Neither the webshop nor the postal company initiates an investigation when asked by the consumer/addressee

If the consumer does not receive his purchase or it is damaged when it arrives, the contractual provisions come into play. Consumers are protected by consumer law and have to contact the webshop to assert their rights. The shop can ask the courier company to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to pay compensation. However, consumer law makes few provisions on delivery modalities and this generates noise in the relationship between the three parties.

The complaint above is frequently made to ombudsman poste. The consumer’s reaction makes sense, filing a complaint with the postal company that last had the parcel in its possession. At that point they get stuck. The postal company is only willing to launch an investigation at the request of its customer, the webshop. The webshop relies solely on tracking data and does not initiate an investigation with the delivery company. The customer gets sent from pillar to post. It is the ombudsman’s view that this approach is not in keeping with the spirit of consumer law.

When asked by the ombudsman service, the postal company does start an investigation; every postal user is entitled to this. In many cases seen by the ombudsman it turns out that the parcel was not delivered to the addressee or the postal company cannot prove delivery. In that case, the consumer receives a certificate, and on this basis they can claim their entitlement from the merchant/webshop.

In order for customers to assert their rights, the ombudsman urges online retailers and the postal sector to initiate enquiries as needed.

Method of delivery that does not protect consumers

ombudsman poste is astonished at the way some purchases are delivered. We have made this clear to the postal sector.

However, the merchant/webshop is also careless about its obligation to deliver the parcel.

On the one hand, some merchants choose to ship their goods in a way that is non-traceable.

On the other hand, we see that parcels (even high-value ones such as laptops, iPhones or designer clothes) are allowed to be delivered in a high-risk manner, according to the mutual agreements between carrier and merchant: without a signature, to a neighbour's house, left in the lobby of an apartment building or at a location around the house that is considered safe by the driver/delivery person. The consumer is not aware of the arrangements that are made between the carrier and the webshop.

When these delivery methods are used and a dispute arises, none of the three parties can prove that a parcel was or was not received by the consumer. The resulting disputes usually do not lead to an amicable agreement and in the end the consumer loses out.

Returns: risky for consumers

An inherent part of buying online is the right to cancel the order and the associated returns. The ombudsman service received 103 complaints about returns in 2024. The most frequent complaint concerns refusal by the webshop to give the consumer a refund because the goods did not arrive at the merchant (empty parcel or no parcel).

The consumer is in a weak position here because of the following observations:

• Webshops only notify consumers of non-receipt, but they provide no proof at all.
• Webshops do not start an investigation with the postal company if the consumer states that they did return the goods correctly.
• The consumer cannot prove that the goods were actually in the parcel. Weighing each return at drop-off or at the sorting centre could already make a difference.
• In the postal sector, certain postal services are outsourced between providers. This is certainly true when it comes to returns. This is confusing for consumers and it results in a lack of clarity about liability.
• Returns are collected in large containers at transportation company sorting centres and picked up from there by merchants/platforms. Tracking stops at this point, so once again there is no evidence either for or against the consumer and the merchant.
• Major webshops and platforms provide their own return labels (usually free of charge). The consumer may in fact choose/pay for a safer shipping option but the standardised return procedures are not geared towards this and it is strongly discouraged or even not allowed by the webshop. Such a shipment is at the consumer's risk.
• Weaknesses in the returns process and risky methods of delivery can also lead to fraud. Such fraudulent practices are changing/improving all the time. Webshops and postal companies are wary of fraud, so in these cases compensation is naturally blocked. However, honest consumers should not suffer as a result of this.

Moreover, the ombudsman notes that even if the consumer is able to present a receipt for their return, compensation is not always paid. However, consumer law is clear about this in Volume VI, art. 50, § 3 of the Economic Law Code:

§ 3. Except where the company has offered to pick up the goods itself, in the case of sales contracts, the company may delay reimbursement until all the goods have been received, or until the consumer has proved that he has returned the goods, whichever comes first.

The above practices are certainly not carried out by every webshop or encountered with every postal company, but it is necessary to consider whether such (cheap) methods are up to the standards of a responsible e-commerce sector and able to stand the test of consumer law.

In conclusion, the ombudsman emphasises that we hardly ever see the problems discussed above with Belgian webshops, but they are seen with European and non-European web giants and platforms.

In many cases seen by the ombudsman and with cooperation from postal companies, we have shown that there is no proof of fault on the part of the consumer. Based on that certification, most consumers do then receive compensation from the merchant in question.

With the exception of Temu, Shein, Ali Express and Zalando.

We received 47 cases against Zalando in 2024. In these cases, the company rarely starts an investigation on the basis of a complaint from its consumers. Even after an investigation by the ombudsman, when it has been determined that an error occurred in the transportation process and the postal company issues confirmation of this, Zalando refuses to revise its decision in regard to the consumer. It is not clear to consumers or to the ombudsman what grounds or facts this web giant puts forward as a basis for not applying consumer law in these cases. This company also refuses to cooperate in mediation cases initiated by the European Centre for Consumers (ECC). As a result, providing an out-of-court solution for the consumer that has suffered detriment is not possible in cases involving a consumer versus Zalando.

The Transportation Chain: The Final Consumer Is Not Reimbursed

When purchases are made from China it is observed that parcels are handled by more than one transport company. If a problem arises, the seller still has to comply with consumer law. However, due to this chain of intermediary carriers, we do see in several cases that consumers are not compensated.