Distance Selling Regulations and Ebay!

Knowyourrightsandusethem

I've actually taken to using Google for online shopping more and more. Not because of any of my 'reservations' about EBay that are subject of my posting. - I find that if I 'Google' an item that I am interested in buying, reviews and all sorts of other web pages come up that I wouldn't have seen if I had gone straight to EBay. - If I haven't been 'warned off' by a review of the item, I'll the hit the Google 'Shopping Tab.' - More and more often I am finding that items that I want are being offered cheaper including P&P elsewhere other than EBay. With more and more people accepting PayPal there is still the reassurance of assistance to get your money back if things go wrong. - I appreciate that Credit Cards are as liable as the seller if things go wrong, so will help you get a refund anyway, but the phone calls, form filling and delays involved are nowhere near as convenient as filling in a dispute on PayPal.

Knowyourrightsandusethem

ballisticbrian wrote: »

To me though, the law is there to protect in cases when you really need it often when big deals go badly wrong, and people being pedantic about 99p to return an item, are really as bad as people that take something back to a high street shop, complain and then say they want the £1.50 car park ticket and 75p for the petrol it cost to take the item back.

This is a great example of one of my reasons for my post in the first place and why I believe that EBay (and any other similar sites for that matter) should be forced to make consumers' rights easier to find and understand and then 'really support' those customers that have problems.

What might appear to be 'somebody being pedantic over 99p' might be a big issue to somebody if they can't afford to lose 99p. (Why do such people buy cheap in the first place?) One of my main points is that undoubtedly some unscrupulous EBay traders take advantage of those who don't know their rights and know that EBay will advise the buyer to return items at their own expense. If the cost of sending the item back (by a recorded method) is more than the item cost in the first place, it's obvious that those who don't know their rights will not bother. - Why should those people be out of pocket, even if it only for 99p, whilst unscrupulous traders, sell 'cheap tat' or skimp on adequate protective packaging, knowing damn well what they are doing and likely to get away with it most of the time? Any trader that way inclined is not likely to admit that they received the item back unless it was returned by a 'recorded method' despite the fact that they probably sent it out by the cheapest means possible in the first place! To one person it might only be 99p, but to a 'scam artist' sending out 'cheap tat,' damaged goods, or goods that are not as described every day and refusing to pay the cost of returns, those 99p's can amount to being enough to live off and why should they get away with it? :mad:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Knowyourrightsandusethem wrote: »

This is a great example of one of my reasons for my post in the first place and why I believe that EBay (and any other similar sites for that matter) should be forced to make consumers' rights easier to find and understand and then 'really support' those customers that have problems.

What might appear to be 'somebody being pedantic over 99p' might be a big issue to somebody if they can't afford to lose 99p. (Why do such people buy cheap in the first place?) One of my main points is that undoubtedly some unscrupulous EBay traders take advantage of those who don't know their rights and know that EBay will advise the buyer to return items at their own expense. If the cost of sending the item back (by a recorded method) is more than the item cost in the first place, it's obvious that those who don't know their rights will not bother. - Why should those people be out of pocket, even if it only for 99p, whilst unscrupulous traders, sell 'cheap tat' or skimp on adequate protective packaging, knowing damn well what they are doing and likely to get away with it most of the time? Any trader that way inclined is not likely to admit that they received the item back unless it was returned by a 'recorded method' despite the fact that they probably sent it out by the cheapest means possible in the first place! To one person it might only be 99p, but to a 'scam artist' sending out 'cheap tat,' damaged goods, or goods that are not as described every day and refusing to pay the cost of returns, those 99p's can amount to being enough to live off and why should they get away with it? :mad:

This thinking applies to everything, DFS doesn't have signs up informing consumers of their rights not to mislead by false pricing promotions.

soolin

Knowyourrightsandusethem wrote: »

This is a great example of one of my reasons for my post in the first place and why I believe that EBay (and any other similar sites for that matter) should be forced to make consumers' rights easier to find and understand and then 'really support' those customers that have problems.

What might appear to be 'somebody being pedantic over 99p' might be a big issue to somebody if they can't afford to lose 99p. (Why do such people buy cheap in the first place?) One of my main points is that undoubtedly some unscrupulous EBay traders take advantage of those who don't know their rights and know that EBay will advise the buyer to return items at their own expense. If the cost of sending the item back (by a recorded method) is more than the item cost in the first place, it's obvious that those who don't know their rights will not bother. - Why should those people be out of pocket, even if it only for 99p, whilst unscrupulous traders, sell 'cheap tat' or skimp on adequate protective packaging, knowing damn well what they are doing and likely to get away with it most of the time? Any trader that way inclined is not likely to admit that they received the item back unless it was returned by a 'recorded method' despite the fact that they probably sent it out by the cheapest means possible in the first place! To one person it might only be 99p, but to a 'scam artist' sending out 'cheap tat,' damaged goods, or goods that are not as described every day and refusing to pay the cost of returns, those 99p's can amount to being enough to live off and why should they get away with it? :mad:

it is an unreasonable assumption that a scammer could make a living out of shipping faulty 99p items, if you believe that then it really does make one question the rest of your points.

For a start haven't you forgotten that on ebay the buyer can leave feedback and stars, or are you suggesting that a buyer seeing a seller with nothing but a row of red feedback will happily continue to buy? If so doesn't that suggest something about the type fof buyer who needs protecting against themselves?

RFW

ballisticbrian wrote: »

To me though, the law is there to protect in cases when you really need it often when big deals go badly wrong, and people being pedantic about 99p to return an item, are really as bad as people that take something back to a high street shop, complain and then say they want the £1.50 car park ticket and 75p for the petrol it cost to take the item back. You'll never get it in the high street.

There's no difference in the law as far as returning a faulty item by mail order or in a high street store. The sale of goods act covers both and in the instance you mention the consumer is entitled to get back their travel expenses as well as refund. No buyer of a faulty item should be in a worse financial position after returning it than before they bought it.
I wonder how many people buying on the high street are aware of that part of the law? I've never been in a shop that mentioned it.

ballisticbrian

Although I've already stated my case, and don't really have much to add to it about that, I do think the internet phenomenon has put massive downward pressure on prices and margins of small widgets. I don't think it has really done consumers much good in many cases.
It seems in many categories, the only way sellers can make sales is by being the cheapest (price is king) and the internet's ability to crunch numbers and sort by price, is the ultimate tool for finding the cheapest.
Compare this to say walking through a physical market and touching, feeling goods for quality and walking randomly through a large market place looking at prices.
I'm sure we've all had rubbish tat from the cheaper end of the range, but we all still do it. And ended up with a miniature bottle we thought was bigger, plants delivered in a paper envelope that's clearly been flattened, cheaper versions of product to usual, laptop power supply not tested to UK standards, wires not shielded, bulbs that blow after 30 mins, fishing line that isn't what it says it is.
As the internet evolves I believe we need to reinvent branding for small sellers and have a way of sorting goods, by quality or quality of seller instead of just by price.

theonlywayisup

RFW wrote: »

I wonder how many people buying on the high street are aware of that part of the law? I've never been in a shop that mentioned it.

A bigger issue than I thought. :shocked:

RFW

Knowyourrightsandusethem wrote: »

OK perhaps 'Monolopy' is not exactly the correct term to use if we want to be pedantic instead of 'generalising', in which case I apologise again most profusely once again to anybody considering the forum to be an 'on line higher education for the English language' as opposed to a place for 'chat'. And again, I would like to highlight in the clearest terms possible if indeed I wasn't exactly throrough in my choice of words;) (Being new to the forum could anybody please point me in the direction of the appropriate section of the forum for apologies and admissions of failure a guilt )

Knowyourrightsandusethem wrote: »

This comes to me as no surprise whatsoever. My own (fortunately rare) experiences of being on the end of poor EBay policies have been that they really don't give a toss (and why would they- they have built a very successful monopoly.)

I'm still wondering what the word was you meant to use? Business? Brand? Company? House?

Knowyourrightsandusethem

soolin wrote: »

For a start haven't you forgotten that on ebay the buyer can leave feedback and stars, or are you suggesting that a buyer seeing a seller with nothing but a row of red feedback will happily continue to buy? If so doesn't that suggest something about the type fof buyer who needs protecting against themselves?

I am very well aware that EBay feedback does not tell the whole story. EBay will and have removed negative feedback that has been perfectly honest and contained nothing other than facts, just because the seller has found 'a loophole' and come up with a reason to have it removed.

The percentages can be misleading and even a 99%+ positive rating can disguise a substantial amount of recent negative feedback if the seller is moving a substantial amount of goods. We don't all have lots of time all of the time to do any more than look at the percentage.

We weren't all born with the intelligence of Einstein and the one thing about 'Common Sense' is that it isn't all that common.

What does it say about somebody that believes that somebody deserves to be scammed when for all sorts of reasons, they might not be a 'sharp' as others. - Learning difficulties, poor education, mental illness. I would think that some could find your comments quite insulting and uncaring.

soolin

Knowyourrightsandusethem wrote: »

I am very well aware that EBay feedback does not tell the whole story. EBay will and have removed negative feedback that has been perfectly honest and contained nothing other than facts, just because the seller has found 'a loophole' and come up with a reason to have it removed.

The percentages can be misleading and even a 99%+ positive rating can disguise a substantial amount of recent negative feedback if the seller is moving a substantial amount of goods. We don't all have lots of time all of the time to do any more than look at the percentage.

We weren't all born with the intelligence of Einstein and the one thing about 'Common Sense' is that it isn't all that common.

What does it say about somebody that believes that somebody deserves to be scammed when for all sorts of reasons, they might not be a 'sharp' as others. - Learning difficulties, poor education, mental illness. I would think that some could find your comments quite insulting and uncaring.

Really really?

I think you are getting desperate now trying to fit your 'facts' into a plausible story.

*You* suggested a seller could 'make a living' out of 99p items- which means we are talking hundreds a week. Yet you suggest that ebay would allow that level of fraud *and* remove all the poor feedback, low stars and complaints.

Ebay does have issues, and yes on occasions we have all got a feedback rating or star removed- but to suggest that someone could have hundreds a week removed is getting a bit far fetched.

Since you wish to suggest such far fetched scenarios I really can't take this seriously anymore.