canada. | | All that said, the spirit of the law the FTC is citing is | something reasonable enough I do imagine Canada has something | similar. Just don't quote me on that. | justinclift wrote: | Heh Heh Heh | | Trying that site now: Sorry, | consumer.ftc.gov is down for maintenance. It will be back up | shortly. | | Seems kind of fitting. | whycome wrote: | You think it's reasonable that she take.....all the continuous | packages to a "carrier facility"? Should she make that her | daily task? | | The RCMP said she could open them... | thechao wrote: | In the US, non-misdelivered items are considered a gift; there | are no actionable courses for recovery -- other than being | polite -- to get the item back. Misdelivered items must be | surrendered, on request, or you can fall awry if a laundry list | of theft/mispossesion crimes. | bluGill wrote: | The issue here is customs. Who is going to pay those fees - | the women who got the product doesn't even want it. I suspect | this is a never happened before situation and so the women | legally owes. Though she can probably spend a ton of money on | a lawyer and get out of it. She also has a case against | whoever put her name/address in as where to return - but that | is probably a foreigner so it is easy to win the case but | impossible to collect. She may also have a case against | Amazon, but this will be difficult as it requires arguing | Amazon isn't a third party which they will claim they are. | | Of course the case is in Canada, so I don't know how their | laws work. | teawrecks wrote: | I thought the point of COD was that you didn't get the package | until you paid the fee. | water9 wrote: | Yea the article is complete bullshit because it makes no sense | Scoundreller wrote: | UPS does it anyway. Might even charge you an advance fee for | the "benefit" of prepaying the taxes and import duties on | your behalf. | | She's in Canada and it sounds like the packages were from US. | water9 wrote: | So can I charge UPS the same fee. Can I charge you that | fee? Because if so get your wallet out | xenadu02 wrote: | UPS official policy says they won't deliver without collecting | the payment (though they can't verify the payment is valid) but | in reality sometimes drivers do it anyway. UPS doesn't really | have a procedure in their system for handling this or if they | do most employees have no clue. | | The best bet is to take it to a service center and talk to a | manager there. Let them know you refused COD (or the package | was sent unsolicited) and that you are refusing delivery. | Tossing it on your doorstep does not count as accepting the | delivery, they just do that because it is cheaper for them. | | If you want to game the system sign up for MyUPS so you get | advance notice of all deliveries to you. Then when these | unknown packages show up bound for you reject them immediately. | That goes into the computer sorting system and can often get | the package pulled before it even reaches your local service | center. | fatfingerd wrote: | Unless processing fees are limited by law, shipping companies | gladly pay customs fees at a border so they can then collect | more money from the recipient. Whether or not they demand COD | or ever deliver that package, they want that money. | mcv wrote: | I recently got a notification for a package that required | some like EUR1 in customs plus EUR12 processing fees. With no | info on what the package actually was. I found the whole | thing rather ridiculous. | water9 wrote: | This article is written and posted by someone with no sense of | logic what so ever. Would really love the OP to explain the full | process of profiting from this because the guide is basically: 1) | Collect shoes 2) ??? 3) Profit. | | Nothing about this story makes any sense. | dwroberts wrote: | Nowhere does it say anyone is profiting. Unscrupulous sellers | are disposing of items they don't want by sending them to a | random address so they can avoid (more expensive) fees for them | returning to their origin | water9 wrote: | Why not just use a dumpster and/or fire? Why would you | dispose of inventory as a seller? That's not how stores work | Scoundreller wrote: | > Nitu said she has lost sleep trying to make the packages stop | coming, and so far she's accrued Collect-On-Delivery customs | charges from UPS that now exceed $300. | | > "I refused to pay, and the dispute with UPS is still | ongoing," Nitu said. "They're completely unreasonable. I tried | to explain the situation and they were not nice, let's put it | that way." | | Every Canadian _hates_ it when someone sends them a UPS ground | package internationally without taxes /duties prepaid. | kwanbix wrote: | Just reject them. Can't you? | bell-cot wrote: | You're actually standing on your doorstep 24x7, to make | sure no delivery people just leave packages? | bigmattystyles wrote: | Is the Canadian Better Business Bureau more legit than the entity | in the US named Better Business Bureau? I kinda rolled my eyes | when I got to where the article mentioned BBB, but maybe the | Canadian one is more legitimate. And if I'm wrong about the US | BBB, let me know, but from what I've read it's closer to pay for | praise than a true consumer advocate. | | (edit) Apparently they're now effectively the same entity. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Business_Bureau Kind of odd | to quote the BBB in the article then - | JohnClark1337 wrote: | [dead] | TheSkyHasEyes wrote: | Search term: bbb hamas rating | | Use whatever search engine you like. | asgdnionio wrote: | I have no experience with the BBB's accreditation process. I | have read the same stories you have and it sounds like a | textbook protection racket. | | I can say that every business that's tried to cheat me has | prominently displayed an A+ rating. I've tried to report | malfeasance to the BBB, with police reports, and been | completely blown off. | version_five wrote: | I'm canadian and I've always assumed they are a scam. Anything | "BBB accredited" is a red flag to me, but it's more just folk | knowledge, I don't have any first hand experience. | chongli wrote: | _Anything "BBB accredited" is a red flag to me_ | | There's a signalling theory basis to this [1]. The BBB is a | cheap signal, not a costly one, so it comes across as "trust | me! I'm trustworthy! Look, I gave a bit of money to the | trustworthy business people!" That is, it's not a genuine | signal of trustworthiness, so any effort expended on this | signal may actually backfire: people might question why the | business needs to send this signal in the first place. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics) | dfxm12 wrote: | On the topic of cheap signalling, a very long time ago, I | was out to dinner with a friend. She was excited to try the | place out, but as it turned out, the restaurant was pretty | disappointing. "But it says 'Zagat rated' in the window!", | she said. | | I pointed out that they didn't have the actual score in the | window & just because they rated it doesn't mean they rated | it well... | asgdnionio wrote: | [dead] | Scoundreller wrote: | While I'm sure they do shake down businesses, they may actually | do a better than nothing job of mediating disputes | educaysean wrote: | My understanding is that BBB is basically a glorified Yelp. | They don't have any actual powers. | RajT88 wrote: | You have it in reverse. | | Yelp is a glorified BBB. Including the way they shake down | businesses. | | BBB has been around for over 100 years. | tehwebguy wrote: | I think the point is people often think BBB is a government | agency because of its name | whatshisface wrote: | Yelp has a lot of actual power... | tacker2000 wrote: | My guess is some scammy third party seller just chose a random US | address as a their "return" address, since Amazon forces every | seller to provide one. | justsomehnguy wrote: | > They were sent by people across North America who intended to | return them to the Amazon seller, with each box containing a | return authorization slip to her address | | Also in the video she states what the parcel has her name, | address and her old telephone number... which is out of service | for forty years. | | So yeah. | iinnPP wrote: | B.C. is British Columbia in Canada. Article is from our state | sponsored media, which occasionally does some great consumer | protection work. | | I assume the rest of your guess is correct though. | katbyte wrote: | *state funded. | iinnPP wrote: | My view is that CBC receives more than just funding from | our government. Bill C-18 being a prime example. | | Sorry to derail. I believe the context is important and not | generally well-known. | katbyte wrote: | That's why I pointed out it is state funded, not | sponsored, or neither an arm of the government as many | would say it is | anon84873628 wrote: | Did you read the article? | hattmall wrote: | Just put them in the trash or donate. UPS has no validity in the | bill, just ignore it. They can't send it to collections or | anything. | jsbisviewtiful wrote: | Well that sounds fine in practice, but if you are regularly | receiving stuff it becomes a part time job to dispose of it | all. | JohnFen wrote: | Start a business reselling it? | Marsymars wrote: | > They can't send it to collections or anything. | | Yes they can. It's not a valid debt, but they can certainly | sell it to a collections company. | Nextgrid wrote: | You are however free to ignore the collections attempts, and | explaining the situation to them should cause them to drop it | (my - admittedly very few - experiences with collections | agencies all ended up with them dropping the debt once it was | made clear to them it is not valid and that they got | effectively scammed by whoever sold them the debt). | adamredwoods wrote: | I don't know how it goes in Canada, but in the US it is very | easy to send someone to collections, and very difficult to | dispute it. | | If anyone wants to start a company, make one that disputes | collections on behalf of consumers. I'm sure there will be | plenty of people to pay monthly for such a service. | | https://www.incharge.org/debt-relief/credit- | counseling/bad-c... | bluGill wrote: | That depends on the level of collections. The first level | for people who are likely to pay. Some doctors send all | bills to collections for example - nearly everyone knows | they need to pay the bill and will pay it, and the | collectors need to be polite about this so the doctor keeps | sending bills their way. The levels after that though are | for people who either can't pay, or won't pay and you get | the jerks of the collections business here because that is | your best chance of getting you to pay. | 1over137 wrote: | Good god, do not just put them in the trash, that's a crime | against the environment. At least give it to charity. | glonq wrote: | "Woman receives dozens of pairs of free shoes" does not sound | like a problem. It sounds like an opportunity. Finders keepers. | zackmorris wrote: | Ya it's crazy how far the US has fallen in terms of | entrepreneurial spirit. In almost any other country, a | continuous supply of resources like that would provide an | independent income stream on eBay. And the products are already | packaged! | | It's like how we used to have victory gardens and plant | fruit/nut trees and eat chestnuts from trees growing like weeds | before they succumbed to blight in the early 1900s. Now all we | have are ornamental pear trees that smell like rotten | undergarments. Because free food would encourage homelessness | or whatever. | | Edit: woman lives in Canada, but I think my point still stands. | nitwit005 wrote: | She would just end up making less money than she would | working a normal job. | | A huge amount of trash has theoretical value, but you'll lose | money trying to extract it. | Nextgrid wrote: | > would provide an independent income stream on eBay | | Except if the goods have strings attached. "Strings" here | could be breaking local regulations, being counterfeits, | contaminated with toxic materials, etc. | | Even if they are pre-packaged, reselling unexpected goods | still means you have to open them, examine them, photograph | them and write up a listing, and you have to do it for every | single unique type of goods you receive. | glonq wrote: | Donate them as-is to charity or a thrift shop and reap the | sweet sweet karma you've earned by putting like-new shoes | into the hands (feet?) of people who need them. | vkou wrote: | > I think my point still stands. | | Where do you live? I'm happy to start dumping my trash on | your porch... | ke88y wrote: | Unlikely. | | The packages are being sent to her because the fraudster | sellers don't want to bother with them. The value of the shoes | is likely not worth her time (else it would've been worth the | seller's time -- the margins here are not huge). | | And to make matters worse, she's being charged for the | shipping: | | _> She says couriers have also abandoned packages on her | porch, denying her the opportunity to refuse them. It has also | resulted in more than $300 worth of Collect-on-Delivery (COD) | customs charges from the United Parcel Service (UPS). The bills | are mailed to her by the delivery company._ | warent wrote: | Hmm maybe you didn't read the article, she's being charged by | customs for the imports. Also, she doesn't want this stuff. | It's not free shoes it's forced trash. | justinclift wrote: | Wonder if she can charge customs back? | | Like maybe a processing fee or something. These abandoned | goods shouldn't be her problem, except _customs_ is insisting | on her dealing with it. | jkubicek wrote: | What is the legality of leaving your stuff on someone else's | property? Unwanted UPS packages, phone books, door tags for the | local Chinese restaurant, "newspapers" that are actually just all | advertising, landscaping business cards weight down with rocks. | | This is all trash; how are people able to legally dump it in my | driveway? Is it actually illegal but such small stakes that | nobody ever gets the proper authorities involved? Is there some | loophole in the law that allows you to dump your junk on someone | else porch if it's filled with ads? | [deleted] | bluGill wrote: | That will depend. Littering is a separate area of laws from | mail. And this is in Canada which will have different laws. | There is also customs involved here which is another tricky | area. In the US if it is addressed to you, then it is yours to | do with as you like, but if it is addressed to someone else | (and misdelivered) you have to make it available to the | intended receiver. | Joker_vD wrote: | ...I was sure they check the return address at the border/customs | crossing but apparently not? Does that mean that person X can | send mail to person Y simply by putting the Y's address as the | return address and then sending to some closely located non- | existent address (so that the post office there would rebound | it)? | wvenable wrote: | All these packages contain Amazon return slips -- they are | product returns not return mail. They were sent her directly by | customers trying to return the product to the original seller. | | When you want to return an Amazon purchase, Amazon gives you a | return address label that you can print and attach to the | package. In this case, that return label had this person's name | and address. | dbg31415 wrote: | Hire a lawyer to write a demand letter. | | Amazon legal will fix this. | RandomGerm4n wrote: | Here in Germany, something similar happened to my neighbor. He | always rejected the packages but sometimes they left them in the | stairwell. At first, he took them to a drop-off station but at | some point, he went to ignore them completely. After half a year, | this led to the stairwell being full of unopened packages until | someone threw them on the street. As a result, he then received a | bill from the city cleaning service. I sadly don't know what | happened after that because I moved away. | tetris11 wrote: | Fittingly Kafkaesque | grecy wrote: | She has plenty of documented evidence of UPS dumping trash on her | doorstep, and refusing to stop when she expressly directs them | to. | | Sounds like a great court case to me. | pavon wrote: | For the unsigned CoD sure, but otherwise UPS has no way of | knowing what packages are legitimate and which are not. Amazon | is more culpable because they can track the return packing | slips back to a seller, and have been notified of the issue, | but apparently haven't resolved it. She could use discovery to | demand that Amazon provide the seller's information, but | chances are they are overseas and suing would be useless. So | Amazon is really the party she needs to focus on here. | grecy wrote: | > _but otherwise UPS has no way of knowing what packages are | legitimate and which are not_ | | She very clearly has a sign on her door that says "UPS - DO | NOT DELIVER ANY PACKAGES HERE". | | Surely at this point anything they leave on her doorstep is | just them dumping trash. | wccrawford wrote: | Sure they do. She told them to stop delivering packages. | Period. None of them are legit after that. | ska wrote: | You can possibly get them to stop delivering to that | address, but then you wouldn't be able to get any packages | you actually wanted. | jjulius wrote: | I'd imagine that she knows that and isn't making her | request lightly. | bombcar wrote: | I wonder what the mechanism is for that, it seems obvious | that you do NOT have to accept any and all packages from | any company (maybe you do from the postal service/royal | mail?) but how exactly do you formally tell them to bugger | off? | | And is it a UPS yes/no or do they get more fine grained? | iinnPP wrote: | In Ontario we can post a sign that enables a trespassing | law which is quite empowering to the property owner(see | legal language for other options). | | Walmart uses(or used) the same law to enable their | security guards to restrain people inside of their store. | [deleted] | geoffeg wrote: | A court case may not even be needed, sometimes a simple letter | from a lawyer is all that it takes. | notnmeyer wrote: | when life hands you lemons, open a shoe store? | alibarber wrote: | The customs charges bit is interesting because I don't really | understand where they (as in UPS) stand on this. | | I'm sure they're adding their own 'convenience' fee on top of the | actual VAT or whatever they are collecting for the government too | - but they don't have a contract with her to do this, so why do | they expect her to pay it? The sender is the one who has | contracted and paid UPS to deliver the parcel, but if this lady | wants nothing to do with it - what are they trying to bill her | for? | | I understand they have paid the government tax on her behalf, but | she didn't ask for them to do so. Surely by this logic, anyone in | the world could bankrupt anyone else in any country other than | their own by mailing a brick that they declare to be worth | millions to the unlucky recipient? | jmspring wrote: | Customs charges are an interesting thing. I had some stuff sent | from Amazon US to myself in Finland back in the early 2000s. | The package didn't arrive, they sent me another. That one | showed up. About a month later, I got a notification from | customs wanting duty on the original package. It wasn't much, I | ended up with 2x of the items. Called Amazon, told them what | was up, and they said just keep it. (Amazon customer service | was much different back then). | | In another instance, I bought an expensive item off EBay from | Italy. It was sent, forms had to be filed with FedEx for | import, etc. A few month later the Franchise Tax Board in | California was all - "hey we want our cut (use tax)". It took a | bit of time to track down, but I finally got a hold of a person | and pointed out that the purchase was off ebay and sales tax | was paid. I had to send the proof so of such. At this point | they had already assessed penalties. With the proof it all went | away, but the government does want their cut.= | 0xffff2 wrote: | I assume in the latter case the item was coming from Italy to | you in California, not from Italy to you in Finland? If it | was the latter case that would make for a truly bizarre | story. | everforward wrote: | The whole thing is weird to me. I would have assumed that COD | would require a signature from the recipient as an agreement to | accept the charges. It's bizarre that UPS either thinks they | can or actually can just drop packages off and presume the | recipient agrees to the charges. | Scoundreller wrote: | Welcome to Canada! | | FedEx and DHL does this crap too. | | A lot of the fee is probably brokerage fees rather than the | actual taxes. | stephencoyner wrote: | My parents had the exact same issue. They kept getting packages | meant for a random person they didn't know, but addressed to | their home. Lots of cheap, random products like $20 massage guns. | | They contacted Amazon and they said "nothing we can do, enjoy the | stuff." Pretty odd that they can't even message the person and | tell them what's happening. It all ended up in the trash or given | away. | pavel_lishin wrote: | "Nothing we can do, enjoy disposing of mountains of garbage at | your own expense!" | switch007 wrote: | Find the nearest Amazon depot, scribble "To: Amazon" on the | boxes and throw over the fence. | [deleted] | [deleted] | ASalazarMX wrote: | I'm sure Amazon (or the scummy vendor) could open a waitlist | for people who want to receive free random stuff for a week, | and they could find plenty of volunteers. I'm also sure this | also would be against some Amazon policy that supposedly | prevents fraud, but just produces waste as a sideproduct of | fraud. | pavel_lishin wrote: | Yes, they could, and they'd have people lined up around the | block to sign up. | | But that's vastly different from just dumping a bunch of | garbage on someone's porch. | hedora wrote: | You could always just wait till you have a vanload full of | amazon leavings, and then dump it at the customer service | desk of your local whole foods on a Saturday afternoon... | ww520 wrote: | What happened is that Amazon charges sellers storage fees for | their products not selling. Some sellers have no ability to | take the products back to store them themselves, e.g. the | products were sent directly from the factories to Amazon | warehouse. When the storage fees become excessive, sellers just | start to ship the products to random people to get rid of them. | jamiek88 wrote: | They also need an address for fake reviews that are left by | 'people who bought this product'. | ke88y wrote: | _> enjoy the stuf_ | | This is abandoned property. In some states you can charge | storage fees for abandoned property. | JJMcJ wrote: | For the customs charges she should ask for help from a | legislator's office. | | Canadian equivalent of most senior Senator. | | A call from a major public official works wonders in getting | companies to see sense. | bpye wrote: | In Canada it would be your local MP or MLA - depending on if | it's a federal or provincial issue. | [deleted] | Brian_K_White wrote: | I remember TV ads in the 70's or maybe 80's that were PSA from | the US government, where the entire message was "if you receive | something unsolicited in the mail, you own it and do not owe | anyone anything" They featured an Eskimo in the middle of a | frozen nowhere opening a package that turns out to be an electric | fan. He says "gee. Thanks!" | | Like what happened to that? | | I also don't know why they ran those ads. They must have been | expensive (or maybe not, maybe the government back then could | just commandeer them), so presumably there must have been some | kind of popular scam they were trying to fight. | thaeli wrote: | There was a common scam back then of sending cheap goods to | someone, then billing them a high price, when they didn't order | anything to begin with. | callalex wrote: | There used to be "gift" scams where a company would send you | products unsolicited and then send you a bill for them and | aggressively push you into paying. | jareklupinski wrote: | we need a couple updates: | | "if you receive a phone call and the number is not in your | contacts, do not pick up. listen to their voice mail, or make | your voice mail message 'please send me a text' and wait for a | text" | | "if you receive a text message / email from anyone and it has a | link in it, don't click it" | | paid for by Restore Sanity to the People | Scoundreller wrote: | Meanwhile the nurse at my nieces+nephews school gets labelled | as "likely spam"... probably because nobody answers | jareklupinski wrote: | the administration at school asked us to join a whatsapp | room for those kinds of comms, and they DM from that for | anything specific | | it's a cute solution, made me think of my school back-in- | the-day having a basic php-type forum for snow days / | announcements etc, always wanted to add DMs and | notifications to that... | bluGill wrote: | This is in Canada not the US, so I don't know how laws are | different. | | In the US if it is addressed to you - which these seem to be - | then it is yours to keep or dispose of as you will. However | customs charges are not a part of law that I know anything | about, that is a weird area where the law may not even be clear | who owes. | | Amazon often delivers a neighbor's package (neighbor lives a | mile away, so not an easy delivery to make for us) to our | house. However since these are address to the neighbor and just | misdirected we do not own them and have to help the neighbor | get them. (a few times we called amazon and they said "just | keep it", then they became ours, but now the neighbor just | drops by) I have updated both addresses in OSM, so hopefully | this will stop, along with friends trying to visit us actually | getting to our house. | RetroTechie wrote: | > However customs charges are not a part of law that I know | anything about, (..) | | I'm no lawyer, but afaik customs charges are owed by party | that does the importing. | | This may be eg. Amazon's customer, with Amazon just doing the | warehouse/shipping part. It may also be that Amazon imports | on customer's behalf, or does the importing itself. | | Either way, woman in the article would not be liable for | customs duties (or any other shipping charges / fees for that | matter), because she's not Amazon's customer here. | | She didn't ask Amazon to import anything on her behalf. Or | arranged import herself using Amazon. Yeah, her name may be | on the label. Yeah, she may have a (dormant) account with | Amazon. But for all those packages mentioned in the article, | there's no legal agreement between her & Amazon. Or between | her & original seller. Or between her & shipper that brought | the goods across international border. So how on earth would | she be liable for custom charges for "importing" anything? | She didn't. | | Legally speaking, that would leave her as innocent bystander, | that just happens to be where delivery person dumped a | package. | | In her shoes (no pun intended ;-), I'd just let this go to | court & see judge move the charges to Amazon. Maybe Amazon | would fix the problem if it turns into a recurring-costs | issue. | Brian_K_White wrote: | And I thought it was outrageous that no way for me to stop this | trash advertising newspaper van from dumping their paper on my | driveway twice a week every week for the last 15 years. | | There is essentially one out there, all water logged usually, at | all times. I pick them up and throw them away, and the next day | it's back. | | Years ago a few times I waited and watched and confronted the guy | when he actually showed up, I almost got beat up! Mexican couple | and the guys wife had to hold him back from getting them I into | trouble). I tried calling an office number found on the paper | itself several times. I did get a person, who said "ok", which | resulted in nothing. They even asked if I rent and tried to say | that if I rent, then I don't own the property, and so can't make | the demand. | | It's a small thing but it's ultimately somehow just ridiculous | that there is no way to stop someone from dumping some trash on | my property, short of moving to a gated community which is nine | thousand times worse than this "trash tattoo". It just boggles my | mind that even if you decided to expend the effort, it turns out | there is nothing you can do. Sue the paper company? For what | damages? What court would waste 8 minutes on something like that? | | Anyway my point was "and I though _that_ was outrageous " | TheRealSteel wrote: | Hose him down next time he comes. | pavel_lishin wrote: | Yes, the right move is definitely to assault a person who's | doing the job he was hired to do. | mcv wrote: | In Netherland mailboxes often have a no/no or yes/no sticker to | indicate whether they want to receive free newspapers and junk | mail. Deliverers tend to be reasonably good (though not | perfect) at obeying these. | SoftTalker wrote: | In the USA it's illegal for anyone other than the Postal | Service to place anything in your mailbox. Technically, they | own your mailbox, even though you have to provide it at your | expense. | | That's why they are dumping the advertising on his driveway, | and why newspapers often provided a separate box for your | newspaper that you mount below or beside your mailbox. I used | past tense because we have no local newspaper anymore. | | If they put this crap _in_ your mailbox, they 'd be | committing a federal crime and postal inspectors would | probably track them down if they got enough complaints. | OfSanguineFire wrote: | From my experience elsewhere in Europe, I feel like that | system has broken down in recent years, since for delivering | junk mail, so many easily exploited and desperate refugees | have been hired, who don't have much knowledge of the local | culture and how important those stickers are here. | pavel_lishin wrote: | I had a similar problem. I opened the paper, found the small | print with a phone number I could call to cancel the | "subscription", and after a few weeks, the physical spam | stopped showing up. | | Talking to the person delivering the paper will likely result | in nothing; they don't own the business, and are likely | contracted to deliver the stuff. You don't pay them, so they | have no incentive to listen to you. (Although the violence is | weird and unexpected. What did you say to them? | 93po wrote: | I mean theoretically this is littering, and theoretically | police should stop people from littering. But I agree this | would basically never happen. | dragonwriter wrote: | > I mean theoretically this is littering, and theoretically | police should stop people from littering. | | The police (and public prosecutors) have no duty to stop | anything, and are in theory free to prioritize their efforts | against illegal activity anyway they want so long as they | don't violate, e.g., anti-discrimination law in how they do. | And, in practice, they are free to prioritize even more | freely than that. | | Of course, leaving unwanted material on someone else's | property is also the tort of trespass to land, so if you can | identify the tortfeasor you can act directly against them | rather than trying to convince public authorities to | prioritize prosecution of the offense. | ragestorm wrote: | Typically renting has no bearing on refusing mail delivered. | It's your current domicile. If they are coming into your | property to deliver the mail, you could post no trespassing and | call the cops on them. | | Courts spend time on all manner of things, so in fact they | would spend 8 minutes on it. | m463 wrote: | Too bad canada doesn't have the law that the US has - it says any | package sent to you that you did not request is yours free and | clear. | | https://about.usps.com/publications/pub300a/pub300a_v04_revi... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-08-09 23:00 UTC)