Parcel left and missing: is permission to leave it enough?

Why notification of the drop-off matters

The challenged term relied solely on permission and the agreed location. The Court did not consider it unclear. The problem was the one-sided allocation of risk: without notification, the recipient may not know that a parcel has arrived and cannot promptly protect it from third parties (paragraphs 32 to 37).

The Court considered prompt notification possible and reasonable. Where permission was given electronically, it considered the same channel available for notifying the recipient (paragraph 38). Our assessment: check not just the drop-off record, but also whether and when you were actually informed about that particular delivery.

Leaving a parcel remains possible, but the agreement matters

The Court did not abolish this delivery method. It rejected a particular term lacking a notification requirement. Section 13(2), point 3, of the current German Postal Act expressly provides for leaving a parcel at a specified location where the recipient and provider have agreed to it. The earlier Postal Universal Service Ordinance discussed in the judgment is therefore not the current statutory reference.

Check whether permission covered this shipment or applied indefinitely, and which location it specified. Permission alone does not establish that the courier complied with it. Conversely, a properly agreed drop-off accompanied by notification may leave you bearing the risk of subsequent loss. A blanket promise that the courier always pays would be wrong.

Involve the seller when buying online

When a consumer buys from a business, transport risk generally does not pass to the consumer merely because the goods are handed to the courier. Section 475(2) of the German Civil Code provides a narrow exception: the consumer commissioned the carrier and the seller had not previously identified that carrier. Merely selecting a shipping option offered by the shop is not equivalent.

Whether delivery legally took place remains a separate question. Section 446 of the German Civil Code generally links the transfer of risk to handover and treats default in acceptance as equivalent. Report non-receipt to the seller as well. Whether further delivery, a refund or damages may be available depends on the contract and delivery circumstances. The special rules for consumer sales do not automatically apply to private sales or business purchases.

An example: the shed is listed in the account, but the parcel is missing

Our hypothetical example: you authorised delivery to a garden shed. A coffee machine order is marked “delivered”, but you cannot find a notification stating when it was left. At least two issues remain: was the parcel actually left in the agreed shed, and how was that communicated? A photograph outside the front door would not answer the first question. The actual notification must also be clarified.

This example does not establish a certain claim. The Court ruled on the use of unfair contract terms and also prohibited the defendant courier from relying on them. It did not order payment of the value of every parcel that subsequently goes missing. Both parties’ appeals on points of law succeeded only in part; the appellate judgment was partly set aside and recast (operative part and paragraphs 10, 14 and 115).

Records that help clarify what happened

Our practical recommendation: report non-receipt in writing and describe what happened without prematurely confirming receipt. Request a clear account of the particular delivery and notification. In particular, keep the following:

• The order, invoice, payment record and tracking number.
• The wording and duration of permission to leave the parcel, including the chosen location.
• Screenshots of the tracking history, delivery photograph and stated delivery time.
• Emails, text messages or app notifications about the drop-off and replies from the shop and courier.

For future orders

Regularly review any standing permission to leave parcels. If the location is no longer suitable, change or revoke permission for future deliveries through the designated channel and keep the confirmation. This does not retrospectively resolve a loss that has already occurred. An ongoing dispute should be assessed using the agreement and actual evidence applicable at the time.