Is it legal for a delivery person to leave my package at a neighbor’s house without my authorization? The law responds

The online shopping They are increasingly common. In fact, the vast majority of brands have opted for e-commerce to grow their businesses and, therefore, the fear of place orders online has been forgotten. However, there is still an outstanding concern for buyers and it is, nothing more and nothing less, that coordination of deliveries with parcel companies.

Today, it is possible monitor deliveries depending on the company that the business has contracted. Amazon, UPS, GLS, among others, have systems that report the day in which the order will be delivered. However, and although many companies try to reduce it to a specific time slot, It is still impossible to guarantee the exact moment.

In this context and with day-to-day busyness, more than one has found themselves in the fearful situation of not being at home just when their order arrives and in response to that, the delivery staff can’t do much without express authorization.

Can the delivery person leave the package for my neighbor?

Law 43/2010, of December 30, on the universal postal service, user rights and the postal market establishes that, althoughe if it is possible for the delivery person to deliver the package to someone elseyou will not be able to do so if the recipient He has not given his authorization. The situation is clear, if you commit this act you would be violating the Spanish Data Protection Law.

However, the Goods Transport Law allows each company can set its own conditions. FedEx, for example, mentions among its policies that deliveries can be made to “any other person who has apparent authority.” Others prefer to offer other alternatives such as a servicepointa tobacconist or a locker so that the recipient can safely claim their package.

A precedent with the AEPD

In March 2021, the Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) imposed a fine of 70,000 euros to the courier company UPS for delivering a package to the recipient’s neighbor. In this case, the AEPD considered that one of the basic precepts of the General Data Protection Regulation (RGPD) was violated, in addition to article 32 of the RGPD. “by violating the principle of integrity and confidentiality”