APP scam

jon81uk

Pollycat said:

MalMonroe said:

Hi, if the van was listed on eBay wasn't there a proper auction or sale? What happened when the auction or sale ended on eBay? Were you the lucky buyer? I don't understand how this seller managed to get people to pay a deposit.

What have eBay said? Can they help you? Have you reported the villainous seller? eBay always advise reporting such people in order to save other customers suffering similar fates. eBay are failing in their duty if they are not taking notice of what buyers are telling them about some of their sellers. Especially if this person has another van for sale on eBay. It's unscrupulous.

You said "seller stated he had people after van and would need a deposit" but that isn't how eBay works. It's a well known scam to get people fighting over pricing.

You also said "Or should i just accept the fact that being a senile old computer illiterate person, who expects people to be honest and possess morals, i am living in a bygone age, and a target for APP scams. Scary world." and as soolin says above, it isn't anything to do with age. You don't seem to be computer illiterate to me.

Normally if you follow the eBay process correctly, you are entitled to 100% of your money back when a sale goes wrong. But you do have to follow their procedures.

Please do complain to eBay because this seller is getting away with fraud and also they're continuing to try to sell on eBay. 

You can also report the seller to police yourself since he's still trying to scam other people on eBay and, unlike Action Fraud, you DO have some lines of enquiry. 

Before complaining to my bank I would ask if I could have an appointment to see someone about this matter. Sometimes you can get your money back. It's worth a try. 

I wonder if Ebay are not taking action because the of this:

Contact or payment outside of eBay: eBay Messages is the safest way to contact other members. Always be careful if a seller asks for your personal contact details, such as an email address or phone number. They may be trying to get you to complete a purchase outside of eBay, for example by paying cash or transferring money to an overseas account. This is against our policy, and your purchase wouldn't be covered by the eBay Money Back Guarantee

(from eBay help section)

Motor vehicles aren't covered by the eBay Money Back Guarantee anyway. If it is listed as a classifed ad and not an auction then communication outside of eBay is encouraged as the classified ad shows the sellers phone number.
Therefore if it is a classified ad its basically the same as Gumtree or Facebook marketplace and payment in cash is the best way as there is no comeuppance if you don't get the goods.

OP, how much was the deposit? You should always have assumed you might not get the deposit back and paying by bank transfer was a bad idea.

soolin

MalMonroe said:

Hi, if the van was listed on eBay wasn't there a proper auction or sale? What happened when the auction or sale ended on eBay? Were you the lucky buyer? I don't understand how this seller managed to get people to pay a deposit.

What have eBay said? Can they help you? Have you reported the villainous seller? eBay always advise reporting such people in order to save other customers suffering similar fates. eBay are failing in their duty if they are not taking notice of what buyers are telling them about some of their sellers. Especially if this person has another van for sale on eBay. It's unscrupulous.

You said "seller stated he had people after van and would need a deposit" but that isn't how eBay works. It's a well known scam to get people fighting over pricing.

You also said "Or should i just accept the fact that being a senile old computer illiterate person, who expects people to be honest and possess morals, i am living in a bygone age, and a target for APP scams. Scary world." and as soolin says above, it isn't anything to do with age. You don't seem to be computer illiterate to me.

Normally if you follow the eBay process correctly, you are entitled to 100% of your money back when a sale goes wrong. But you do have to follow their procedures.

Please do complain to eBay because this seller is getting away with fraud and also they're continuing to try to sell on eBay. 

You can also report the seller to police yourself since he's still trying to scam other people on eBay and, unlike Action Fraud, you DO have some lines of enquiry. 

Before complaining to my bank I would ask if I could have an appointment to see someone about this matter. Sometimes you can get your money back. It's worth a try. 

Vehicles like this should be sold via classified ads where ebay charge the seller to place an ad, and then leave buyer and seller to make their own arrangement. Think along the lines of auto trader where the paper (or online) just acts as an introduction service. Most of your advice is not applicable to this form of ebay listing

Selling with Classified Ads | eBay

marcia_

Spoonie_Turtle said:

marcia_ said:

Code R2 is i here it's about who is vulnerable or not and ignoring warnings. 

Were you given watnings you ignored when setting up the payment? 

https://appcrmsteeringgroup.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/APP-Scams-SG-Draft-Code-FINAL.pdf

Found the other code in the same section 

   The Customer did not take appropriate actions following a clear negative Confirmation of Payee result, where the Firm complied with SF1(3) or SF2(2), and those actions would, in the circumstances, have been effective in preventing the APP fraud

 So the details didn't match, your bank warned you. You clicked to pay anyway therefore they are not responsible as they tried to warn you and you chose to ignore? 

You've jumped to a conclusion specifically contradicted by what the OP has written multiple times, on the basis of one of any number of possibilities under those codes.

The typo of SF! indicates it was actually SF1, "Sending Firms should take reasonable steps to protect their Customers from APP fraud.  This should include procedures to detect, prevent and respond to APP fraud.  Procedures should provide a greater level of protection for Customers who are considered vulnerable to APP fraud." 

One of the R2 possibilities is 1a: "The Customer ignored Effective Warnings, given by a Firm in compliance with SF1(2), by failing to take appropriate action in response to such an Effective Warning"

So it could well be that because the warnings are to never pay anyone you don't know personally / don't feel pressured / make sure it's not a scam and OP went ahead certain it was legit, that's why they're not being refunded.

The account details and name matching are evidently not enough to be certain you can trust someone.  It's basically just the safeguard against mistyped details and payments going into the wrong accounts.

  It was a question or can you not read question marks? 

Spoonie_Turtle

marcia_ said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

marcia_ said:

Code R2 is i here it's about who is vulnerable or not and ignoring warnings. 

Were you given watnings you ignored when setting up the payment? 

https://appcrmsteeringgroup.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/APP-Scams-SG-Draft-Code-FINAL.pdf

Found the other code in the same section 

   The Customer did not take appropriate actions following a clear negative Confirmation of Payee result, where the Firm complied with SF1(3) or SF2(2), and those actions would, in the circumstances, have been effective in preventing the APP fraud

 So the details didn't match, your bank warned you. You clicked to pay anyway therefore they are not responsible as they tried to warn you and you chose to ignore? 

You've jumped to a conclusion specifically contradicted by what the OP has written multiple times, on the basis of one of any number of possibilities under those codes.

The typo of SF! indicates it was actually SF1, "Sending Firms should take reasonable steps to protect their Customers from APP fraud.  This should include procedures to detect, prevent and respond to APP fraud.  Procedures should provide a greater level of protection for Customers who are considered vulnerable to APP fraud." 

One of the R2 possibilities is 1a: "The Customer ignored Effective Warnings, given by a Firm in compliance with SF1(2), by failing to take appropriate action in response to such an Effective Warning"

So it could well be that because the warnings are to never pay anyone you don't know personally / don't feel pressured / make sure it's not a scam and OP went ahead certain it was legit, that's why they're not being refunded.

The account details and name matching are evidently not enough to be certain you can trust someone.  It's basically just the safeguard against mistyped details and payments going into the wrong accounts.

  It was a question or can you not read question marks? 

 As we're being pedantic, a) your first sentence which I bolded was a statement, and b) questions include question words which yours didn't.  I can read question marks but their presence doesn't always indicate intentional or correct use.