Have you been treated unfairly by Ebay or Paypal?

RFW

Crowqueen wrote: »

Buyers are not cash-machines installed on eBay for your pleasure. They are living, breathing human beings with extensive rights and the OFT is on our side.

So true. Unfortunately some amateur sellers wish to retain all the rights they have as a consumer when selling, failing to realise that as soon as you start selling you cease to be a consumer.

Crowqueen

There's one banned seller on the community boards who was trashing his buyers left right and centre while begging for help to be reinstated.

Some people don't learn - and then get upset when their 'livelihood' is taken away from them.

I wonder whether OP is in the same boat.

soolin

I have correspondence from another seller I am 'dealing' with at the moment (on another thread of mine). Her buyers are all difficult, some are even pushy and unpleasant and expect things when they were due. Ebay are nasty thieves, paypal are scum, wholesalers are nasty money grabbing thieves out to fleece genuine sellers- and she can't seem to keep her sales or ebay account on track and wants me to help. She seems unable to see a pattern developing in the way she views other people, she is the centre of the universe , a real 'Princess' and all these other people and organisations are merely out there to upset and offend her.

Hmm, now why am I not surprised she can't sell or retain her ebay account.

nothingventured

I'm not biting Crowqueen. You're wrong and so is RFW. Still can't post links so I'll just quote from the regulations themselves:

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

3.—(1) In these Regulations– ...

“consumer” means any natural person who, in contracts covered by these Regulations, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession;

i.e. non business sellers as well as buyers.

RFW

nothingventured wrote: »

I'm not biting Crowqueen. You're wrong and so is RFW. Still can't post links so I'll just quote from the regulations themselves:

i.e. non business sellers as well as buyers.

Oh dear. If as a private seller you believe you should have the same consumer rights as the person buying from you then you are severely misguided.

You still haven't managed to point to anything in Ebay's terms and conditions that would need looking at.

Presumably you believe you should be able to sell any old tat as a private seller without the buyer being able to complain about it, if the buyer doesn't receive the item and the private seller says they sent it then the buyer would be out of pocket.

Or if I've misunderstood where you're thoughts are, please explain. An example of an Ebay term that you think the OFT should look at would be a start.

nothingventured

If you really think that is the point of my post then I'm disappointed in you RFW. I can only imagine that you have indeed misunderstood.

Ebay's user agreement is long and complex (and actual examples of how its wide drafting has been used in practice would be necessary for the OFT) - hence my post.

I will meet you halfway though - here's your one example:

Restricting funds


To protect against the risk of liability, eBay has at times requested, and may continue to request, that PayPal restrict access to funds in a seller’s PayPal account based on certain factors, including, but not limited to, selling history, seller performance, riskiness of the listing category, or the filing of an eBay Buyer Protection case. This may result in PayPal determining to restrict funds in your PayPal account in order to manage PayPal’s risk exposure pursuant to PayPal policies.

Here, ebay is claiming the right for itself and Paypal to freeze your funds not only for what you've actually done, but also for what you could conceivably do. That is, they can take funds away from sellers without explanation and Paypal can restrict an entire account based solely on ebay's request. Its like your bank freezing your account because someone's spread a malicious rumour about you.

I think any reasonable person would say that is unfair.

A fair clause would be limited to clearly defined categories where a seller has actually done something to warrant the restriction and Paypal should use the same terms and conditions as a proper bank to manage its risk - you don't see banks freezing customers' accounts based on what they might do, do you?

RFW

nothingventured wrote: »

If you really think that is the point of my post then I'm disappointed in you RFW. I can only imagine that you have indeed misunderstood.

Ebay's user agreement is long and complex (and actual examples of how its wide drafting has been used in practice would be necessary for the OFT) - hence my post.

I will meet you halfway though - here's your one example:



Here, ebay is claiming the right for itself and Paypal to freeze your funds not only for what you've actually done, but also for what you could conceivably do. That is, they can take funds away from sellers without explanation and Paypal can restrict an entire account based solely on ebay's request. Its like your bank freezing your account because someone's spread a malicious rumour about you.

I think any reasonable person would say that is unfair.

A fair clause would be limited to clearly defined categories where a seller has actually done something to warrant the restriction and Paypal should use the same terms and conditions as a proper bank to manage its risk - you don't see banks freezing customers' accounts based on what they might do, do you?

Banks do just that. In fact banks will often just close a customer's account without warning. It can be an unfair part of Paypal, it's a matter of their gaff, their rules. If there was only Ebay and Paypal you may have a point as regards the OFT investigating, I know some believe there is only Ebay to sell on and only Paypal to pay through, that is not the case.

Again though the people affected will be sellers, I've never heard of anyone who is solely a buyer who has had their funds held. Paypal would argue that holding funds is to protect the consumer from fraudulent activity.

You seem to want to protect private sellers, the only way of doing that would be at the expense of all buyers, be they honest or dishonest, there is no way of distinguishing. Also any new rules or relaxing of old ones would be exploited by dishonest sellers, so no one would support that.

Do yourself a favour and give it up.

Crowqueen

You know, you can choose to use another site - like eBid for instance. I believe they have a more laissez-faire approach to sellers.

If you want eBay's traffic, however, you can't have it both ways - you either accept their rules as they are, or don't use the site.

shaun_from_Africa

A fair clause would be limited to clearly defined categories where a seller has actually done something to warrant the restriction

Hardly good business sense though is it, waiting for a seller do actually do something that may well cost paypal money before taking any action.

Some of the reasons given for a possible hold or restriction make sense to me (and I sell on ebay and have had funds held in the past).

selling history,
(eg, a seller who has listed 200 items at 1p each then suddenly lists new electronic items for £hundreds).
seller performance,
(Why should paypal have to risk their money with someone who has already shown themselves to be a poor seller with low customer satisfaction ?)
riskiness of the listing category,
(some items are known to be favoured by scammers, and if paypal want to limit their risk in these categories, what's wrong with that?)
or the filing of an eBay Buyer Protection case.
(This is the most obvious reason of all. If a dispute goes in favour of the buyer, paypal want to make sure that the seller hasn't emptied their account)

Paypal are a business and are simply acting in what they consider the best interests of their company.
Their terms and conditions should be read before opening an account, and if someone doesn't like or agree with them, they are not forced to continue.

Brooker_Dave

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Paypal are a business and are simply acting in what they consider the best interests of their company.

So the profits of an American company are far more important than the rights of UK consumers?

So much for money saving...

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Their terms and conditions should be read before opening an account, and if someone doesn't like or agree with them, they are not forced to continue.

Unfair T&Cs are unenfocable T&Cs.

HTH.