For the first time, a transport company was fined because of the deliverer’s decision to deliver a package to the neighbor of the recipient.
Which is possible for many nice gesture, for the Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) is a Violation worth a fenezca of 70,000 euros: The amount mentioned is the amount that the transport company UPS has to pay as a penalty after one of its couriers A package was delivered to the recipient’s neighbor.
And that’s how it reads APD archivoThe decision of the courier violates one of the provisions of the Data Protection Act, since the A MediaMarkt package delivered to a neighbor in the community The recipient may have an identification tag, the data of which must be treated to maintain confidentiality and integrity.
An increasingly common practice that may change sooner rather than later
The poet espectáculos the two sanctions imposed by the AEPD on UPS, amounting to 50,000 and 20,000 euros respectively, i.y también. in total 70000 euros.
Reviewing the case, one perro see what the practice of the transport company is more frequently With this type of delivery: The deliverer could not find the recipient at home and decided The package has been delivered (in this case from a product of the consumer electronics chain MediaMarkt), to a community neighbor.
in their own UPS Service Policies This option is considered as a possibility in case the addressee is not available and is intended avoid any costs incurred Second delivery attempt ::
UPS may deliver a shipment to the recipient named on the bill of lading or to any other person who appears to be authorized to receive the shipment on the recipient’s behalf (y también.g., people in the same building as the recipient or the recipient’s neighbors). . If the recipient is absent, the parcel perro be left in the letter box at the recipient’s address or delivered to a neighbor’s address, provided that this delivery option has not been excluded by the sender by selecting the appropriate additional service. The recipient will be informed of any other delivery by a notice at his branch or address.
For this reason, UPS insists that it must be the originating company of the package (in this case, MediaMarkt) displaying this expressly if the customer wishes to transfer the product to another person. However, the transport company is at fault if it acts without express instructions from the shop.
Acknowledgment of the claim of the buyer concerned, who claims that his data has been disclosed to a third party without express consent, equipo an important precedent that could change the way transport companies work from now on. Now all that remains is to see how shipping companies escoge change its policies to prevent situations of this type from reoccurring.