VISA Chargeback - send item back to China at whose cost?

Crabman

meer53 wrote: »

I wouldn't bother trying to report the seller, let your card issuer raise the chargeback, send the goods back the cheapest way you can. But beware, if it's just the quality of the goods you're disputing, they probably won't take it on, quality of goods is not covered by any chargeback right. Not as described might not work either, if you ordered an in car camera and thats what you received, there is no dispute.
It's a risk you take ordering stuff like that from Ebay. How much was it ? If the actual camera was less than £100 you won't be able to make a Section 75 claim.

I'm waiting to hear back from the card issuer at the moment, the item cost £25. Yes, it is a risk and that's why I will be paying a little more in future and avoiding eBay sellers - clearly eBay's loyalties lie with the sellers as they provide their income.

The card company have already accepted that it isn't as described. There were specific claims made about the resolution and image dimension as well as the "HD" quality of video recordings. Additionally the battery life is about 15 seconds, not the 1 hour quoted. They accepted that the item was not as described.

MyOnlyPost

Crabman wrote: »

I'm waiting to hear back from the card issuer at the moment, the item cost £25. Yes, it is a risk and that's why I will be paying a little more in future and avoiding eBay sellers - clearly eBay's loyalties lie with the sellers as they provide their income.

I appreciate you have been hard done by but nothing could be further from the truth. eBay routinely favour the buyer as any seller on here can attest to and often in a manner which may be unlawful.

What has happened here to you could just as easily have happened had you bought off any e-commerce site. It is common practice to have to return an item for a refund / chargeback claim. Therefore rather than avoiding eBay sellers you may want to consider avoiding buying on line if that is how you feel.

My sympathies with regard to the situation you have found yourself in put please apportion blame where it is deserved, with the individual seller and not all eBay sellers.

Crabman

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

I appreciate you have been hard done by but nothing could be further from the truth. eBay routinely favour the buyer as any seller on here can attest to and often in a manner which may be unlawful.

Thanks for replying, I hope you appreciate that my views are formed as a direct result of my experience. Which in this case is eBay telling me that although British legislation allows a 6 year limitation period, they do not respect British law and instead impose a 45 day limit.

With regard to your comments, does that mean when a dispute is opened (assuming the buyer doesn't blindly trust the seller and run out of time, as I did) eBay will favour the buyer?

Does the buyer still have to return the item to the seller, at their (buyer's) own cost? Or do eBay insist the seller pays for return carriage where Supply of Goods & Services/Sale of Goods Acts are breached?

MyOnlyPost

Crabman wrote: »

Thanks for replying, I hope you appreciate that my views are formed as a direct result of my experience. Which in this case is eBay telling me that although British legislation allows a 6 year limitation period, they do not respect British law and instead impose a 45 day limit.

Yes we are all governed by our personal experience, regardless of what experience others may have had.

Crabman wrote: »

With regard to your comments, does that mean when a dispute is opened (assuming the buyer doesn't blindly trust the seller and run out of time, as I did) eBay will favour the buyer?

There is an abundance of cases where a buyer has claimed an item is not as described, or is faulty when clearly it was a false claim. So long as the buyer has returned it to the seller and can prove it with tracking Paypal will almost invariably give the buyer a refund, taking the money from the seller. Firstly outside the 7 day period laid out by the distance selling regulations the buyer does not have an unconditional right of return and secondly a payment broker does not have a legal right to refund on your behalf. Paypal regularly act contrary to UK law on the buyers behalf.

Crabman wrote: »

Does the buyer still have to return the item to the seller, at their (buyer's) own cost? Or do eBay insist the seller pays for return carriage where Supply of Goods & Services/Sale of Goods Acts are breached?

This is much trickier. eBay are not in a position to decide whether the sales of goods act has been breached, this is a job for the courts. Every case must be looked at on it's own merits.

The distance selling regulations state that a business must make available at the point of sale information with regard to who pays for a return in the event that a return is needed. If that information was not available to the buyer then the seller is responsible for the return. This sounds good on paper but again can only be enforced in the courts and not by eBay. Most companies act within and even go futher than required by the DSR's for the sake of reputation.

For me the biggest obstacle with your case is that the argument is subjective. You have received what you paid for, albeit you are not happy with the quality. Therefore any dispute needs to be looked at by an impartial witness, which eBay are not set up to deal with. The seller has expertly pushed the time frame to make the chargeback option unavailable to you which is deceitful, but again they kept in contact with you through the process and on the face of it have done nothing contrary to eBay / Paypals T&C. The real problem has arisen because the seller had a better understanding of the dispute process, which they have used against you.

Crabman

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

For me the biggest obstacle with your case is that the argument is subjective. You have received what you paid for, albeit you are not happy with the quality.

Sorry, this is wrong. I have proof that the camera is not as described. Yes, this also comes under the heading of quality but there are black and white differences between what was described and what was actually sent. The seller has even accepted that the video sample I emailed them was not HD and was of an inferior resolution. There is no dispute that the items are not as described.

I'm not seeing the issue regarding buyers sending an item back to the seller (at the buyer's cost) and then obtaining a refund. What do you think should happen instead?

I'd suggest that where proof is supplied from an independent party that the buyer is correct about not as described goods (for example) that the seller should be forced to pay the return postage costs as well as the costs involved in obtaining the independent report. This sounds perfectly fair. Unfortunately the British Courts do not have jurisdiction in China so this sort of policy from eBay would be a welcome step forward in terms of improving buyers' protection.

I would expect that this seller's account be suspended until he resolves my issue. Why should he be allowed to continue selling to others when he has demonstrated complete contempt for his customers?

bris

Did you really expect to get an HD camera for £25?

Crabman

bris wrote: »

Did you really expect to get an HD camera for £25?

I expected to receive an item that was in accordance with the seller's description and my rights under the Supply of Goods and Services Act.

MyOnlyPost

Crabman wrote: »

I'm not seeing the issue regarding buyers sending an item back to the seller (at the buyer's cost) and then obtaining a refund. What do you think should happen instead?

I'd suggest that where proof is supplied from an independent party that the buyer is correct about not as described goods (for example) that the seller should be forced to pay the return postage costs as well as the costs involved in obtaining the independent report. This sounds perfectly fair. Unfortunately the British Courts do not have jurisdiction in China so this sort of policy from eBay would be a welcome step forward in terms of improving buyers' protection.

Because the internet does not fall under any one jurisdiction how could eBay enforce such a policy? As already said the only way to force a seller to pay for return postage would be through court. Even if the seller were in the UK, would this be worth while?

There is buyer protection in place. Unfortunately you were unaware of it until it was too late. That however is not the fault of eBay or Paypal as it forms part of their T&C which you agree to when setting up an account. They are entitled to assume you know their policy as they ask you to read it before completing the sign up.

Crabman

Yes, there is buyer protection in place, but as I have demonstrated, it is severely lacking. I'm not entirely sure what your point about a single jurisdiction is - they could easily enforce such a policy by threatening to suspend a seller's account until they resolve matters.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is and continues to be eBay's fault - I did try to open a dispute at the beginning of this saga, but their site pushed things towards direct contact with the seller without explaining that a dispute was not actually being opened.

As far as I was aware, the seller was cooperating and eBay, despite being aware that there was an issue, did not bother to send an automated email reminding that the 45 day limit was expiring. Who created the 45 day limit? What happens where goods develop a fault after 45 days?

eBay manage to send automated email notifications when a watched item is ending (which inevitably increases the final price... which means more % commission for eBay) so there is no feasible reason they could not do so in cases where a seller drags out communication.

MyOnlyPost

Crabman wrote: »

Yes, there is buyer protection in place, but as I have demonstrated, it is severely lacking. I'm not entirely sure what your point about a single jurisdiction is - they could easily enforce such a policy by threatening to suspend a seller's account until they resolve matters.

Under which country's laws do you decide to suspend an account? The seller is in China who may have completely different laws to us and eBay may fall foul of that law if they suspend his account. You are talking about stopping people making a living, this cannot be done lightly as all kinds of legal challenges could arise.

Crabman wrote: »

For the avoidance of doubt, this is and continues to be eBay's fault - I did try to open a dispute at the beginning of this saga, but their site pushed things towards direct contact with the seller without explaining that a dispute was not actually being opened.

You cannot blame eBay because you didn't open a dispute properly. Whether their site is clear about the process is a matter for debate, but in law you cannot plead ignorance of the facts as a defence.

Crabman wrote: »

As far as I was aware, the seller was cooperating and eBay, despite being aware that there was an issue, did not bother to send an automated email reminding that the 45 day limit was expiring. Who created the 45 day limit? What happens where goods develop a fault after 45 days?

eBay manage to send automated email notifications when a watched item is ending (which inevitably increases the final price... which means more % commission for eBay) so there is no feasible reason they could not do so in cases where a seller drags out communication.

Goods which develop a fault after 45 days are covered by manufacturing warranty / guarantee. The 45 day period does not relate to the functionality or worthiness of the product. It is a time in which you can raise a dispute for items not received or not as described. Were you aware that the item was not as described within the 45 day limit? If so then you had a chance to open a dispute as per the guidelines. Paypal 45 day rule does not affect your statutory rights, it is simply a time limit after which it is no longer their problem. Credit cards have time limits too, usually 6 months so what happens if you have a problem after 7 months?

I have no idea why you want to argue these points. If you feel aggrieved then your course of action is a legal one against the supplier. eBay is a market place, not a supplier. They do not have the legal knowledge or judiciary power to do what you are suggesting. Expecting eBay to police these matters and enforce the law is no different to expecting a shopping centre to ensure all the shops within it abide by the law.

If you bought something from Argos in you nearest shopping centre and had a problem who would you take it up with? This is no different except it happens in a virtual shopping centre