Online Auctions; Are they really safe are Trading Standards really doing their job?

SuedeHead69

I wonder what the real figures are when it comes to consumers in the U.K. who have been subjected to online auction fraud & shill bidding only to be left with a largely unjustifiable bill?

There has only ever been one case in the UK when Trading Standards have properly investigated an individual fraudster that has been brought to justice which really does not tally with the feedback & complaints from individuals who either suspect they have possibly fallen victim to this scam or who cannot even get the matter thoroughly investigated when complains are officially made.

RFW

I don't quite understand the title and the poll, surely there are far more scams with many more victims than shill bidding.

I'm not defending shill bidding but it doesn't (or shouldn't) force anyone to pay any more than they would be bidding.

Other scams get listed on these pages pretty much every day, most people who mention shill bidding mention it after it has put them off from buying, whilst it may happen it isn't a big deal and I certainly wouldn't want Trading Standards wasting their time on that when they could be investigating frauds, fakes, dangerous items, etc, etc.

porto_bello

I've seen some pretty obvious shill bidding going on, which has a feedback trail going back years - literally years! But what has shocked me most has been eBay's standard claim that it was some huge 'coincidence'.

On the basis that obvious cases of shill bidding are happening on a daily basis, eBay will always turn a blind eye and the chances of ending up in court are almost nil, I think shill bidding is a much bigger problem than is realised.

Shill bidding is illegal. Regrettably Trading Standards will have to enforce the law, as eBay is more interested in taking 10% of the shill bidders' sale prices. Until that happens, we can minimise the risk of the seller forcing up the price, by using an auction sniper or manually placing bids in the last few seonds, just before the auction closes.

soolin

Yes I've been the subject of a 'dodgy' bid, but at a real bricks and mortar auction and i was quite shocked. I go to lots of real auctions and had never seen any problems at all, then I tried a new house and it was blatant. The auctioneer even got 'called' on it by a bidder at one point who asked him to indicate where the bids he was taking were coming from.

RFW

porto_bello wrote: »

Shill bidding is illegal. Regrettably Trading Standards will have to enforce the law, as eBay is more interested in taking 10% of the shill bidders' sale prices. Until that happens, we can minimise the risk of the seller forcing up the price, by using an auction sniper or manually placing bids in the last few seonds, just before the auction closes.

On the case that was prosecuted Ebay provided all the evidence, they also act when they see it themselves. I have had experience of them removing shill bidders from selling, it may not always look as though they are doing anything and I'm sure that occasionally it passes them by, an odd occasion could be impossible to prove.

As for live auction shill bidding, it happens far more than people realise, having been an auctioneer it's usually pretty easy for me to tell, it isn't always the case that the auctioneer is doing it to boost the price, more commonly to reach a reserve, I've occasionally seen it happen on some of the TV antique auctions, have been surprised that any auctioneer would have it happen on TV.

Having said that if you check almost any auctioneer's conditions of sale they will include the term "the auctioneer reserves the right to bid on behalf of the vendor", that covers a multitude of sins. I think I may have posted on here before that car auctions are pretty bad at this with less than 20% of the vehicles being sold it is mostly the auctioneer bidding against the wall.

I'd be surprised if any auctioneer hadn't done it at some point.

I still don't get why this would be considered a big problem or a serious scam on Ebay, at worst a buyer would pay their maximum bid which they have freely entered at best it will cost the seller 10% of the fee they have bought their own stock for.

techspec

The shill bidder i reported was daft enough to give his shilling accounts feedback.

One had a feedback of 40 - all but one from him. This included buying the same car 3 times.

Ebay were not interested in the slightest - and a year on he was still at it.

RFW

techspec wrote: »

The shill bidder i reported was daft enough to give his shilling accounts feedback.

One had a feedback of 40 - all but one from him. This included buying the same car 3 times.

Ebay were not interested in the slightest - and a year on he was still at it.

If Trading Standards are going to prosecute they would need to gather evidence, which would mean having to leave guilty parties committing the crime to be caught. I know from a couple of sellers who were tax evading that their accounts were kept live for that very reason.

SuedeHead69

Take for example an online auction item with a bidding start price £10.00

You put on a proxy of £150.00 During the auction the seller gets three friends to illegally shill bid up the price because nobody else is interested.

It sells for £145.00 fine, you have won your item, but why would you want to pay £!45.00 when the starting price was ten - the remainder made up of illegal bids?

Sniping at the last minute is what they want you to do.

So, when this is reported not only to the online auction site, but also to trading standards why is this problem still ignored.

It is a crime - end of ;(

Porto Bello is right when he said I think shill bidding is a much bigger problem than is realised....Shill bidding is illegal. Regrettably Trading Standards will have to enforce the law

At the moment they arent. how many complaints do they really need?

RFW

SuedeHead69 wrote: »

At the moment they arent. how many complaints do they really need?

How many have they had? I suspect not many, I've never heard anyone on here or elsewhere saying they have reported shill bidding to Trading Standards.

Are you really saying that there are numerous occasions when an item worth £150 could be bought for £10 if it wasn't for shill bidding? That is not the case. Shill bidding is exceptionally difficult to prove, I will ask again is that really the area you want Trading Standards spending their efforts, as opposed to fakes and other frauds?

SuedeHead69

RFW wrote: »

Are you really saying that there are numerous occasions when an item worth £150 could be bought for £10 if it wasn't for shill bidding? That is not the case.

But that is precisely the case if shill bidding is happening.

What proof is there that it is not? We only have Ebay's word for it.

Oliver14

SuedeHead69 wrote: »

Take for example an online auction item with a bidding start price £10.00

You put on a proxy of £150.00 During the auction the seller gets three friends to illegally shill bid up the price because nobody else is interested.

It sells for £145.00 fine, you have won your item, but why would you want to pay £!45.00 when the starting price was ten - the remainder made up of illegal bids?

Sniping at the last minute is what they want you to do.

So, when this is reported not only to the online auction site, but also to trading standards why is this problem still ignored.

It is a crime - end of ;(

Porto Bello is right when he said I think shill bidding is a much bigger problem than is realised....Shill bidding is illegal. Regrettably Trading Standards will have to enforce the law

At the moment they arent. how many complaints do they really need?

Where is your proof that shill bidding is as big as your implying. You need proper evidence not just speculation and a feeling.

Without proper statistics and proof you will get no where. IMO most people who complain about shill bidding are just peeved because they never got the bargain they thought they had. In my ten years plus on ebay I've only ever seen a couple of cases of shilling. Anything else is just speculation.

Just because it's impossible to tell how much goes on doesn't mean it's common. It could just as easy be non existent as the lack of evidence doesn't prove something is happening.