Fraud by buyer/Ombudsman

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

soolin said:

Any claim would go back to the seller via ebay, they do not just repay the buyer without asking for input from seller. The type of  claim is important, if buyer opened an INR then seller can defend it with proof of delivery, a chargeback for fraud is defended with proof of postage. A claim for SNAD after a certain period can be defended (not easily admittedly) by arguing that the time period is too long for item to have been significantly not as described on arrival and not noticed. 

We cannot advise with any great certainty until we know what claim was made, it sounds like an SNAD and perhaps as a total guess buyer has stated that claims made as to the profitability of product were false and/or overstated. That is however just a guess and we would need to know more to advise correctly. 

It was POP with Paypal for for an unauthorised transaction, eBay say their "recommended" evidence is tracking showing delivery to the address on the order.

As these are card chargebacks I'm not sure what criteria eBay require for the part about matching the address, for INR they generally want to see delivery from a depot within 30 miles but the card providers might require more firm evidence to void the claim. 

I don't think there's much hope of defending a chargeback for SNAD (there's no buyer protection with Paypal for such chargebacks). 

I'm assuming OP is on Managed Payments (is everyone these days or have escaped switching yet?)

ebw1969

I'm a bit out of my depth but will try and answer as best I can 

Seller: sold an item as a private seller that could be used for crypto mining. No claim was made as to likely profitability of the item in either the ad or in future correspondence. 
Item was able to be used for this purpose and was both brand new and totally fit for purpose. It would as is obvious be reliant on the crypto market as to how much it would return for the buyer. 
Nothing was heard from the buyer for a number of months.
Months down the line the company that the buyer would use in order to mine had some issues with the makers of the item and for a while it was not possible for the buyer to mine due to the dispute between these two companies. (It is now possible to mine again albeit the market isn't good at present). 
Suddenly the buyer indicated it wasn't fit for purpose right when this blip occurred (my only comparison I can illustrate with is say trying to return a TV because Sky is down for a bit).
eBay indicated that this was to be returned for a refund. Seller indicated they were not in agreement with this and requested that this went to resolution (and eventually ombudsman). Seller requested the details of the bank who eBay indicated they had issued a refund to. eBay wasn't able/willing to provide this information. Seller indicated they would not accept a return as this was being investigated. Seller spoke to their own bank who recommended blocking eBay from taking payment. Dispute was escalated to the ombudsman as it is the case that the buyer would have entered into the crypto market and, when they didn't get the return they had anticipated, they were attempting to just get their money back. Crypto mining is a volatile market and based on the knowledge that the buyer would have needed in order to purchase this item they would definitely have been aware of this. 
While this dispute was live eBay seems to have released the return address as the buyer sent the item back despite being advised not to. eBay blocked the sellers account which made it extremely difficult for the seller to provide all the evidence to the ombudsman as it could not be accessed. 
Many months down the line the ombudsman decided that eBay were not at fault as they were just acting on the decision by the buyers bank to refund the buyer and they were just recouping that from the seller. The dispute should have been with the buyers bank but it was not possible to do that as no information was provided to enable this. 
Post ombudsman decision the case was sent to a credit agency to recoup the funds from the seller. No extra fees were charged to the seller.

Apologies if I have not answered your questions I am new to the forum and don't know what half the acronyms mean. There is no business attached to the seller this was a totally private sale of an item.

ebw1969

Hopefully I have covered your questions with my most recent comment. 
Seller tried to resolve through the ebay complaints and resolution procedures and took to the ombudsman who have indicated the buyers bank are who the issue is with but the seller can't find out who that is. 
No claim was made on the profitability of this item as the likelihood of a return is linked to the state of the (volatile) crypto market. Buyer in order to realise what this item was for would have had knowledge of crypto mining and by default would have been aware of how it can fluctuate anyway.
Ombudsman has ruled the dispute is not with eBay so sellers complaint was not upheld. 
I'm not sure what the acronyms you have used relate to sorry. 

tightauldgit

It's still a bit confused to be honest but let's try to tease it out. 

1. On what grounds did the buyer initiate the return via Ebay? That it wasn't as described? Faulty? 
2. What did Ebay say to you? You indicate that they said you had to refund but at the same time that you disputed that and they hadn't adjudicated on it. Did Ebay tell you to refund the item or was it simply that the buyer asked for a refund? 
3. It seems that the buyer gave up waiting for Ebay and then started a claim via their bank - did Ebay communicate to you about this? What did they say? 
4. If the bank has found in favour of their customer then they will claim the money back from Ebay who in turn will claim it back from you. Ebay aren't doing anything wrong there. That seems to be what the ombudsman has told you. What ombudsman are we talking about incidentally? 

In any case, it seems that you either pursue this by raising a small claims action against the buyer or you let it go. 

If the buyer bought the unit to mine crypto and make money from it then it's not a consumer purchase but a business purchase - consumer rights and the consumer credit act shouldn't apply so it may be that the bank has acted improperly or it may be that the buyer has lied to them. If you can't get information on the bank then you can't really pursue the bank - was there no mention of what bank was involved in the ombudsman's decision? - but you should still be able to pursue the buyer and, on the face of it, I would think you have a good chance to win. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

OP was the ombudsman you reported the matter to the UK Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS)?

ebw1969

Financial Ombudsman Service | Exchange Tower, London, E14 9SR

ebw1969

tightauldgit said:

It's still a bit confused to be honest but let's try to teaseit out. 

1. On what grounds did the buyer initiate the return via Ebay? That it wasn't as described? Faulty? 

"not as described" albeit it was 

2. What did Ebay say to you? You indicate that they said you had to refund but at the same time that you disputed that and they hadn't adjudicated on it. Did Ebay tell you to refund the item or was it simply that the buyer asked for a refund? 

Ebay were insisting seller had to refund. Seller advised they were disputing and would take to the ombudsman. 

3. It seems that the buyer gave up waiting for Ebay and then started a claim via their bank - did Ebay communicate to you about this? What did they say? 

Ebay just said they required the money back from the seller as the buyers bank had refunded. 

4. If the bank has found in favour of their customer then they will claim the money back from Ebay who in turn will claim it back from you. Ebay aren't doing anything wrong there. That seems to be what the ombudsman has told you. What ombudsman are we talking about incidentally? 

This is correct albeit at no point was that properly outlined and no details on the bank that had made the decision were provided to take it up with them. Seller understands the Ombudsman decision and has accepted given the full details the dispute is not with eBay but the bank and is trying to see if there is any way of disputing the bank decision. 

In any case, it seems that you either pursue this by raising a small claims action against the buyer or you let it go. 

Yes this seems to be the case which is very frustrating 

If the buyer bought the unit to mine crypto and make money from it then it's not a consumer purchase but a business purchase - consumer rights and the consumer credit act shouldn't apply so it may be that the bank has acted improperly or it may be that the buyer has lied to them. If you can't get information on the bank then you can't really pursue the bank - was there no mention of what bank was involved in the ombudsman's decision? - but you should still be able to pursue the buyer and, on the face of it, I would think you have a good chance to win.

Interesting on the business transaction thank you. Ebay and the financial Ombudsman were not "able" to give details of the bank. 
This is who the seller were dealing with:

Financial Ombudsman Service | Exchange Tower, London, E14 9SR

 

Have inserted replies in your quote hope it makes sense I am advising seller of your considered and informative responses thank you so much 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

ebw1969 said:

Financial Ombudsman Service | Exchange Tower, London, E14 9SR

Thanks OP, the FOS are a legitimate Ombudsman so their ruling will very likely be correct with regards to any complaint you made about eBay's Managed Payments service. 

You say eBay sent this to a "credit agency (I'm assume you mean debt collectors) to recover the money", does that mean you haven't reimbursed eBay yet?

ebw1969

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

ebw1969 said:

Financial Ombudsman Service | Exchange Tower, London, E14 9SR

Thanks OP, the FOS are a legitimate Ombudsman so their ruling will very likely be correct with regards to any complaint you made about eBay's Managed Payments service. 

You say eBay sent this to a "credit agency (I'm assume you mean debt collectors) to recover the money", does that mean you haven't reimbursed eBay yet?

The seller has now made a payment in full to the debt collection people. The seller does appreciate and accept the FOS ruling and why eBay is not actually who this dispute should have been with. It just seems the buyer was able to manipulate the system and get his money back even though it wasn't warranted and the reason wasn't a reflection of the situation. Seller has the item back despite indicating they would not accept a return.
Just feels like they were scammed. Bank should not have refunded but seller is not able to query this with them as cannot ascertain who they are!