They can't make their own laws!

Sanddseries

Techbid / i-bidder on-line auction - Court case success!
It’s great to report a success story concerning an issue that may affect a lot of readers.
I was tempted to bid in an online auction – hosted by i-bidder from a company called Techbid. The auction was for used audio/visual equipment and I needed an audio mixer. There was one offered for auction so I went through the process of first registering with i-bidder. It drew my attention to the terms and conditions, which I read on a separate web page – fairly standard. The on-line auction was ‘taking place’ in London – 300 miles from where I live and although Techbid say that you can inspect the items, you must ask to do so in writing and you only have 7 days before the start of the auction to do so. I decided not to try to inspect the item as the item I intended bidding on had a reserve price and the company seemed reputable, the item was worth less than £100, and anyway, I have my consumer rights don’t I?
Now to cut a long story short, I bid and won, paid the auction charge and shipping, got the item, tried it out and it didn’t work. I explained and complained and was arrogantly referred to Techbid’s T&C’s which I didn’t know about and which were not made clearly available beforehand. Their T&C’s say; ‘absolutely no refunds … can’t guarantee the items are of merchantable quality … if they don’t work that’s your problem’ … etc.
I knew that as a consumer this must be wrong, so I took them to the Small Claims Court. No one from Techbid showed up and the Judge actually laughed at one point saying that he couldn’t believe that these people think they can make up their own rules! Under the Sale of Goods Legislation Act and the laws regarding distance selling the goods should have been of merchantable quality or declared not to be. He ordered them to pay me my money back and costs. Incidentally all of their sales are therefore not legal under their terms of contract – none of their contracts are legal and binding.
Techbid have not yet changed their T&C’s.

moonrakerz

Don't claim success until you actually get your money back !

These firms aren't stupid when they do this sort of thing, they know what they are doing.

fluffnutter

moonrakerz wrote: »

Don't claim success until you actually get your money back !

These firms aren't stupid when they do this sort of thing, they know what they are doing.

Absolutely. They're prepared to lose the odd case like this (and who knows? they might even give you your money back) because they still save loads of money due to most people either not being clued up about consumer law or not being bothered enough to challenge them.

They know exactly what they're doing. But well done you, Sanddseries. Let's hope you get your money back

DVardysShadow

Yes, nice one. Just to highlight a point, if anyone else bumps up against the same, as I see it, the T&C's which apply are the i-bidder T&C's. The Techbid T&C's count for zilch.

paddyrg

I have bought via techbid in the past. They are very much more for B2B transactions, so I'm surprised the judge found for you as B2B transactions are of course not covered by consumer regs. Your item was sold as untested, so how would they know if it worked or not? And they work on behalf of the vendors for bulk clearence, they are not the vendor themselves. Plus the usual deal for auctions is Caveat Emptor.

In honesty, I'm surprised you got the judgement - if they had contested it I have a strong hunch it would have gone the other way.

bris

You mention distance selling but auction sales are not covered under DSR.
The company would have spent much more defending the claim than paying it, so this is why you got any easy win. If it was viable for them to contest it, it could very easily have been a different outcome.

Oliver14

I'll be amazed if you get your money. What are you going to do if they don't pay?

Why would anyone in their right mind bid on an auction online without doing something basic like checking the terms and conditions and checking the compnay out.

BargainGalore

I wouldn't claim victory until you get your money back, if they dont pay you may incur more costs etc

Maybe complain to trading standards about them and or office of fair trading

vax2002

Most of the equipment is faulty, where do you think they get it from, someone paid £1400 for a sony z1, it even had a bbc tech department sticker on the case saying "scrap repair uneconomical"
The internet has turned on-line auctions in to a sellers market, where before you had maybe a dozen specialist buyers in a hall who knew the true value of used broadcast equipment you have a few thousand idiots online who will gladly pay full retail price for a pile of second hand junk.
If ever there was a business to get in to it is on-line auction selling.

shaun_from_Africa

paddyrg wrote: »

I have bought via techbid in the past. They are very much more for B2B transactions, so I'm surprised the judge found for you as B2B transactions are of course not covered by consumer regs. Your item was sold as untested, so how would they know if it worked or not? And they work on behalf of the vendors for bulk clearence, they are not the vendor themselves. Plus the usual deal for auctions is Caveat Emptor.

In honesty, I'm surprised you got the judgement - if they had contested it I have a strong hunch it would have gone the other way.

It makes no difference if i-bidder is mainly for B2B transactions.
If a consumer is allowed to register and bid then unless the purchase is for business purposes it is a B2C transaction and all the relevant consumer protection applies.

Rhods

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

It makes no difference if i-bidder is mainly for B2B transactions.
If a consumer is allowed to register and bid then unless the purchase is for business purposes it is a B2C transaction and all the relevant consumer protection applies.

Absolutely. If the site actively got customers to confirm that they were purchasing the items in the course of a business then this would get them out of this problem.