Ebay advice needed

[ZedFourM]

I cannot be held accountable for what happened to this sensitive piece of equipment between the 18th December 2012 when the item was received and the 5th January 2013 when described as not working.

Sadly, by eBay/PayPal rules, you are responsible - unless you could prove that it was damaged by the buyer. This is probably impossible (or prohibitively expensive) to do.

I don't think that most people selling on eBay realise that they are effectively giving a 45 day warranty on the items that they are selling - and that's it's almost regardless of whether the buyer has damaged the item or not.

the ebay fees were also £60 and the postage £26 so in all I'm loosing out considerably.

Not much consolation, but if the buyer gets a refund (as I fear will happen), you will get your eBay and PayPal fees refunded.

 

[Anonymous]

I sold a car stereo once on ebay that did have a fault, but this was clearly described in the ad, and photo's of the fault (a cable was missing its connector) were provided in the ad.

The guy received the stereo and left positive feedback, actually using the words "as described". A week later he emailed me saying the stereo had cought fire and he wanted a refund.

I refused, cos for all I know he might have wired it up wrong. He opened a dispute. By then I had withdrawn the funds from paypal (normally as soon as I get confirmation of its arrival by the buyer). At this stage I also cancelled the direct debit to paypal from my bank.

I spoke to ebay and described the situation, and that he was saying the missing connector was the cause of the fire. I said it worked fine for me (which it did) and also that the missing connector was clearly described. They said I would have nothing to worry about.

Then after a certain time, they told him to send it back at his cost. I got it back, could see the blackened wires but still disputed the refund....he hadn't sent it back in its original condition (it was working when I sent it!) and I dispute the fire was my fault. Phoned ebay again and they said "the only way forward with this is to refund the buyer" I said I didn't agree.

Next thing I got an email saying they had refunded the buyer, tried to take the money from my paypal but couldn't (cos I'd cancelled the d/d) and my balance was now -£xxx. It said I could dispute their decision, so I did and they dropped it.

If you didn't remove the money in time, and they've locked it, then you cant stop them giving it back to the buyer. This is the bad side of ebay...they do generally side with the buyer....even though its the seller who pay the fees! In my case they ignored my previous feedback, but someone says they now take that into consideration.

The buyer admits it was working fine when they received it, and Canon camera's, especially the xD models are bullet proof. I wonder if they used an incompatible memory card or something? If the buyer isn't willing to work with you on this, then you are stuck.

Lets hope someone from ebay with a brain looks at your case!

 

[Anonymous]

Let us know how you get on Tom

 

[sars]

Just in case that it is a scam, can you get it returned to a solicitors address, this way if it is opened by someone on your behalf and its full of coal you have some legal basis to go back to eBay.

There's no way now that I would sell anything electronic on eBay, to much risk

 

[Wondermike]

There's no way now that I would sell anything electronic on eBay, to much risk

Agreed, I never use Ebay but have been very surprised as to the extent that Ebay seems to side with the buyer.

Sorry to hear about this Tom.

 

[ronk]

I think they have got buyers remorse or seen something cheaper!
Some folk are pro's at this mularkey :x

Did the give any supporting /tech evidence ?

 

[original guvnor]

I never use EBay either. It's full of rogues.

 

[bluespit]

I'd have to agree with much of the above. Ive had some problems with buyers and ebay have always taken their side. Trouble is they have no real competition so ride roughshod over small scale sellers. And 10% is a stupid amount to charge as selling fees (more like 14% if you add paypal)

Always had good experiences from buying and selling the odd thing to forum member though as they tend to have more personality invested

good luck with your case

 

[Sae]

Hey Tom, your response is spot on and highlights that it was confirmed by both parties as working on the 18th Dec. This is a critical bit of info.

This surely gives you grounds for a good appeal and grounds for rejecting claim. It sounds as if the refund/returns ebay procedure is a right pain in the ass, and assuming that procedure states you have to return cash for your camera etc, you can still appeal the ruling citing that it was confirmed as working by the buyer before they messed with it - like you suggest putting different battery in and also performing firmware upgrade is non of your doing.

I would think that though ebay/paypal will have power to get cash from your account, but conversely, you would assume that they then have power to reclaim returned cash, or is there someway to get the funds into ebay escrow until it can be checked out. No where on ebay does it state how to resolve this sort of dispute (how to identify tech issue or prove it was buyer inflicted fault).

I'm not sure I'd agree with the 45 days warranty though, unless you had a 'buy it now' option selected. The 45 days warranty is only considered when it's an online shop (hence the "buy it now" fixe price option), it doesn't apply to ebay 'auctions'. Tom don't know if you know how your sale was classed?

In anycase, after reading some background on ebay sales/procedures, looks like there is very little cover for sellers which is complete cack!!! Especially in the case of the buyer broke the goods :thumbsdown:

 

[ZedFourM]

I'm not sure I'd agree with the 45 days warranty though, unless you had a 'buy it now' option selected. The 45 days warranty is only considered when it's an online shop (hence the "buy it now" fixe price option), it doesn't apply to ebay 'auctions'.

Sorry, but you are confusing 2 different things here.

Items which are sold, in the course of business, as Buy It Now, are covered under the Distance Selling Regulations (you normally have 7 days in which to return qualifying goods for a refund, and there is no requirement to provide a reason). They are also covered under the Sale Of Goods Act. The DSRs do not apply to auctions (but the SOGA does).

The 45 day limit is not enshrined in legislation, but is part of eBay/PayPal's Terms and Conditions, under which a buyer has 45 days in which to raise a SNAD (Significantly Not As Described) or INR (Item Not Received) dispute. You will have agreed to them when you registered to create an eBay account. All the buyer needs to say is that "it's not working" or "it's not as described in the listing", and they can return it for a full refund. Scammers often wait until the 45th day to raise (especially INR) disputes, in the hope that the seller will not respond in time and that they will therefore automatically win the case.

 

[TitanTim]

I never use EBay either. It's full of rogues.

Not doubting there are dodgy sellers etc, but in the main its great, I've sold and bought 100s of items with no problems what so ever. Saying its full of rogues is bit of an overstatement.

Tim.

 

[Sae]

I'm not sure I'd agree with the 45 days warranty though, unless you had a 'buy it now' option selected. The 45 days warranty is only considered when it's an online shop (hence the "buy it now" fixe price option), it doesn't apply to ebay 'auctions'.

Sorry, but you are confusing 2 different things here.

The 45 day limit is not enshrined in legislation, but is part of eBay/PayPal's Terms and Conditions, under which a buyer has 45 days in which to raise a SNAD (Significantly Not As Described) or INR (Item Not Received) dispute.

Apologies I may have got that confused. But so then the ebay seller doesn't have to offer a 'warranty' as we know it. The buyer only has 45 days to open a dispute, the seller does not offer 45 days of operational warranty on the product. However, the condition for opening dispute "Significantly Not As Described" should not apply here, as the item was as described and received in working condition "as described".

So if ebay play by ebay rules then, the dispute should be rejected by ebay as it was received in working order. It's never that straight forward but interesting to see how this turns out.

 

[ranski]

Have a read of this, more so the paragraph on warranties

http://reviews.ebay.com/Warranties-Guarantees-and-Buyer-apos-s-Rights-on-ebay?ugid=10000000001918107

 

[Stuart Truman]

Maybe get it back and get it to Canon's service centre nr London for an independent report and if needed, a repair. Their costs are reasonable, and if Canon show it to have been damaged, you can go back to eBay, or take legal advice. Better to spend a little and get it sorted than write off the whole amount.

 

[Sae]

Have a read of this, more so the paragraph on warranties

http://reviews.ebay.com/Warranties-Guarantees-and-Buyer-apos-s-Rights-on-ebay?ugid=10000000001918107

thanks ranski, interesting reading, but going by that I think it favours Tom.

The part that isn't being explained is, the buyer "did stuff" to the product. Surely Tom can't be held responsible for that?
i.e. Are we to say that if Tomscott stated which firmware version was in the camera - while is was working, then the buyer wouldn't have a leg to stand on as the buyer has upgraded it - possibly incorrectly?

(Not to go off tangent, and don't think this is the case but some firmware updates corrupts the product if it doesn't complete in the first attempt - e.g. computer peripherals)

 

[srhutch]

I'm not sure I'd agree with the 45 days warranty though, unless you had a 'buy it now' option selected. The 45 days warranty is only considered when it's an online shop (hence the "buy it now" fixe price option), it doesn't apply to ebay 'auctions'.

Sorry, but you are confusing 2 different things here.

Items which are sold, in the course of business, as Buy It Now, are covered under the Distance Selling Regulations (you normally have 7 days in which to return qualifying goods for a refund, and there is no requirement to provide a reason). They are also covered under the Sale Of Goods Act. The DSRs do not apply to auctions (but the SOGA does).

The 45 day limit is not enshrined in legislation, but is part of eBay/PayPal's Terms and Conditions, under which a buyer has 45 days in which to raise a SNAD (Significantly Not As Described) or INR (Item Not Received) dispute. You will have agreed to them when you registered to create an eBay account. All the buyer needs to say is that "it's not working" or "it's not as described in the listing", and they can return it for a full refund. Scammers often wait until the 45th day to raise (especially INR) disputes, in the hope that the seller will not respond in time and that they will therefore automatically win the case.

Just wondering where the buyer stands on this as when the camera arrived, it was as described and fully working so to me the SNAD cannot apply. If it had been a Buy it Now Auction then different story.

Or am I reading it wrong?

 

[ZedFourM]

The part that isn't being explained is, the buyer "did stuff" to the product. Surely Tom can't be held responsible for that?
i.e. Are we to say that if Tomscott stated which firmware version was in the camera - while is was working, then the buyer wouldn't have a leg to stand on as the buyer has upgraded it - possibly incorrectly?

I'm not sure why you think that the buyer changed the firmware -Tom says above that the buyer said "TherE have been no modifications /firmware updates done to the camera since I received it."?

The problem here is that even if the buyer "did stuff" to the camera, how would you ever prove it? You are in a position of "he said/she said" with the seller and buyer, and past history shows that in this case eBay will (almost) always side with the buyer. Even if Tom paid the Canon service centre to examine the camera and they were willing to put in writing that it had been dropped/drenched/had the wrong battery or firmware installed, how could you prove that the buyer had done this and not the seller? eBay/PayPal have no interest whatsoever in getting involved in disputes like this, so they will just find in favour of the buyer.

It sounds to me as if Tom sent a working camera, the buyer received a working camera, but at some point afterwards it stopped working. Now there could have been a latent fault with the camera before Tom sent it, or it could have been damaged in transit, or the buyer could have abused it, or it could be just one of those things. Regardless, because it broke within 45 days of the sale, eBay/PayPal's rules put the responsibility with the seller. Yes, the seller could take this to Small Claims Court, but unless they can prove that the buyer damaged the camera after receipt, they are very unlikely to win.

Unfortunately, it's not about "right" or "wrong" here, it's about the burden of proof, and also about playing by eBay/PayPal's rules.

 

[ZedFourM]

Just wondering where the buyer stands on this as when the camera arrived, it was as described and fully working so to me the SNAD cannot apply.

The fact that it was working when it arrived is irrelevant to a SNAD dispute. Even if the buyer leaves glowing positive feedback, eBay will not consider that when looking at a dispute.

The problem is that there has to be some point at which the transaction completes. For something as complex as a 7D, when should that be? If it's the day that it arrives, that wouldn't really give the buyer enough time to test it fully. And also what about an item that works OK at first, but which breaks after a few days? For right or wrong, eBay have decided that 45 days is an appropriate time. That's what is in their Terms & Conditions and what you sign up to when you join eBay.

(Imagine if this was an alternate universe, and there was a posting on here from a well respected member which said "I bought a really expensive camera on eBay for a Christmas present. It seemed OK when I got it, but when I next tried to use it a few days later, it just froze and now it won't work at all. What should I do?" What advice would they be given...)

 

[inz4ne]

This is a real eye opener. I have only once sold via email mainly because I was anxious about getting -ve feedback if the buyer didn't like the product or felt I'd described it inaccurately and because i hate the hassle of posting parcels. It feels now that this is a traders marketplace and not for the occasional seller who can't spread the risk. Best of luck Tom - hope you are able to resolve it.

 

[JaEdBa]

(Imagine if this was an alternate universe, and there was a posting on here from a well respected member which said "I bought a really expensive camera on eBay for a Christmas present. It seemed OK when I got it, but when I next tried to use it a few days later, it just froze and now it won't work at all. What should I do?" What advice would they be given...)[/color]

err, tough s**t, the full RRP includes, amongst other things, the cost of the risk to the seller they may have to refund the faulty item. the saving made buying second hand, on e bay or anywhere else, represents, to some extent, the removal of this risk from the seller.

i understand the e bay rules that you have posted here, but nevertheless your last paragraph presents a rather moot point.