Avsenderen skrev feil navn på pakkelappen, så mottakeren fikk ikke hentet pakken med hentekoden.

Because Norwegian usually marks definiteness on the noun itself.

• en avsender = a sender
• avsenderen = the sender

The same pattern appears here:

• mottakeren = the recipient
• pakkelappen = the package label
• pakken = the package
• hentekoden = the pickup code

So the ending -en is basically the attached form of the for many masculine nouns.

Because Norwegian forms compound nouns by writing them as one word.

• pakke + lapp → pakkelapp = package label
• hente + kode → hentekode = pickup code

This is very common in Norwegian. English often writes similar ideas as two words, but Norwegian usually prefers one compound word.

Also, in compounds, the last part is the main noun:

• pakkelapp is a kind of lapp
• hentekode is a kind of kode

In Norwegian, feil + noun is often used without an article when it means the wrong / an incorrect something.

So:

• skrev feil navn = wrote the wrong name
• oppga feil adresse = gave the wrong address
• ringte feil nummer = called the wrong number

Using et here would sound unnatural in this context. The article is usually omitted in this pattern.

Here feil means wrong or incorrect.

In feil navn, it behaves like a modifier before the noun, similar to an adjective in English:

• feil navn = wrong name
• feil adresse = wrong address

But feil is a flexible word in Norwegian and can also be used in other ways:

• Det er feil. = That is wrong.
• Han skrev feil. = He wrote incorrectly / made a mistake while writing.

So in this sentence, the important point is simply that feil navn is a very normal expression meaning the wrong name.

Because Norwegian uses på for something written on a surface, label, sign, screen, list, and so on.

So:

• på pakkelappen = on the package label
• på arket = on the sheet of paper
• på skjermen = on the screen

Using i would sound wrong here, because a label is treated as a surface, not a container.

Here så means so or therefore.

It links the two parts of the sentence:

• Avsenderen skrev feil navn på pakkelappen
• så mottakeren fikk ikke hentet pakken med hentekoden

So the meaning is: one thing happened, and as a result, something else happened.

Because this så is functioning as a conjunction joining two main clauses, similar to and or but.

After a conjunction like this, Norwegian normally keeps ordinary main-clause word order:

• så mottakeren fikk ikke hentet pakken

That means:

• subject: mottakeren
• finite verb: fikk
• negation: ikke

If you used a fronted adverb such as derfor, then inversion would happen:

• Derfor fikk mottakeren ikke hentet pakken.

So the difference is about what kind of linking word you are using.

Because in a normal Norwegian main clause, ikke usually comes after the finite verb.

Here the finite verb is fikk, so:

• mottakeren fikk ikke hentet pakken

Compare:

• Han kommer ikke.
• Vi skrev ikke brevet.
• De kunne ikke dra.

A useful contrast:

• main clause: Han fikk ikke hentet pakken.
• subordinate clause: fordi han ikke fikk hentet pakken

So in subordinate clauses, ikke usually comes before the finite verb, but in main clauses it usually comes after it.

Fikk ikke hentet means something like:

• didn’t manage to pick up
• wasn’t able to collect
• couldn’t get the package picked up/collected

This is a very common Norwegian pattern: få + verb form can express successfully managing to do something, or in the negative, failing to do it.

So:

• Jeg fikk kjøpt billetter. = I managed to buy tickets.
• Jeg fikk ikke kjøpt billetter. = I didn’t manage to buy tickets.

In your sentence, it suggests that the recipient was unable to complete the pickup.

Because this is not the ordinary å hente infinitive pattern.

The sentence uses the common construction få + verb form, as in:

• få gjort
• få kjøpt
• få hentet

So Norwegian says:

• fikk ikke hentet pakken

not:

• fikk ikke å hente pakken

That second version is not correct here.

It looks the same as the simple past form, but in this sentence it is not the main finite verb.

The finite verb is fikk.

So:

• fikk carries the tense
• hentet is part of the construction fikk hentet

That is why the sentence is not saying two separate past-tense actions. Instead, it is expressing one past situation: the recipient did not manage to pick up the package.

Here med means using or by means of.

So:

• med hentekoden = using the pickup code

It tells you how the package would normally be collected.

In other words, the recipient had the pickup code, but still could not collect the package because the sender had written the wrong name.

In theory, med can sometimes attach to a noun phrase, but in this sentence the natural reading is using the pickup code, not the package that had the pickup code.

Why? Because semantically it fits the action hentet much better:

• hente pakken med hentekoden = pick up the package using the pickup code

This is the normal real-world meaning in a delivery context.

Yes, you could, but the nuance is a little different.

• kunne ikke hente pakken = could not pick up the package
• fikk ikke hentet pakken = didn’t manage to pick up the package

The version with fikk ikke hentet often sounds a bit more event-focused and result-focused: the pickup did not happen in practice.

The version with kunne ikke hente can sound slightly broader, and depending on context, kunne ikke may refer to inability, impossibility, or sometimes even practical circumstances.

In this sentence, fikk ikke hentet is very natural because it emphasizes the failed outcome.