Amazon item from Littlewoods-very odd (very.co.uk)

tinkerbell28

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jan/19/amazon-marketplace-purchases-not-covered-consumer-credit-act

A recent guardian article.

With FOS confirmation.

timbstoke

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

That'll be why, the fos say this then

In some cases we see, the consumer has bought online, using a credit card on a website that uses a secure third-party payment system to process credit card payments.

Section 75 may not always apply to transactions made this way, because this payment mechanism can break the chain of arrangements that must be in place between the consumer, the lender and the supplier.

But there are many different types of payment mechanisms used on suppliers’ websites and not all of them prevent section 75 from applying. Where there is a dispute on this point, we look at the specific payment mechanism used and decide whether section 75 applies in the particular case.

Which also say amazon marketplace purchases are not covered. Which would suggest some people have tried and lost a s75 claim possibly due to the above.

So op, do all you can, it's easy for people to say, xyz, it's not their cash.

Thanks, I hadn't seen that. Presumably the stance is that you pay Amazon and Amazon pay the seller which breaks the chain, which seems very wrong to me.

As it stands, S75 shouldn't be relevant anyway, since the OP has been supplied with the goods they paid for. Any concerns further down the supply chain are between the seller and their creditors.

wealdroam

timbstoke wrote: »

As it stands, S75 shouldn't be relevant anyway, since the OP has been supplied with the goods they paid for. Any concerns further down the supply chain are between the seller and their creditors.

Yes, I agree.
I only raised the possibility that S75 be considered if the OP ever found themselves without laptop and money.

Seems it may not work even then.

tinkerbell28

So we come back full circle. IF this is fraud, the laptop will be stolen goods, therefore they *could* be seized at some point in the future.

Therefore op needs to do all she can now, to get a refund under a-z if that is the case.

timbstoke

The laptop will NOT be stolen goods. No theft took place. The laptop may have been obtained fraudulently somewhere down the line, but it wasn't stolen. The important difference is that there is no such crime as Handling Fraudulently Obtained Goods, nor can such goods be seized from an innocent third party who bought them in good faith.

The laptop was purchased using an unsecured credit account (Littlewoods) belonging to someone who is not the OP. Therefore, there is no financial link between the money Littlewoods are owed and the laptop, or the OP.

Right now, OP has paid for, and received, the laptop. If this is a fly-by-night scam business that plans to close down and reopen under a new name to avoid their debts, that's a pretty good outcome for OP, and one which I wouldn't particularly fancy gambling on happenning again. At this point, I'd be considering the sale complete, and make sure that any warranty issues are dealt with directly with the manufacturer rather than the seller.

bagginslover

I have now drafted an email which I will send to both Amazon and Littlewoods tomorrow (need a few details from Mum first), we'll also go to the police station tomorrow and show them everything. I'd rather do too much and cover our butts, than do not enough and end up out of cash and in court.

Cornucopia

I agree with Timbstoke - there is no come-back for the OP, here.

There is definitely no potential criminal offence (for the OP), even if the laptop was acquired through fraud on the part of the seller.

Could Littlewoods subsequently ask for the laptop back? Maybe. It's not clear that there would be any obligation upon the OP to comply, especially if it would risk them being out of pocket.

tinkerbell28

timbstoke wrote: »

The laptop will NOT be stolen goods. No theft took place. The laptop may have been obtained fraudulently somewhere down the line, but it wasn't stolen. The important difference is that there is no such crime as Handling Fraudulently Obtained Goods, nor can such goods be seized from an innocent third party who bought them in good faith.

The laptop was purchased using an unsecured credit account (Littlewoods) belonging to someone who is not the OP. Therefore, there is no financial link between the money Littlewoods are owed and the laptop, or the OP.

Right now, OP has paid for, and received, the laptop. If this is a fly-by-night scam business that plans to close down and reopen under a new name to avoid their debts, that's a pretty good outcome for OP, and one which I wouldn't particularly fancy gambling on happenning again. At this point, I'd be considering the sale complete, and make sure that any warranty issues are dealt with directly with the manufacturer rather than the seller.

Under the theft act, stolen goods are not just goods which have been physically burgled. It also covers property obtained by fraud and blackmail. So yes they would be stolen goods. Yes they could be seized worst case. Or best case Sony blacklist the item as stolen when informed and the warranty is voided.

Anything else?

You're doing the right thing op. You need to cover yourself as you don't have s75. You don't want to end up with no laptop and no cash or a brick.

Brooker_Dave

earthstorm wrote: »

No. If it was droppshipping, their would be no invoice included although their maybe a packing note but without any company details on unless you have paid the dropshipper to include paperwork in your name either way you would not know where it was actually delivered from

People used to sell CDs and DVDs on Amazon and have them shipped by HMV, there was a thread on here moaning about it.

Brooker_Dave

Given the hoops people have to go through:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4062047

How did someone from Italy using a UK address get a credit account??