Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Actually in the UK the distance Selling Regulations cover this situation and it clearly denotes that you can cancel before receipt of goods. This is not a credit issue.

Upon receipt of your cancellation (must be by written media not phone) they must issue a refund including delivery costs, you are then free to accept or return the delivery as you wish.

Check with you Credit Card company for their advice before proceeding although if you intend to do anything neferious (as I have suggested earleir then you may want to keep that part to yourself). Make the CC company work for you for a change, Jebus knows they earn it in interest.

Risky point of view, because neither you nor I know what terms of sale were in the small print.

The OP is not free to return or keep the goods, but must abide to the terms and condition, as notified at the point of entering the contract.

At worst case, as he is liable for the direct costs of the supplier in his attempts to recover the items, he could find himself liable for a plane ticket and hotel room. UK to Oz, ouch!

But you are right, it isn't a credit card issue, my bad!

Cheers

Andrew

notprop wrote:I'd cancel the order and notify my credit card company to recover the money.

If the order then turned up after that I would happily keep it content in the knowledge that I wouldn't be using them again anyway.

This is theft, plain and simple.

The ONLY way this would be acceptable is if the retailer agreed before hand to just give the items to you. If, after cancelling the order, the items show up then it is your responsibility to send them back.

------

Getting back to the original question about "compensation".

I would not expect any type of compensation with regards to the actual items I just purchased beyond a refund of the shipping costs. Instead in this situation you have exactly two options. Option 1 keep the models when they arrive. Option 2: cancel the order and if the models arrive, send them back. Whether you continue to do business with the retailer in ancillary.

Now is the delay worth anything? Quite frankly, no. First off, if the time was important to you then you would have purchased from a local retailer (which I would encourage anyway for other reasons). That would be the only way to guarantee acquisition of the models by your "deadline". Further if it was important you would have paid for expedited shipping from a reputable carrier instead of through a governmental entity.

Any renumeration from the retailer is always limited to the price paid. In this case, the price paid for the shipping which they have refunded. Regarding the models themselves it is up to you whether to accept delivery. If you do, then you owe the agreed upon amount. If you don't, then you send them back and get your money back. This is usually covered under normal return agreements and you should make a decision now and communicate that with the retailer.

Now the retailer themselves, as a matter of trying to do damage control, *might* offer a discount on a future purchase in order to induce you to try again. This isn't mandated by any legal means (regardless of country). I think it's laughable they didn't do this, but it's not required and you have no way to demand such a thing.

--------------
Think about this from another perspective. If you had paid a premium for say two day delivery and the models never showed up, who is responsible? It is the carrier. This is why people pay for shipping insurance and why people pay for a commercial carrier instead of relying on state run services. Regardless, once an item is sent out it is completely out of the hands of the retailer.

As a side note, I once shipped a 20 lb package via the local post office. I was told by the post office that it would take 1 week to deliver. 3 weeks in I went down to the post office to ask what was going on. They said that it hadn't left their office yet but would "soon" as it was just waiting on space on a truck. The item was unfortunately shipped the cheapest possible method, which I've never done since. All said and done it took 2 months to ship this item 400 miles. It didn't even go out of the state I sent it from. Basically the post office completely screwed up and I honestly wish I had just driven it over myself.

It sounds to me like the parcel was too heavy to send via airmail, they couldn't be bothered to repackage into smaller packages to qualify and just sent it out surface mail instead.

I'd take the refund, wait for my goods and not use them again, and more than likely tell people not too as well.

notprop wrote:I'd cancel the order and notify my credit card company to recover the money.

If the order then turned up after that I would happily keep it content in the knowledge that I wouldn't be using them again anyway.

Wow.
Theft of merchandise because you're angry is pretty extreme.


I think that refunding the shipping, provided it came with a substantial apology, is ample. What they did sucks, but expecting more from them sucks, too.
HOPING for more is different. Expecting it, though? Nah.

Eric

another point that i didn't see mentioned is the half glass empty side of things... what IF they never actually sent it?? are they an otherwise reputable company with lots of references from the online wargaming community or a fly-by-night-closed-by-morning webshop? if the latter, you may be outside of your credit card's window to dispute the charges for non-delivery by the time their delivery estimate passes. if they're a new shop or one with a bad rep, i'd be worried about that scenario without actual proof of shipping to me (i realize international discount surface shipping usually can't be tracked but one can hope..)

as a side note, if its wayland games, this wouldn't be the first time they've done it. i had a order from them a while ago that was downgraded to surface mail without any notification to me and took 6+ weeks to arrive to the US instead of the usual 7-10 business days. Note, it did eventually arrive and was complete but i was NOT happy with the service and downgrade on my shipping from what was stated/paid for on my order.

AndrewC wrote:Risky point of view, because neither you nor I know what terms of sale were in the small print.

The OP is not free to return or keep the goods, but must abide to the terms and condition, as notified at the point of entering the contract.

Last time I checked, the T&C are inconsequential if they don't conform to the Distance Selling Regulations. Ie. no amount of fine print can take away your law-given rights.

Well, from a totally non-legal background and just going by intuition and general good-naturedness, I'd say that the company made the right decision to offer you a refund for your delivery costs. After all, that is the part of the order that they messed up, so they obviously felt a 'good-will' gesture was needed to make up for the longer wait time.

I think trying to eke out any more compensation is grossly unfair. They made an error that inconvenienced you, and they are trying to reciprocate that by offering you a refund on the shipping charge. Mistakes do happen, no-one is infallible. Personally I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, accept the shipping refund with good grace and just wait it out.

L. Wrex

3 months is a long time, even for surface shipping. I would assume they had not in fact shipped the order, at the time of order or in the 2 months prior to receiving your reply.

I think mean green machine has the right attitude towards the products and service. You could call the credit card company and contest the bill; however, if you receive the goods at a later time, I don't know if I believe hundreds of dollars of figures free is justification of the wait. I probably would have sent more emails earlier and/or canceled the credit card. But 2 emails in a 2 month period seems a little sparse to justify any drastic action.

Have you received the goods?

notprop wrote:Upon receipt of your cancellation (must be by written media not phone) they must issue a refund including delivery costs, you are then free to accept or return the delivery as you wish.

In legal terminology: absolute twaddle.

"Can a consumer cancel an order before they receive the
goods or where goods are lost in transit?
3.35 Yes. Where the DSRs give consumers rights to cancel, this right is
unconditional. If consumers cancel before they have received the
goods you must refund the total price of the goods, including any
delivery charges. Consumers who have cancelled under the DSRs
may refuse to accept delivery of the goods. Refusal in such a
situation cannot be treated as a breach of contract."

"Can I withhold a refund if a consumer fails to take
reasonable care of the goods?
3.47 No. Other than for the exceptions at paragraph 3.38 the DSRs give
consumers an unconditional right to cancel a contract and legally
oblige you to refund all sums due in relation to the contract as soon
as possible after the consumer cancels, and within a maximum of 30
days. The DSRs do, however, give suppliers a right of action against
consumers for breach of the statutory duty to take reasonable care."

And loads of other things like that, from here: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf

Cancellation terms are set out at the time the contract is concluded (or before) and nothing in the DSR allows a consumer to keep goods provided under a cancelled contract. It's worth noting that the DSRs only apply to EU member states.

lord_blackfang wrote:

AndrewC wrote:Risky point of view, because neither you nor I know what terms of sale were in the small print.

The OP is not free to return or keep the goods, but must abide to the terms and condition, as notified at the point of entering the contract.

Last time I checked, the T&C are inconsequential if they don't conform to the Distance Selling Regulations. Ie. no amount of fine print can take away your law-given rights.

Hi,

I did some work on the DSR2000 a while back and would say...(Despite my rustiness with Consumer Contracts)

Whilst I deal with commercial construction contracts, in essence what you are saying in relation to implied terms of contract is correct in this instance. Assuming the contract was formed in the UK, then the merchant could potentially through clever manipulation of the T&C's "reduce" his burden or exposure under the DSR2000 but as you rightly say he cannot limit or seek to exclude himself from the core implied terms of contract as they are implied by statute and it is the law. This is actually mentioned specifically in section 25-1(A) of the DSR2000.

I would point out that section 14 (I think) of the regulations would allow the inclusion of an express terms to seek to recover the cost of recovering any goods supplied, i.e. if the express terms say "you will pay to send it back to me and pay a restocking fee of 10%" then that may be a requirement - I would have to know more about the situation and the exact T&C's in place - section 14 also ensures that the business doesn't charge you a excessively high sum for this.

I think there is also another section (17?) which says that unless it is an express term of the contract you dont need to send them back and you can retain the miniatures lol - have a look at your T&C's.

I think the Office of Fair Trading is the one to speak to if you feel ripped off etc. If you want to check out the DSR2000 then they are here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/2334/contents/made

i would say though, considering the distance involved and the costs of sorting stuff like this out, get the miniatures....construct them, paint them and go kick some A$$ with them and put it down to experience.

Hope it helps...

clively wrote:

notprop wrote:I'd cancel the order and notify my credit card company to recover the money.

If the order then turned up after that I would happily keep it content in the knowledge that I wouldn't be using them again anyway.

This is theft, plain and simple.

The ONLY way this would be acceptable is if the retailer agreed before hand to just give the items to you. If, after cancelling the order, the items show up then it is your responsibility to send them back.

snip

MagickalMemories wrote:

Wow.
Theft of merchandise because you're angry is pretty extreme.


I think that refunding the shipping, provided it came with a substantial apology, is ample. What they did sucks, but expecting more from them sucks, too.
HOPING for more is different. Expecting it, though? Nah.

Eric

This is not theft ladies/gentlemen and it is not simple.

It is the way that UK distance selling regulations work. [of course I am assuming that this was where the product came from, but much of the following also appies to EU consumer reg's as well]

The initial breach was a result of said companies error, after this fact UK cpnsumer regulation ensures that the customer need no longer trouble him/herself any further and places and remedial action firmly in the hands of the retailer.

Thus all the consumer need do is notify the retailer of the cancellation and in effect the retailer should then refund all monies imediately and recover the order. Now being as it is probably somewhere between here and the deep blue sea means that this parcel will probably be delivered.

On delivery you can reject it or accept it. Accepting the delivery does not now make this a valid order and I would expect the retailer to get in touch and send the appropriate cover for postage for return. That being said I would expect the retailer to right it off as lost in post and claim on their insurance rther than waste time with somone the other side of the world. Assuming that is the case is the parcels will after either 3 months and a day after the cancellation or receipt [can't remember which], the goods become the holders.

Is this using the rules to your favour - yes, is it illegal and therfore theft - no.

Wow what a waste of my 1000 post!

For the benefit of the thread.....Can the OP actually confirm that the contract was specifically to supply via airmail and not via sea and the company has 100% masde a mistake - we are talking about a breach of contract but can we just confirm that one has actually taken place? I have re-read the original post and it isn't clear to me that you contracted on the basis of supply via airmail or with a delivery date in mind.

Elmodiddly wrote:Compensation (or disambiguation) is to recompense for unexpected losses.

You have not lost anything due to the order not arriving, all you have had to suffer is a long wait. You had your postage paid as a measure of good will.

He did suffer losses. He invested his money in physical assets and should expect that transaction to take place in a timely manner (especially if there was a reasonable expectation that the goods be delivered via air-mail.) At the very least, the OP should expect whatever interest might have accrued in the interim, if he had placed those same funds in a money-market account (or other low yield, guaranteed return investment.)

This is no less than any of your creditors would expect if you were delinquent on your own payments.

I think the refund in shipping costs would more than make up for those losses (assuming that the OP does, at some point, receive the goods.)

Lovepug13 wrote:For the benefit of the thread.....Can the OP actually confirm that the contract was specifically to supply via airmail and not via sea and the company has 100% masde a mistake - we are talking about a breach of contract but can we just confirm that one has actually taken place? I have re-read the original post and it isn't clear to me that you contracted on the basis of supply via airmail or with a delivery date in mind.

'Typically when sending the smaller boxes it takes 2 - 3 weeks to arrive. '

'The boxes will be an additional £5 per box, using airmail.'

Quoted from communication between myself and the store. They've also admitted it was a mistake in our last communications, and that it was meant to go by airmail.

The order was split into several small packages, as Australian Customs will automatically hold and check packages over a certain size and weight.

---

It seems that the general consesus is I'm not alone in thinking this kind of mistake is rather poor form. While I understand mistakes happen, just seems like this one is above and beyond what may be considered for a standard small fix, although I'll admit I didn't chase it up too heavily (I kept myself in the mindset of it could be rather embarrassing if it arrived after I'd contacted them saying it had yet to.)

I've since contacted the company and accepted the offer, the question was more a look into whether or not others thought it was at the level to smooth over what happened, and actually cause return business, or even simply to leave the transaction with no ill-will. While I could cancel it and return the packages (No, I would not hold onto them. While I agree I would probably get away with it, morally I would have an issue with it, and the wargaming community doesn't need that kind of person), that means more time at this point which is again, really the last thing I'm looking for.

I don't intend to name the company at this time, as the reputation plummet they could take from something like this could be rather drastic, and this simply could be a one-off caused by over-working in the Christmas period, although we'll see if it actually gets here in the time-frame they've now given. It was not Wayland Games however, my dealings with them have always been more than satisfactory.

@firmlog: No, I have not received the goods, and will likely not until early March. I believe it was stated earlier in the thread, but my apologies if it was not.

redstripe wrote:

Elmodiddly wrote:Compensation (or disambiguation) is to recompense for unexpected losses.

You have not lost anything due to the order not arriving, all you have had to suffer is a long wait. You had your postage paid as a measure of good will.

He did suffer losses. He invested his money in physical assets and should expect that transaction to take place in a timely manner (especially if there was a reasonable expectation that the goods be delivered via air-mail.) At the very least, the OP should expect whatever interest might have accrued in the interim, if he had placed those same funds in a money-market account (or other low yield, guaranteed return investment.)

This is no less than any of your creditors would expect if you were delinquent on your own payments.

I think the refund in shipping costs would more than make up for those losses (assuming that the OP does, at some point, receive the goods.)

First of all, it's not an investment; an investment is a speculation that the value will increase, buying miniatures does not come under that heading. Even assuming that they are an investment, there is no consequential loss as the physical location of the 'assets' would have no bearing on their market value (unless he intended to sell said assets within the time frame of the updated delivery, and even then it may not matter). Plus the fact that consequential loss would not be compensated for by the sender; they would only have to compensate with regards the initial contract. The speculative risk is borne completely by the purchaser.

Ulver / Redstripe ....I dont think it's fair to compare since the legal systems from the the US and the UK are completely different.

On that note I am going to read some Gaunts Ghosts....far too much law being thrown around here!! lol

US has got nowt to do with it. The OP is in Oz and goods were bought from a UK site, UK contract law will apply (possibly with local requirements of Oz)

notprop wrote:This is not theft ladies/gentlemen and it is not simple.

It is the way that UK distance selling regulations work. <SNIP>
Is this using the rules to your favour - yes, is it illegal and therfore theft - no.

Not according to common morality and (especially) the post two spots above yours that goes so far as to list regulations.

notprop wrote: <SNIP> what a waste of my 1000 post!

Agreed.



Eric

To those that think the delay is irrelevant...

Would you be okay with paying for, for example, a new car, then being told you can pick it up in 10 years?

lord_blackfang wrote:To those that think the delay is irrelevant...

Would you be okay with paying for, for example, a new car, then being told you can pick it up in 10 years?

Would you, like, be OK with paying for a McMuffin and then being told you had to wait, you know, 100 years for it?

Thanks for the hyperbole.

Ulver wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:To those that think the delay is irrelevant...

Would you be okay with paying for, for example, a new car, then being told you can pick it up in 10 years?

Would you, like, be OK with paying for a McMuffin and then being told you had to wait, you know, 100 years for it?

Thanks for the hyperbole.

To use a better argument:

Would the company have been okay with delivering the model, then waiting 3 months for payment?

Ulver wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:To those that think the delay is irrelevant...

Would you be okay with paying for, for example, a new car, then being told you can pick it up in 10 years?

Would you, like, be OK with paying for a McMuffin and then being told you had to wait, you know, 100 years for it?

Thanks for the hyperbole.

Being hyperbole doesn't make it irrelevant. Where is the magical border of item value and delay length where it becomes unacceptable?

lord_blackfang wrote:To those that think the delay is irrelevant...

Would you be okay with paying for, for example, a new car, then being told you can pick it up in 10 years?

I don't think anyone has excused the delay from the time of purchase to the current estimated delivery date. By any stretch of the imagination 3 months is WAY too long.

It seems to me there was only one real issue. Namely, whether he should expect additional "compensation" beyond a refund of the shipping charges. This has a mixed answer. Should he expect it? No. Should the company do so without prompting in order to encourage repeat business? Absolutely. This answer applies regardless of the type of business they are running.

If I sell something and a problem arises which I did not communicate with my client in a timely manner on, then as good business practice I should go an extra step or two in trying to salvage the situation for my client. There are multiple benefits to doing so.

The unfortunate aspect here is that this sounds like a very new company that is selling at a significant discount. This business model means that they are already operating on a very tight margin. Which means that they might not be in a financial position to do more than simply refund the shipping costs. Given the size of the order, they probably already lost money on the deal which may have hurt. I'm not excusing them, simply offering one potential explanation as to why more wasn't offered.

d-usa wrote:

Ulver wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:To those that think the delay is irrelevant...

Would you be okay with paying for, for example, a new car, then being told you can pick it up in 10 years?

Would you, like, be OK with paying for a McMuffin and then being told you had to wait, you know, 100 years for it?

Thanks for the hyperbole.

To use a better argument:

Would the company have been okay with delivering the model, then waiting 3 months for payment?

In business to business transactions this happens a lot, it's called credit. Although 90 days is rare (30ish days being more common) it does happen - a few insurers allow insurance brokers 90 days credit (although it's a different kettle of fish, for sure). Not all businesses will pay within the terms of credit, so 60 days between delivery and payment is common, I'm sure (if there's an account discrepancy or disagreement).

It's not common for B2C transactions due to attitudes such as notprop's - "I've got my stuff, now I'm not going to pay, tee hee!" It's harder to pursue consumers for non-payment for less return. Businesses don't purposely mess each other about if they want to continue to doing business with each other.

clively wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:To those that think the delay is irrelevant...

Would you be okay with paying for, for example, a new car, then being told you can pick it up in 10 years?

I don't think anyone has excused the delay from the time of purchase to the current estimated delivery date. By any stretch of the imagination 3 months is WAY too long.

It seems to me there was only one real issue. Namely, whether he should expect additional "compensation" beyond a refund of the shipping charges. This has a mixed answer. Should he expect it? No. Should the company do so without prompting in order to encourage repeat business? Absolutely. This answer applies regardless of the type of business they are running.

Perfect summary.

Ulver wrote:
In business to business transactions this happens a lot, it's called credit. Although 90 days is rare (30ish days being more common) it does happen - a few insurers allow insurance brokers 90 days credit (although it's a different kettle of fish, for sure). Not all businesses will pay within the terms of credit, so 60 days between delivery and payment is common, I'm sure (if there's an account discrepancy or disagreement).

It's not common for B2C transactions due to attitudes such as notprop's - "I've got my stuff, now I'm not going to pay, tee hee!" It's harder to pursue consumers for non-payment for less return. Businesses don't purposely mess each other about if they want to continue to doing business with each other.

To quote a wise lawyer I saw posting here before – twaddle, and I will also raise you a poppycock you are over simplifying for effect!

The point I was making and clearly pointed out in my last post was that;
a) You can cancel at anytime, even before delivery.
b) If the goods are delivered and not collected by the sender the recipient has no obligation to do anything unless he/she agrees to.
c) After a set amount of time ownership goes to those in possession.

This is not theft. If it is a moral issue then it is one easily settled by the sender i.e. if they want their stuff back then they arrange for recovery before delivery or collection after it. Anything other than that and it becomes a case of the sender having to compensate the recipient for the additional efforts they incur. This could be as little as making up for storing a great big box in their home, this compensation turns into ownership after a set amount of time. I am merely pointing out one possible outcome.

While most business do not mess people about (in my experience a surprising amount will given the opportunity) I would not expect them to inconvenience a customer even accidentally without suitable recompense. Refund of deliver charges is not enough in this case in my opinion. The order should have been cancelled and a new order sent including cover for the return shipping of the original parcel.

Re payment terms in business I can offer the following example of how I set up my contracts. All are 65 days payment from month end in arrears. That’s a fairly common in the construction industry.

Account disputes are flagged when a valuation of the payment is issued after 30 days of receipt, the parties can then discuss this for a further 28 days when a withholding notice can be issued by the payer, payment being made 7 days later. Or at least that’s how it should work in principle.

All these payment terms mostly guarantees is better Cashflow which is why the company does it, though it is not the only reason.

@notprop, if you genuinely believe that you are entitled to order goods from a supplier, cancel them and then keep them, then Button Moon is an apt location for you.

(5) Subject to paragraphs (6) and (7), the supplier may make a charge, not exceeding the direct costs of recovering any goods supplied under the contract, where a term of the contract provides that the consumer must return any goods supplied if he cancels the contract under regulation 10 but the consumer does not comply with this provision or returns the goods at the expense of the supplier.
(6) Paragraph (5) shall not apply where—
(a)the consumer cancels in circumstances where he has the right to reject the goods under a term of the contract, including a term implied by virtue of any enactment, or
(b)the term requiring the consumer to return any goods supplied if he cancels the contract is an “unfair term” within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

We don’t know what the T&C are on this transaction, but I’m prepared to put money that there is a returns policy. DSRs explicitly includes allowance for the supplier to charge for the return of goods, and not for reasonable costs but direct costs. So yes, someone could be charged for the cost of a flight to Oz and back.

Now I know this seems to be belabouring a point, but I don’t want anyone here thinking that this is an easy way to collect an army at no cost. What you are proposing here is simply fraudulent and you could either find yourself with a bill far exceeding the cost of the goods and/or criminal proceedings.

The Direct Selling Regulations are a framework of instructions, guidelines and rules to protect both sides in such a contract, not just the purchaser.

Cheers

Andrew

I think people are getting confused and assuming something along the lines of "I'm keeping this and getting a refund and it's legal HURR!"

From what I'm reading in the previous posts (that I actually read all of, not just skimmed), you can at any time:

1) Cancel the order, in writing, requesting a refund, due to the appropriate sections of UK law.
2) After canceling you are not obligated to accept the package (and probably shouldn't), however, if they just leave it for you (which I have to tell you, if it's anything like the US postal service, if it doesn't have a signature required, they don't even ring the bell, they just leave it on the porch), then your defacto acceptance of the package does not constitute a new business contract.
3) The seller, or store in this case, has the obligation to contact the recipient and request the package be returned, with the seller obligated to arrange the return shipping. Also they can not hold your refund until you return it.
4) What will likely happen is that the seller will write it off. Alternatively if they delay providing the recipient with the means to return it to them (through whatever method they choose), after a certain period of time provided by law, the package becomes the property of the recipient anyway.

If that's the way the law works, it seems to be a pretty reasonable (for both sides actually) dispute resolution method. In most cases laws are there to protect the consumer, and it seems pretty in line with that thought while still leaving them obligated to return the good to the seller when requested. At this point, you can't even be certain that the company isn't jerking their customer around and that it really is in transit. If the "estimated delivery day" comes and goes, what then?

If it was me, I'd have probably canceled the order, contacted my credit card provider and paypal (though paypal customer service is absolute crap), and followed whatever steps they found necessary. 45 days is pushing it if they're accepting paypal payments, double that is just wrong, regardless if it is a UK-AUS transaction.

derek,

One thing I would change to your summary, if the terms and conditions of the contract has a provision that;
a. Ownership of the goods never transfer until full payment is made
b. Should the contract be cancelled then the purchaser shall be responsible for the return of the goods.

Both of these are allowable under the DSR and they are not 'unfair terms'.

With regard to point 4, I've seen this numerous times and as far as I can discover there isn't any justification in law for the ownership of goods to be transfered.

Could someone be so good as to provide legal reference to this claim?

Cheers

Andrew

derek wrote:I think people are getting confused and assuming something along the lines of "I'm keeping this and getting a refund and it's legal HURR!"

From what I'm reading in the previous posts (that I actually read all of, not just skimmed), you can at any time:

1) Cancel the order, in writing, requesting a refund, due to the appropriate sections of UK law.
2) After canceling you are not obligated to accept the package (and probably shouldn't), however, if they just leave it for you (which I have to tell you, if it's anything like the US postal service, if it doesn't have a signature required, they don't even ring the bell, they just leave it on the porch), then your defacto acceptance of the package does not constitute a new business contract.
3) The seller, or store in this case, has the obligation to contact the recipient and request the package be returned, with the seller obligated to arrange the return shipping. Also they can not hold your refund until you return it.
4) What will likely happen is that the seller will write it off. Alternatively if they delay providing the recipient with the means to return it to them (through whatever method they choose), after a certain period of time provided by law, the package becomes the property of the recipient anyway.

This is it in a nutshell. But people tend to enjoy riding the moral high horse/flogging a dead horse of an argument too much to actually read the posts.