Food delivery wrong, cold, or never arrived: getting your money back

Your dinner never arrived. Or it arrived stone cold. Or the bag was missing half the items you paid for. The app's chat support offered you a $5 credit on a $60 order, and now you're wondering whether you actually have any real rights here.

You do. A food delivery order is usually a mixed supply: the meal and drinks are goods, while ordering, payment handling and delivery may involve services supplied by different businesses. The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) applies where you acquired them as a consumer under section 3, which almost every household food order does. The platform's own refund policy is not the ceiling on what you can claim.

Quick answer

What you can ask for depends on what failed. A missing item is goods you paid for and didn't get. A whole order that never arrived is a failure to supply. Food that is unsafe or significantly different from its description can be a major failure in its own right, and so can one that can't be put right — that is when the choice of remedy is yours. Where the failure is non-major and can be remedied, you can require the business to fix it within a reasonable time, and for goods section 261 lets it choose how.

• Who supplied what. The business that supplies the food is not always the one that supplies the delivery. The checkout screen, receipt and the terms that applied when you ordered identify each supplier — don't assume.

Start with the platform's in-app report: it creates a record. If what it offers falls short, write to the business responsible for the part that failed, naming the guarantee you rely on and the remedy you want. If you paid by card, ask your provider about a chargeback early. A state or territory consumer body can offer non-binding help; a court or tribunal with jurisdiction can make a binding order.

What the law actually says

The service guarantee framework

A food delivery order has two halves. The meal and drinks are goods; ordering, payment handling and delivery may involve services, and which of them was supplied to you, by whom, depends on the checkout, the receipt and the terms that applied when you ordered. Each half has its own guarantees and remedies.

The services guarantees are in sections 60 to 62:

• Section 60 requires the service to be performed with the care and skill of a reasonably competent supplier.
• Section 61 requires the service to be reasonably fit for a purpose you made known to the supplier, and to be of a nature and quality that might reasonably be expected to achieve a result you made known — a dietary or allergy requirement, for instance. It doesn't apply if you didn't rely, or it was unreasonable to rely, on the supplier's skill or judgment.
• Section 62 requires supply within a reasonable time, but only where the contract fixes no time. An app's estimated arrival time may or may not fix one — that depends on how it was expressed.

One limit matters before you rely on these. Under section 267(1)(c), for the guarantees in sections 61 and 62 (section 60 is treated differently), you cannot take action where the failure happened only because of someone other than your supplier (its own agents and employees don't count as someone else), or because of a cause independent of human control arising after supply. On a platform order, that is often the question that decides who owes you anything.

Goods mixed in

The food itself is goods, and the goods guarantees in sections 54 to 56 apply to whoever supplied it. Food that is unsafe, inedible or not of acceptable quality engages section 54; food that doesn't match how it was described on the menu engages section 56; food that is not reasonably fit for a purpose you made known — to the supplier, or to whoever handled the ordering — engages section 55. An allergen served despite a clear request can engage section 54 as well, and food-safety law beyond the ACL — which provision is strongest depends on what you asked for, and who you asked. Which business is the supplier depends on the structure of the order, so check the checkout screen, the receipt and the terms that applied when you ordered — a platform can change them later. The ACCC's guidance on buying through online platforms is that which of them has to meet a particular guarantee depends on the situation: your rights run against the seller you buy from on the platform, while the platform answers for its own service, its representations and any buyer-protection promise it made.

When nothing arrives at all

If the whole order never turned up, the first question is simpler than the guarantees: you paid for something and it was not supplied. That is a failure to perform the contract, and you can ask for your money back on that basis alone. The ACCC puts it plainly: where a business can't supply what you paid for on time or within a reasonable time, it must provide a solution — though it also notes a delay doesn't by itself mean the law was broken.

Section 36 also bears on it: section 36(4) requires a business that accepts payment to supply within the period it specified, or a reasonable time if it specified none, and sections 36(1) to (3) prohibit taking payment while intending not to supply or to supply something materially different, or when the business is or ought to be aware of grounds for believing it can't supply in time. Section 36(5) excuses a failure caused by someone else or beyond the business's control only where it also took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence, and section 36(6) excuses it where the business offered a replacement and you agreed to take it. These are penalty provisions the regulator enforces, not an automatic refund, though a consumer can seek damages under section 236 for loss the contravention caused, within that section's six-year limit, or a compensation order under section 237 in proceedings within its scope.

Where a business separately supplied the delivery, the services guarantees can apply to it too, subject to the section 267(1)(c) limit.

When a services failure is major

For services, a failure is major under section 268 of the ACL if a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure wouldn't have acquired the services; they are substantially unfit for a purpose services of the same kind are commonly supplied for, or unfit for a particular purpose you made known (note which limb carries "substantially"); they can't reasonably be expected to achieve a result you made known; or supplying them creates an unsafe situation. Except for the last, each also requires that the failure can't easily and within a reasonable time be remedied.

Sections 260(2) and 268(2) each add that two or more failures, not necessarily of the same guarantee, can together be major where a reasonable consumer aware of them as a whole wouldn't have bought.

What remedies are available

For services, where the failure is major or cannot be remedied, section 267(3) lets you terminate the contract, or keep it and recover compensation for the reduction in value below the price you paid. Section 269 governs termination: it takes effect when you tell the supplier, and you recover what you paid to the extent the services weren't consumed. Where it is non-major and can be remedied, section 267(2) lets you require the supplier to fix it within a reasonable time; if it refuses or doesn't, you may have it remedied elsewhere and recover the cost, or terminate. Section 267(4) adds damages for other reasonably foreseeable loss, on either track.

For goods, the remedies are in sections 259 to 266, and section 260 sets when a goods failure is major: its limbs include a significant departure from description, and goods that aren't of acceptable quality because they're unsafe — neither turning on whether the failure can be remedied. Where the failure is major or cannot be remedied, section 259(3) is your election: reject the goods — section 262 may bar it where you have lost, destroyed or disposed of the food, among other statutory restrictions, though losing rejection doesn't take away the reduction-in-value claim or damages — and choose under section 263(4) a refund, or a replacement of the same type and similar value if one is reasonably available; or keep them and recover the reduction in value below the price you paid, which does not depend on rejecting. Where it is non-major and can be remedied, you require a remedy under section 259(2) and the supplier chooses how under section 261; if it refuses or takes too long, section 259(2)(b) lets you have the failure remedied elsewhere and recover the reasonable costs, or reject. Section 259(4) adds damages for other reasonably foreseeable loss — medical costs, lost wages — on either track — though you have to evidence the loss, and show the failure caused it and that it was reasonably foreseeable. Loss you could reasonably have avoided is harder to recover. Where its conditions are met — a valid rejection and a refund due under section 263(4)(a) — section 265 lets you end the connected delivery contract and recover what you paid for it.

A platform's "no refunds" or "credits only" policy cannot override any of this. Under section 64 of the ACL, a term is void to the extent it purports to exclude, restrict or modify the guarantees, your rights under them or liability for failing to meet them — or has that effect.

If the food might be unsafe

Cold food and unsafe food are different problems. Cold is quality and timing. Food that may be contaminated or spoiled, or that contains an allergen you asked them to leave out, is a health question first.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand tells consumers not to eat food they're concerned about, to keep the packaging and anything found in it, and to refrigerate any uneaten portion where appropriate, which preserves evidence (whether you can still reject is a separate question under section 262). Its danger zone for perishable food is 5°C to 60°C — food-safety guidance, not a test for whether a refund is owed. Don't keep unsafe food to protect a claim: photographs, the packaging and a dated note do that job. If anyone becomes ill, it says to seek medical attention early and tell the doctor you think it was food-related; treat a severe reaction as an emergency. FSANZ doesn't investigate complaints: state and territory authorities or your local council do, so that's where a safety report goes, alongside your complaint to the business.

When this applies (and when it doesn't)

The ACL is likely to apply when:

• You ordered from a supplier acting in trade or commerce in Australia, which the major platforms (Uber Eats, DoorDash, Menulog and others) and the restaurants on them ordinarily are.
• The amount was $100,000 or less, or what you bought is of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use — which covers nearly every food order (section 3).

The ACL may be harder to rely on when:

• The failure was your own error: a wrong address, a missed delivery instruction, or a cancellation you made.
• You ordered for a business. Business use doesn't by itself remove coverage — a meal is still of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use — but section 63 removes the services guarantees from contracts for transporting or storing goods for a business's purposes. Whether it reaches a given workplace order turns on the transport contract and who the goods are carried for; it is not automatic, and it leaves the goods guarantees on the food to their own conditions.

A redelivery only helps if it still meets the purpose: a replacement hours later may not, especially if you said when you needed it. A platform's refund policy is the first route to try, and not the ceiling on what you can claim.

What to ask for, by what went wrong

• One item missing: prompt redelivery, or that item's price back.
• Whole order never arrived: the food price, plus any charge for a delivery you didn't get.
• Wrong but usable: a replacement, or a proportionate refund.
• Materially wrong or unusable: ask whether it's major under section 260, or can't be remedied; if either applies, the section 259(3) election is yours.
• Cold but safe: a quality and timing claim, sized to the effect on the meal.
• Unsafe food or an undeclared allergen: don't eat it; refund plus the health and reporting steps below.
• Late but still usable: depends on the promised time, the purpose you made known and what the delay cost you.

What to do today

1. Save the evidence before it disappears. Screenshot the itemised order and receipt (fees and tip included), the promised and revised arrival times, the delivery status and any delivery photo, map or GPS detail, driver messages, the support-chat transcript and complaint reference, and any allergy or customisation note. Photograph what arrived, its packaging and seals, and any labels; a photo of the doorstep is context, not proof on its own. If anyone was ill, keep medical records, replacement-food receipts and any lost-income evidence.

2. Report it in the app first. It is the route the platform offers for missing or wrong items, and it records that you raised the problem promptly. Note what you reported and what was offered.

3. If the offer falls short, write to the business responsible. Work out which business supplied the part that failed, then email it: the date and order number, what went wrong, and what you rely on — sections 54 to 56 for the food, section 60 or 62 for the delivery, or non-supply if nothing arrived. Separate the amounts — food price, delivery fee, service fee, tip — and say which you want back and why. A voluntary tip doesn't automatically follow the rest. Say too whether you accepted a substitution, the app made one you didn't approve, or the item never came: those are different problems. A substitution the terms allow can still fail if it is materially different or creates an allergen risk. If you want a redelivery, say by when it would still be useful. Around 14 days is a practical deadline; there is no ACL 14-day rule.

4. Check your payment route early. If you paid by card and nothing arrived, or what did was unusable, ask your provider about dispute or chargeback options and its deadline — those run to its rules, not the ACL's. AFCA can look at how a financial firm handled your complaint, not your dispute with the platform.

5. Use a demand letter if it helps. fairgo can generate one free: it identifies the ACL sections that fit what happened and produces a letter you send under your own name.

What if the business refuses

If a written complaint doesn't resolve it:

Your state or territory consumer body. Each has a complaints service that may inform, assess or offer dispute resolution, but it generally cannot compel a business to take part or make binding orders. Contact details are at /agencies.

A court or tribunal with jurisdiction. For a binding decision, the right forum depends on your state or territory, the dispute and the amount. Several states route consumer claims to a tribunal, but not all: in South Australia and Tasmania, for example, an ordinary ACL claim goes to the Magistrates Court. Our state guides, such as South Australia and New South Wales, set out which forum hears ordinary claims. Fees and representation rules vary — check the official fee page immediately before filing and weigh it against what you're claiming.

The ACCC and the food regulator. The ACCC investigates systemic conduct, not individual disputes, so reporting feeds enforcement work but won't get your money back. Food-safety concerns go to your state or territory food authority or local council; a fake delivery site is a scam report at scamwatch.gov.au.

Common mistakes

Taking credit without checking what it settles. Where a refund is the remedy you're entitled to, a business can't substitute account credit on its own. Credit may still suit you, but check whether taking it settles the complaint in full.

Overstating the claim. A missing $8 side dish is not a missing $70 order. Keep the claim proportionate, and separate provable costs from inconvenience.

Waiting too long. There is no fixed expiry for guarantee claims, but app records, payment-dispute windows and the food itself don't wait. Report it as soon as you reasonably can, ideally the same day — that is evidence advice, not a statutory deadline.

Related reading

• Online order never arrived — what are your rights?
• Can I demand a refund? When Australian Consumer Law gives you the right
• Business refused your refund? Here's what to do next

This article is general information about Australian Consumer Law, not legal advice. It is not health or food-safety advice: if food may be unsafe or you are unwell, seek medical help first. It also describes platform terms, food-safety reporting, payment disputes and complaint and escalation pathways — consumer bodies, food regulators, courts and tribunals, and the ACCC — whose scope, rules and processes sit outside the ACL and can change, and platform structures change too. Confirm the current position with the business, your payment provider or the relevant body before acting. For advice on your specific case, see your state's Fair Trading body — full list at /agencies.