I ordered a shirt online, but the shop accidentally sent me two - do I have to send one of them back? DEAN DUNHAM replies
R. E., via email.
Dean Dunham replies: When you receive goods that you did not order, they are classed as either 'unsolicited goods' or 'goods sent by mistake'.
The distinction is very important as this will dictate the legal position.
Items that firms send to you, but you didn't order, are classified as unsolicited goods. In these circumstances, the law, The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, says you have a right to keep them.
You, therefore, have no legal obligation to send unsolicited goods back to the company or to pay for them.
If you receive a demand for payment for unsolicited goods or services, you can ignore it – sending one is a criminal offence.
But it's a different story altogether if items are sent to you by mistake, which is the case here with the extra shirt.
In these circumstances the law recognises a mistake has been made and the goods remain the sole property of the trader.
This means you will have no legal right to keep the extra shirt you have received and have to either pay for it or send it back.
However, the trader's mistake should not leave you out of pocket, so the onus is on it to arrange and pay for the goods to be returned.
So, when you receive goods in error, my advice is to notify the trader as soon as possible in writing and ask it to arrange for them to be collected from you. You should provide a reasonable deadline for the collection to take place, say seven to
14 days, and tell it that after this date you will dispose of the goods or charge it storage. At this stage, depending on the value of the goods, some traders will tell you to keep the goods.
Finally, a word of warning. If you decide to ignore my advice and simply keep the goods regardless of the trader's wishes, it will be able to use a principle called 'unjust enrichment', which occurs when one party unfairly benefits at another's expense, and the law requires restitution to correct the imbalance.
It typically arises in situations where a person receives money, services or goods mistakenly or without a valid legal basis, and in these situations the courts nearly always side with the trader.
Paid builder a deposit - but he wont start work
I've paid a deposit to a builder – now he can't start for three months. Am I entitled to my deposit back?
A. T., via email.
Dean Dunham replies: It depends on what you agreed and the specific terms of the deposit. If you have a written contract with the builder, you should be able to find the answer within that.
Look to see what the contract says about the completion date and if it provides the builder with any excuses to delay.
If you have no written contract, which is usually the case, you will have to think about what was said between you and the builder in relation to the start and completion date, and what promises were made to you. Any such promises will, therefore, form an oral contract.
In the absence of a written or oral contract, the default position will be what is reasonable.
This means if you went to court over the matter, the judge would consider if it was reasonable for you to wait three months for the work to commence and if it would have changed your decision to instruct the builder had you known from the start that he could not start work for that long.
However, courts will be your last resort, especially because this route will likely take nine to 12 months – sometimes longer – which defeats the object when you are disputing a three-month delay.
You should, therefore, try to negotiate with the builder to see if an amicable solution can be reached.
As part of this, you could ask the builder to commit to new start and completion dates in writing.
Also ask him to agree a written term in the contract so that if he misses the start date, you can have a full refund and terminate the contract – and if he misses the completion date, there will be a financial penalty.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
3 minutes ago
- Times
Rolls-Royce aims to become UK's biggest company by market value
Rolls-Royce, Britain's engineering champion, is chasing a target of becoming the country's largest company by market value. The company's chief executive Tufan Erginbilgic said that that could be achieved by a take-off in demand for small modular nuclear reactors for local power stations being commissioned to build to secure the nation's energy sovereignty. The ambition of Erginbilgic, who took over at the Derby-based group in 2023, would need to see Rolls-Royce nearly double its market capitalisation to overtake AstraZeneca, the pharmaceuticals group worth just shy of £172 billion. Rolls-Royce's market capitalisation is £92 billion. If it is to claim the scalp, Rolls-Royce would need to pass several other colossi of the UK corporate scene on the way: HSBC, Europe's biggest bank, is valued on the stock market at £163 billion, oil and gas major Shell has a value of £155 billion and Unilever, the consumer goods group, is at £110 billion. British American Tobacco currently remains marginally ahead of Rolls-Royce at £93 billion. Erginbilgic said Rolls-Royce has the 'potential' to become top dog because of its pivot into civil nuclear, using its technology developed for Britain's nuclear submarine fleet to build out local power stations with small modular reactors (SMRs). It has already signed deals with the UK and Czech governments. 'There is no private company in the world with the nuclear capability we have,' Erginbilgic told the BBC. 'If we are not market leader globally, we did something wrong.' He said Rolls-Royce is chasing a $1 trillion-plus market in SMRs which he reckons will see 400 of them installed worldwide by 2050 at a current cost of £2.2 billion apiece. The Rolls-Royce boss said the need for SMR installations is becoming particularly acute because of the need to power the data centres that will facilitate mass adoption of artificial intelligence. Rolls-Royce shares have already risen tenfold since Erginbilgic took over in January 2023 with the stock rising from 93p to the current £10.82. The chief executive famously called the company a 'burning platform' when he arrived and set about turbocharging the reforms of the company begun under his predecessor Warren East, who had weathered the Covid-19 crisis. Other storms have swept the business, including record fines for bribery and corruption across five continents; and billions of pounds to repair design and durability issues with the Trent 1000 engines for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Erginbilgic swept out much of the previous management and set about creating a regime in which the company would refuse to accept second best on pricing power for its engines for Boeing, Airbus and business jets, or on manufacturing efficiency. Since he took over Erginbilgic has seen Rolls-Royce overtake in market capitalisation terms the likes of his old oil and gas employer BP, fellow defence company BAE Systems, Barclays bank and Rio Tinto the miner.
BBC News
3 minutes ago
- BBC News
Bridgend business park sits empty after £10m government funding
A multi-million pound business park in Bridgend remains empty four years after work was completed on on Brocastle Bridgend business park was finished in November 2021 on land next to the A48, around five miles away from junction 35 of the was built to give an economic boost to the area, with the site receiving £10m in funding from the Welsh government with the aim of creating thousands of jobs. However, despite nine plots of land now ready to be filled by businesses, there is no hum of machinery or chatter of workers at the moment. The Welsh government said negotiations on two plots were ongoing with others being "actively marketed". According to the Welsh government the business park was built to provide a "substantial stimulus to employment opportunities", with outline planning consent granted for up to 770,000sq ft (71,535 sq m) of floor works were carried out by a local civil engineering contractor and funded with more than £10m from the Welsh government, including about £6.2m awarded through the European Regional Development additional £2m was also given to the project to link the new employment site to Waterton with an active travel route, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service. At the time of its completion, the then Minister for Economy Vaughan Gething said the "significant investment" had been made in the hope it would lead to the "creation of many new jobs".However, despite the completion of key roads and provision for nine plots at the site, as of August 2025 none appear to have been used with marketing agents still showing them as being councillor Keith Hughes said he, like others, felt the area was still in need of more jobs adding that he hoped the investment at the site would eventually pay off.A spokesperson for the Welsh government said it was confident that this would be the case, with negotiations on two of the plots currently taking place and others being "actively marketed"."Since substantial completion of the development plots, Brocastle has received a number of serious enquiries from interested parties," they said.
Times
3 minutes ago
- Times
How an inheritance tax raid could work — and what you can do about it
Rachel Reeves has already shown that she is not afraid to use inheritance tax as a revenue raiser. In her first budget, in October, the chancellor declared that from April 2027 pension savings would for the first time be pulled into the scope of inheritance tax — a change expected to raise billions for the Treasury. Now, with an ever deepening fiscal shortfall ahead of the next autumn budget, the Treasury is again rumoured to be targeting inheritance tax. On the table are said to be plans to tighten the rules around lifetime transfers of wealth and to end many widely used exemptions. It wouldn't be the first time that a government has gone further than simply taxing estates after death. The capital transfer tax introduced by the Labour government in 1974 applied to lifetime gifts and inheritances, and was generally unpopular. It was replaced by today's inheritance tax system in 1986. But with more estates falling into the inheritance net because of frozen tax-free allowances and decades of rising property values, the political calculation has changed. • We all should worry about this underhand attack on wealth Ian Dyall from the wealth manager Evelyn Partners said: 'Many households could regard this as a rather intrusive tactic, aimed at raising revenue from the very basic desire to pass on to one's own family hard-earned wealth that has usually already been taxed in some form or other.' Here's what could be on the cards, and what you can do to prepare for it. The Treasury has several levers it could pull to increase inheritance tax receipts, and one involves extending or scrapping the well-used seven-year rule. At the moment, if you away an asset — whether cash, property or shares — and live for seven years or more after making the gift, it will be exempt from inheritance tax. If you die before then, the value of the gift will be counted as part of your estate, the rate of tax due on it falling on a sliding scale after three years. Officials are reportedly considering extending the seven years to ten, or abolishing the rule entirely. Ollie Saiman, a co-founder of the advice firm Six Degrees, said that while a ten-year period would make planning more complicated, it may not be catastrophic 'as long as taper relief continued to exist'. But if all gifts made within the window could be taxed at the full 40 per cent inheritance tax rate it could have a huge impact on families. The Office of Tax Simplification previously recommended scrapping the taper relief on gifts made within four years of death and cutting the seven-year rule to five years, to make the rules simpler. A new time limit would be unlikely to be applied retrospectively. A gift made five years ago, for example, should fall under the old rules. But you would need to live for the remaining years of the original period for it to be inheritance tax-free. • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts This little-known but highly valuable rule allows you to make regular gifts out of surplus income without them being counted as part of your estate for inheritance tax purposes. The amount you can give is unlimited as long as the gifts are genuinely from income (not savings or the sale of assets) and do not affect your standard of living. You need to keep records of everything you give, and your income. Dyall said that many families who had taken out insurance to cover potential inheritance tax bills could be caught out if the gifts from income rule was scrapped. He said: 'Regular gifts from income are a small part of the system, and scrapping the relief wouldn't raise much but could cause problems for families who have planned around the system as it is.' Saiman said that while the relief was not widely used compared with other inheritance tax strategies, it could be in the government's sights as part of a general clampdown. The biggest change the chancellor could make would be to introduce a value cap on all gifts made during your lifetime, regardless of when they were given. Rachael Griffin, a tax and financial planning expert at the wealth manager Quilter, said: 'Such a cap would bring more gifts into the scope of inheritance tax and could capture not just large transfers designed to reduce tax bills but also modest, routine support between family members. The UK has never had such a limit, and if it were set too low it could affect a large number of middle-class estates, particularly in areas where property wealth alone can easily breach the frozen tax-free allowances.' She said that a lifetime cap could lead to 'unintended behavioural shifts', with families rushing to make large transfers earlier in life, potentially before they were financially ready. It would require HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) to track gifts over decades, adding complexity and cost and increasing disputes. Saiman said that if the cap were set at US-style levels (around $14 million) 'it would only affect a small proportion of the population', while a lower cap would have huge political and practical impacts. • A ham-fisted inheritance tax grab on the middle class would end in tears A decade ago inheritance tax was seen as an almost voluntary tax because the wealthy and financial astute could avoid it through planning. That is becoming harder to do as more middle-class families face being caught in the net. All estates get a £325,000 inheritance tax-free allowance known as the nil-rate band. If you leave your main home to a direct descendant, and your estate is worth less than £2 million, you also get a £175,000 residence nil-rate band. Anything left to a spouse or civil partner is inheritance tax-free, and they also inherit each other's allowances, meaning that a couple can pass on £1 million between them. The nil-rate band, however, has been the same since 2009, while the residence band is unchanged since 2020. As a result, the number of families liable for inheritance tax is projected to double by 2030. Further pressure is on the way: from April 2027 the value of your pension pot will be included in your estate for inheritance tax purposes, while Labour's recent tightening of agricultural and business property reliefs is expected to draw more family enterprises into the tax net. The so-called great wealth transfer, in which an estimated £5 trillion is set to pass from baby boomers to younger generations over the next 30 years, is also in full swing. A government looking for extra revenue will be tempted to take a slice. Financial planners emphasise two golden rules when it comes to inheritance tax planning: avoid making irreversible decisions based on speculation, and never give away more than you can afford. This is particularly important given that the wealth manager Charles Stanley advises budgeting for costs of £100,000 a year for the last three years of your life. So, make the most of the rules now, and use up your annual allowances. You can give away up to £3,000 a year inheritance tax-free, plus carry over one year's unused allowance. You can make unlimited £250 gifts to different people, and wedding gifts of up to £5,000 for a child, £2,500 for a grandchild. These may sound small, but over time they add up significantly. If you have more income than you spend, consider setting up a pattern of regular gifts — while you still can. Keep meticulous records, including a note of intent and evidence of your annual income and expenditure to satisfy HMRC. Trusts are becoming more popular for passing on wealth while retaining some control over your assets. Discretionary trusts in particular allow assets to be distributed at the trustees' discretion, helping to protect against divorce or bankruptcy in the family. Trusts can be used in combination with life insurance policies to ensure that your family can cover inheritance tax bills. Life cover, including whole of life or gift inter vivos policies can provide lump sums to avoid your heirs having to sell assets to pay tax. Demand for such policies spiked after the chancellor announced her plan to tax pension pots. Saiman said they are a 'simple and highly effective' hedge against a 'disaster scenario'. Whatever changes come in the budget, clear documentation will be key. Keep receipts, bank statements and formal letters for significant transfers. If you have made gifts in the past few years, note the date and terms so it's clear that they should fall under existing rules.
