Ebay seller arrested after item reported 'lost'

Nan_Dingle

Student is quizzed for eight hours by police and charged with fraud after headphones he sold on eBay for £140 got lost in the post

'The person who bought the headphones wanted them sending the cheapest way so we agreed to send them by normal post, rather than registered delivery or courier.

Whoops! School-boy error, right there!:D

martindow

This story is in the Mail so likely to be rather different from the truth, but if the account of the police asking him to make a refund and him refusing is accurate, he was asking for trouble.

gildius

Wow! What a silly mistake to make.

Alias_Omega

Nan_Dingle wrote: »

Student is quizzed for eight hours by police and charged with fraud after headphones he sold on eBay for £140 got lost in the post

'The person who bought the headphones wanted them sending the cheapest way so we agreed to send them by normal post, rather than registered delivery or courier.

Whoops! School-boy error, right there!:D

Why not? Why pay extra for postage, when it benefits the seller.

If you pay via PayPal, the seller has to ensure that the item is sent via a trackable method.

I dont care if you send my iPod 5 via 2nd class on horseback. If it goes missing, or does not arrived. I will reclaim my cash back via Paypal as the seller is to ensure its tracked.

The special delivery thing is for the seller, not for the buyer & why pay more..

Alias_Omega

martindow wrote: »

This story is in the Mail so likely to be rather different from the truth, but if the account of the police asking him to make a refund and him refusing is accurate, he was asking for trouble.

I would be funny if the seller was paid via PayPal (eBay's default payment option), then asked the buyer to pay extra. I would of course refuse to pay extra, and ask for them to be sent at the cheaper option.

Now, imagine if the item arrives 2nd class as they were sent. The seller cannot prove that they did arrive, and the buy can say they did not. Buyer receives a INR refund through PayPal dispute.

Then the seller goes on to recover the costs from the Royal Mail, but its only cover up to £46? in value when the item was worth £150.

So, all the sellers fault. Should have removed the cheaper option and used the RM option that cover the item for the right payment method & for the right insurance value.

RainbowDrops

Honestly, till I read this forum, I would have made the same mistake as this seller in terms of thinking it was upto the buyer to pay extra for Special Delivery. Although I'd like to think for such a high value item I would apply some logic.
I now know that it's for the sellers benefit, not the buyers.

Contains_Mild_Peril

martindow wrote: »

This story is in the Mail so likely to be rather different from the truth, but if the account of the police asking him to make a refund and him refusing is accurate, he was asking for trouble.

As I read it, it seems more as though his problem was that the police were trying to make him "admit" that he hadn't sent the item. It's not at all clear from the article whether or not he was at that point willing and able to refund while still maintaining that he had posted the item. In fact, not much about the story makes sense. Why would the buyer have refused offers of a refund? Did the seller specify a timescale for the refund he claims he offered? If communications were made via eBay (or even off-eBay via e-mail), surely records would exist? Did the buyer not use PayPal? If they did, why not pursue the matter via PayPal? Or did they buy an expensive item from a private seller using a less safe payment method? Why was the seller apparently unable to produce evidence if he did post the headphones? Did he lose his POP/ receipt or fail to obtain any in the first place? If the latter, why didn't the PO offer them anyway? Did the cashier not ask if the package contained any valuables? (They usually do at my local PO). And why didn't the journalist make any attempt to clarify any of these points? Oh wait, now I remember - it's the Daily Fail.

RHemmings

I haven't read the details of the case and we're going out now.

But I'd just like to say that I'm pleased that the police seem to be taking ebay fraud seriously. I've read too many reports of police simply not being interested.

(Unless the police have got this one seriously wrong).

halibut2209

martindow wrote: »

This story is in the Mail so likely to be rather different from the truth, but if the account of the police asking him to make a refund and him refusing is accurate, he was asking for trouble.

I read it as he refused to "admit what he had done". Article states he offered a refund several times and the buyer refused.

soolin

RHemmings wrote: »

I haven't read the details of the case and we're going out now.

But I'd just like to say that I'm pleased that the police seem to be taking ebay fraud seriously. I've read too many reports of police simply not being interested.

(Unless the police have got this one seriously wrong).

In a nutshell, seller was persuaded by buyer to send untracked as cheaper postage option. Buyer reports item not received so seller offers a refund, buyer declines refund and reports seller to the Police for fraud.

sigh, I am soo pleased the Police felt the need to intervene with this- I would so hate for them to have to spend time sorting out the drug problem we have locally where street dealing can sometimes be seen within 50 yards of a junior school.

soolin

from the article:

The customer later told him they had not arrived and Mr Quayum, who is studying at St George's, University of London, offered a refund 'three or four times', on the understanding that he would be able to claim the value of the lost item back from Royal Mail himself.

and then

He did not, however, alert the Royal Mail. The buyer refused to accept the offer and two months later two police officers arrived at Mr Quayum's family home in Littleover, Derby, where he was revising for exams.
He said they urged him to 'admit what you have done' and that the matter could be resolved by paying back the buyer. Mr Quayum refused and was charged with fraud. His bank statements were seized along with his phone and computer.