Taking in parcels for neighbours

Suelld what an awful experience for you but thank goodness for decent neighbours. I guess it’s a sign that we get out what we pay in. I hope you’re fully recovered now.

The deliveries thing seems to work quite seamlessly where I live. We each take in/deliver/collect parcels for each other as fits the occasion. I don’t suppose any of us has spent any time whatsoever thinking about it.

I took a parcel in for a neighbour during lockdown, subsequently had to go out and didn't get back until gone 6.30pm. I took the parcel to them put it on the step and stood back, door opened, neighbour said 'FINALLY ' really angry with me. Now I will not take parcels in for them but will for other neighbours.

MayBeMaw

Alright, a scenario. She lives alone. She ordered some underwear mailorder. The delivery driver has left it with the man in the house opposite. She knows that his wife fled to a refuge. The delivery driver has given him an excuse to interact with her. She is worried. What does she do? Would she ever wear that underwear as she knows it has been in his house with him? She looks from her window at his house and knows her parcel is in there. And then the murders began.
??oops wrong thread

And what if the week before she had received from the police the background check on him that she had requested and in view of what was in it had decided to keep well away from him.

What I do not understand is the switch from the delivery driver delivering to other than where the address label says, the neighbour keeping the parcel until someone comes and asks for it to making it out that it has been done "for" the person who just wanted the parcel delivered to the address on the label and if necessary for the correct redelivery process followed, and then trying to blame them for not coming round and asking and perhaps finding it impossible for them to transport. If the procedure had been followed then a telephone call could have arranged a redelivery.

cc

Yes, I used to have this problem at our old house. Our immediate neighbours always had things delivered after they'd gone away for the summer, really irritating. However we all have a porch where we live now so our parcels can be left there.

but doesn't that mean that someone else could come along and steal them from your porch before you return home ?
presumably you leave the porch unlocked, so that the parcels can be left in there.

ElderlyPerson

Why do people have the belief that the onus is on the person to whom the parcel is addressed to come and collect it?

because it's their property.
and the neighbour has been good enough to take it in for them.
seems a bit like cheeky pluckery to further expect them to deliver it too.
i don't get involved in any of this. i don't buy anything online.
i don't accept any parcels for anybody. i don't want the bother or the responsibility. there may be allegations of theft.
but i can't understand EP's position.
the person taking in the parcel is doing a favour for the owner. and perhaps for the delivery person. they do not thereby become a delivery person themselves; they are not paid for their services, there's no benefit to them taking it in.

Early

Madgran77

He might try to take the line that because he took in the parcel she owes him a favour. The delivery driver has caused trouble for her

Well anything MIGHT happen in any scenario in day to day life surely! The same applies whether she collects it from him or he delivers it!

It's the slippery slope argument Madgran in logic and in critical thinking. An argument in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect. This type of argument is used as a form of fearmongering in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience.

The slippery slope argument ignores the possibility of middle ground which would be that the parcel is collected or delivered and nothing bad happens.

But that same line of reasoning is used to justify wearing a seat belt when driving a car or travelling in one as a passenger. On many occasions a journey not wearing a seat blt would not have made any difference. Yet, very sensibly, vehicles are fitted with seat belts and people use them because sometimes, perhaps rarely, but not never, a situation may arise where wearing that seat belt results in an enormous difference from the outcome that would have happened if that the seat belt had not been being worn.

But other times a small change can lead to positive outcomes. Such as when a young woman decides to go to one dance rather than another and there she met the man to whom she has now been married for over fifty years and they have children and grandchildren.

welbeck

ElderlyPerson

Why do people have the belief that the onus is on the person to whom the parcel is addressed to come and collect it?

because it's their property.
and the neighbour has been good enough to take it in for them.
seems a bit like cheeky pluckery to further expect them to deliver it too.
i don't get involved in any of this. i don't buy anything online.
i don't accept any parcels for anybody. i don't want the bother or the responsibility. there may be allegations of theft.
but i can't understand EP's position.
the person taking in the parcel is doing a favour for the owner. and perhaps for the delivery person. they do not thereby become a delivery person themselves; they are not paid for their services, there's no benefit to them taking it in.

But why the presumption that they are doing it "for" the person who is the intended recipient?

The delivery driver should not be involving a third party unless that has been requested.

Then keeping it until the recipient comes and asks them for the parcel and then is faced with the issue of transporting it, which may, depending both upon the size and/or weight of the parcel and the health and ability of the recipient possibly present great difficulty.

If they choose to get involved the onus is on them to complete the delivery.

If they don't want to do the delivery, don't get involved, just say no to the delivery driver.

MayBeMaw

Honestly is there a single woman here who would think like this?

He might try to take the line that because he took in the parcel she owes him a favour. The delivery driver has caused trouble for her

I think there is a long way to go in male re-education in relation to attitudes to women.

I think there is a long way to go in male re-education in relation to attitudes to women.

Yes, you are absolutely correct.

^

Zoejory

*He might try to take the line that because he took in the parcel she owes him a favour. The delivery driver has caused trouble for her.*

I think that anyone who can come out with your strange scenarios should stick to keeping them in your head.

i think i agree.
i found EP's original scenario borderline offensive.
this continues in a similar strain.
i don't know if you are trying to wind us up EP, or what, but i don't find it amusing. esp in the current climate of news.
you may have a different view about deliveries, and numerous people have tried to explain what is the majority view.
but you don't seem interested at all in seeing what others are saying. you don't seem to want to enlarge your ideas.
that's up to you of course.
but i wonder what the point is.

Cosmo14

I took a parcel in for a neighbour during lockdown, subsequently had to go out and didn't get back until gone 6.30pm. I took the parcel to them put it on the step and stood back, door opened, neighbour said 'FINALLY ' really angry with me. Now I will not take parcels in for them but will for other neighbours.

were their initials EP by any chance ?

welbeck

Zoejory

He might try to take the line that because he took in the parcel she owes him a favour. The delivery driver has caused trouble for her.

I think that anyone who can come out with your strange scenarios should stick to keeping them in your head.

i think i agree.
i found EP's original scenario borderline offensive.
this continues in a similar strain.
i don't know if you are trying to wind us up EP, or what, but i don't find it amusing. esp in the current climate of news.
you may have a different view about deliveries, and numerous people have tried to explain what is the majority view.
but you don't seem interested at all in seeing what others are saying. you don't seem to want to enlarge your ideas.
that's up to you of course.
but i wonder what the point is.

Not merely “borderline”, welbeck, zoejory and others - as you are not the only ones to have commented on this unsavoury fantasy. Particularly as you say welbeck in the current climate of news and in the light of the other threads on violence against women. It is as I said an indication that even on a forum like GN there exist attitudes we should condemn at the outset.
Yes, there is much re re-education necessary - starting right here.
I do not wish to engage further with anybody who seeks to propagate this sort of idea and who continues to undermine the tenets of good neighbourliness which most of us are happy to live by.

25Avalon

But nobody asked if the named recipient was happy to have their parcel delivered elsewhere. EP is not. He wants it delivered to him personally. This is what he has paid for. Why should he traipse everywhere to get his parcel? If he is in why isn’t it delivered directly to him. I can see his point. We don’t expect the postman to deliver our mail to someone else - it could be private and personal.

That's very true, and like you, I can perfectly understand EP's reasoning there.

That is something that he (?) needs to take up with the delivery companies, making it quite clear in his delivery instructions that his parcel must under no circumstances be left at another address, and that if it is, he will hold the delivery company responsible for retrieving it and delivering to the correct address.

Where, IMO, his views become unreasonable is in his attitude towards neighbours who kindly accept such a parcel when asked, and his assertion that they have then taken on the responsibility of 'completing' the delivery.
He doesn't seem to understand the concept of simple neighbourliness.

Nevertheless, I suspect that EP sees things (in general, not just this one issue) very much in black and white, with little or no overlap between.
I don't mean that unkindly in any way, and if that is the case, fair enough, we are all different and he is as entitled to his opinion as the rest of us.
However, it would also mean that no matter how hard we try, our opinions are not going to make one jot of difference ...

I often take parcels for neighbours. Mostly, they come over to collect but if we're going out, I'll drop it round on my way.

Seems logical, especially as we occasionally have parcels taken in for us too.

We live in a lovely cul-de-sac and everyone is neighbourly. Neighbourliness costs nothing.

Have a lovely weekend.

Always have taken in parcels for neighbours and they do the same for us. Ours always call in to collect it as do I. If they didn't I wouldn't take in any more after the first few times

welbeck

Zoejory

He might try to take the line that because he took in the parcel she owes him a favour. The delivery driver has caused trouble for her.

I think that anyone who can come out with your strange scenarios should stick to keeping them in your head.

i think i agree.
i found EP's original scenario borderline offensive.
this continues in a similar strain.
i don't know if you are trying to wind us up EP, or what, but i don't find it amusing. esp in the current climate of news.
you may have a different view about deliveries, and numerous people have tried to explain what is the majority view.
but you don't seem interested at all in seeing what others are saying. you don't seem to want to enlarge your ideas.
that's up to you of course.
but i wonder what the point is.

It was not meant to be offensive at all. It was intended as a realistic scenario of what could happen. How a woman could be put in a worrying and potentially dangerous situation through no fault of her own but by the recklessness of the delivery driver.

I am definitely not trying to wind anyone up.

At some later time he could try to get involved with her by asking her to do some shopping for him, and if she expreses reluctance say "Well I took that parcel in for you - so surely you could do me a favour in return".

You are correct it is not amusing. And if the sweeping under the carpet with an "everything's fine" attitude and often presuming that the woman had invited it in some way and the blame the victim and "boys will be boys ha ha" attitudes that prevailed for years had not existed then maybe things would be better today than they are.

Please note how I am being blamed for expressing concern about how a woman may feel, as if it is me that is wrong.

MamaCaz

25Avalon

But nobody asked if the named recipient was happy to have their parcel delivered elsewhere. EP is not. He wants it delivered to him personally. This is what he has paid for. Why should he traipse everywhere to get his parcel? If he is in why isn’t it delivered directly to him. I can see his point. We don’t expect the postman to deliver our mail to someone else - it could be private and personal.

That's very true, and like you, I can perfectly understand EP's reasoning there.

That is something that he (?) needs to take up with the delivery companies, making it quite clear in his delivery instructions that his parcel must under no circumstances be left at another address, and that if it is, he will hold the delivery company responsible for retrieving it and delivering to the correct address.

Where, IMO, his views become unreasonable is in his attitude towards neighbours who kindly accept such a parcel when asked, and his assertion that they have then taken on the responsibility of 'completing' the delivery.
He doesn't seem to understand the concept of simple neighbourliness.

Nevertheless, I suspect that EP sees things (in general, not just this one issue) very much in black and white, with little or no overlap between.
I don't mean that unkindly in any way, and if that is the case, fair enough, we are all different and he is as entitled to his opinion as the rest of us.
However, it would also mean that no matter how hard we try, our opinions are not going to make one jot of difference ...

Yes, I am male.

> Where, IMO, his views become unreasonable is in his attitude towards neighbours who kindly accept such a parcel when asked, and his assertion that they have then taken on the responsibility of 'completing' the delivery.

The key phrase that you write is "hen asked".

If the parcel recipient has asked them to do that, then fine, collect it or they bring it round, as arranged. Yes, normally collect, but maybe they have meals to get and want to watch television so offer to bring it round when convenient for them, or maybe because the recipient is old and would have difficulty carrying it.

The issue being discussed is whether it is reasonable for people to take in a parcel when asked by a delivery driver with no knowledge of the views of the recipient and then expecting the recipient to come and ask them for the parcel rather than delivering it and feeling annoyed if the recipient does not do that.

So I don't agree with the majority, well that is how it is. Like people at the time who said slavery in Britain and its colonies was wrong, like women who got the idea that women should be allowed to vote, like people who thought women should be allowed to be members of the stock exchange.

He doesn't seem to understand the concept of simple neighbourliness.

Cosmo14

I took a parcel in for a neighbour during lockdown, subsequently had to go out and didn't get back until gone 6.30pm. I took the parcel to them put it on the step and stood back, door opened, neighbour said 'FINALLY ' really angry with me. Now I will not take parcels in for them but will for other neighbours.

* Thats because a card wasn't put through saying where his parcel was!*

repeating myself again because people don't keep up with postings! they are paid for parcels delivered (apart from Royal mail ) and have not got time to go back to a door to put a card through......you wait in vain for it to be collected BUT they don't know where it is!

Oops the last line of my previous post was meant to be a quote.

> He doesn't seem to understand the concept of simple neighbourliness.

That is a rather generalised leap from my views on one issue that simply differ from the majority of the views that have been expressed in this thread, to my whole outlook and attitude.

I always threw tennis balls, footballs and a frisbee back. If I was asked, because, say, a tennis ball had landed in a flower bed and I had not noticed it, I would break off from what I was doing and go and find it and then throw it back, and always be happy to do that.

When I was young some people would happliy get balls for chldren and some would say "You can have it this time, but if it comes over again you won't get it back" and I thought that horrible and at about the age of about eight I resolved "When I grow up, I'll always let the children have their ball back" and thus it has been.

lemsip I have to say delivery drivers around here DO put cards through the door. I've watched from my window and seen them go back across the road to a neighbour's front door. Sometimes neighbours knock for their parcel holding the advice in their hands, especially if it's someone from a more distant house who doesn't know me well. I'm sure there are occasional ones who don't but it would be rare by my experience.

When you order something that will be delivered to you, the form invariably contains a box asking for any special instructions for the delivery. All EP need do is write in that box. 'Delivery to specifed address only. Do not leave with neighbours' Problem solved.

Most companies will make 2 attempts to deliver and then you have to collect it from the delivery depot, that can 50 or 60 miles away, or they return the parcel to the company that sent it. Alternatively EP could use Click & Collect.

When you buy a product, which is being sent to you, the person sending it to you will tell you the terms and conditions governing dispatching the goods to you and you usually click a box to say you accept them.

We cannot dictate that everyone does everything exactly the way each individual wants it done. There have to be generally accepted rules that govern large areas of our lives.

What EP should do is study the terms and conditions governing dispatch given by the seller. Fill in the box where he can let them know any special details for delivery to him. In his case, presumably, that parcels should be delivered directly to him and never left with a neighbour - and his needs are met. If his instructions are not followed, he then complains to the courier or supplier as seems appropriate.

Those of us who are more flexible can continue to be happy seeing our goods delivered to a neighbour or taking in neighbour's parcels, while not being too bothered as to who is responsible for conveying parcels from one house to the other later.

ElderlyPerson

welbeck

Zoejory

He might try to take the line that because he took in the parcel she owes him a favour. The delivery driver has caused trouble for her.

I think that anyone who can come out with your strange scenarios should stick to keeping them in your head.

i think i agree.
i found EP's original scenario borderline offensive.
this continues in a similar strain.
i don't know if you are trying to wind us up EP, or what, but i don't find it amusing. esp in the current climate of news.
you may have a different view about deliveries, and numerous people have tried to explain what is the majority view.
but you don't seem interested at all in seeing what others are saying. you don't seem to want to enlarge your ideas.
that's up to you of course.
but i wonder what the point is.

It was not meant to be offensive at all. It was intended as a realistic scenario of what could happen. How a woman could be put in a worrying and potentially dangerous situation through no fault of her own but by the recklessness of the delivery driver.

I am definitely not trying to wind anyone up.

At some later time he could try to get involved with her by asking her to do some shopping for him, and if she expreses reluctance say "Well I took that parcel in for you - so surely you could do me a favour in return".

You are correct it is not amusing. And if the sweeping under the carpet with an "everything's fine" attitude and often presuming that the woman had invited it in some way and the blame the victim and "boys will be boys ha ha" attitudes that prevailed for years had not existed then maybe things would be better today than they are.

Please note how I am being blamed for expressing concern about how a woman may feel, as if it is me that is wrong.

You are in the wrong EP. Very much so. Don’t pretend you don’t know that. You put forward a scenario about mis-delivery of a lady’s underwear to an unsavoury man (why underwear?) and then perpetuated it by imagining he might tell her she owed him a favour. We all know what favour you were hinting at and you then attempted to row back by suggesting shopping. This is unpleasant reading anywhere but especially on GN. You must know that the murder of Sarah Everard and the sentencing of the police officer who killed her was headline news yesterday, which made your posts even more unpleasant to read. You then asked me for details of the tv programme featuring a man posing as an Amazon driver which had been mentioned, and when you received no response, as I was somewhat unsettled by your interest in it, you actually started a thread asking for details, making it clear you wanted to watch it. You received the response you wanted from another poster. We don’t need a man making posts of this kind here. It begs the question as to why a man would be so active on a forum populated almost entirely by women.

Germanshepherdsmum

ElderlyPerson

welbeck

Zoejory

He might try to take the line that because he took in the parcel she owes him a favour. The delivery driver has caused trouble for her.

I think that anyone who can come out with your strange scenarios should stick to keeping them in your head.

i think i agree.
i found EP's original scenario borderline offensive.
this continues in a similar strain.
i don't know if you are trying to wind us up EP, or what, but i don't find it amusing. esp in the current climate of news.
you may have a different view about deliveries, and numerous people have tried to explain what is the majority view.
but you don't seem interested at all in seeing what others are saying. you don't seem to want to enlarge your ideas.
that's up to you of course.
but i wonder what the point is.

It was not meant to be offensive at all. It was intended as a realistic scenario of what could happen. How a woman could be put in a worrying and potentially dangerous situation through no fault of her own but by the recklessness of the delivery driver.

I am definitely not trying to wind anyone up.

At some later time he could try to get involved with her by asking her to do some shopping for him, and if she expreses reluctance say "Well I took that parcel in for you - so surely you could do me a favour in return".

You are correct it is not amusing. And if the sweeping under the carpet with an "everything's fine" attitude and often presuming that the woman had invited it in some way and the blame the victim and "boys will be boys ha ha" attitudes that prevailed for years had not existed then maybe things would be better today than they are.

Please note how I am being blamed for expressing concern about how a woman may feel, as if it is me that is wrong.

You are in the wrong EP. Very much so. Don’t pretend you don’t know that. You put forward a scenario about mis-delivery of a lady’s underwear to an unsavoury man (why underwear?) and then perpetuated it by imagining he might tell her she owed him a favour. We all know what favour you were hinting at and you then attempted to row back by suggesting shopping. This is unpleasant reading anywhere but especially on GN. You must know that the murder of Sarah Everard and the sentencing of the police officer who killed her was headline news yesterday, which made your posts even more unpleasant to read. You then asked me for details of the tv programme featuring a man posing as an Amazon driver which had been mentioned, and when you received no response, as I was somewhat unsettled by your interest in it, you actually started a thread asking for details, making it clear you wanted to watch it. You received the response you wanted from another poster. We don’t need a man making posts of this kind here. It begs the question as to why a man would be so active on a forum populated almost entirely by women.

Thank you Germanshepherdsum - you have expressed my own feelings much better than I could.

MayBeMaw

welbeck

Zoejory

He might try to take the line that because he took in the parcel she owes him a favour. The delivery driver has caused trouble for her.

I think that anyone who can come out with your strange scenarios should stick to keeping them in your head.

i think i agree.
i found EP's original scenario borderline offensive.
this continues in a similar strain.
i don't know if you are trying to wind us up EP, or what, but i don't find it amusing. esp in the current climate of news.
you may have a different view about deliveries, and numerous people have tried to explain what is the majority view.
but you don't seem interested at all in seeing what others are saying. you don't seem to want to enlarge your ideas.
that's up to you of course.
but i wonder what the point is.

Not merely “borderline”, welbeck, zoejory and others - as you are not the only ones to have commented on this unsavoury fantasy. Particularly as you say welbeck in the current climate of news and in the light of the other threads on violence against women. It is as I said an indication that even on a forum like GN there exist attitudes we should condemn at the outset.
Yes, there is much re re-education necessary - starting right here.
I do not wish to engage further with anybody who seeks to propagate this sort of idea and who continues to undermine the tenets of good neighbourliness which most of us are happy to live by.

> most

Exactly. Like the woman on the television said some time ago, most men are not a danger to women, it is just that one cannot tell which are the few that are dangerous.

The delivery drivers who leave parcels at another address without the permission of the recipient are constructively presuming that the person is honest and good, which in most cases they will be, but not ecery case.

The false illogical presumption that many people have that because they are themselves decent, fair-minded, honest, neighbourly and safe implies that everybody else is too is simply wrong.

Some women are very wary about all men because they do not know who are the bad ones, and that is a very sensible precautionary attitude.

MayBeMaw

Germanshepherdsmum

ElderlyPerson

welbeck

Zoejory

He might try to take the line that because he took in the parcel she owes him a favour. The delivery driver has caused trouble for her.

I think that anyone who can come out with your strange scenarios should stick to keeping them in your head.

i think i agree.
i found EP's original scenario borderline offensive.
this continues in a similar strain.
i don't know if you are trying to wind us up EP, or what, but i don't find it amusing. esp in the current climate of news.
you may have a different view about deliveries, and numerous people have tried to explain what is the majority view.
but you don't seem interested at all in seeing what others are saying. you don't seem to want to enlarge your ideas.
that's up to you of course.
but i wonder what the point is.

It was not meant to be offensive at all. It was intended as a realistic scenario of what could happen. How a woman could be put in a worrying and potentially dangerous situation through no fault of her own but by the recklessness of the delivery driver.

I am definitely not trying to wind anyone up.

At some later time he could try to get involved with her by asking her to do some shopping for him, and if she expreses reluctance say "Well I took that parcel in for you - so surely you could do me a favour in return".

You are correct it is not amusing. And if the sweeping under the carpet with an "everything's fine" attitude and often presuming that the woman had invited it in some way and the blame the victim and "boys will be boys ha ha" attitudes that prevailed for years had not existed then maybe things would be better today than they are.

Please note how I am being blamed for expressing concern about how a woman may feel, as if it is me that is wrong.

You are in the wrong EP. Very much so. Don’t pretend you don’t know that. You put forward a scenario about mis-delivery of a lady’s underwear to an unsavoury man (why underwear?) and then perpetuated it by imagining he might tell her she owed him a favour. We all know what favour you were hinting at and you then attempted to row back by suggesting shopping. This is unpleasant reading anywhere but especially on GN. You must know that the murder of Sarah Everard and the sentencing of the police officer who killed her was headline news yesterday, which made your posts even more unpleasant to read. You then asked me for details of the tv programme featuring a man posing as an Amazon driver which had been mentioned, and when you received no response, as I was somewhat unsettled by your interest in it, you actually started a thread asking for details, making it clear you wanted to watch it. You received the response you wanted from another poster. We don’t need a man making posts of this kind here. It begs the question as to why a man would be so active on a forum populated almost entirely by women.

Thank you Germanshepherdsum - you have expressed my own feelings much better than I could.

Thank you Zoejory, MayBeMaw, Germanshepherdmum and welbeck. I could not agree more. This has to stop.