Debt with ebay

tightauldgit

GabbaGabbaHey said:

km1500 said:

The debt is not owed to ebay by the OP that is the whole point - the debt is owed by an unknown fraudster.

No - the transactions were carried out on the OP's account, and the OP is the one who has a contractual relationship with eBay, therefore the OP is liable for the debt. That they were defrauded by an unknown person is irrelevant to this point.

I don't think that someone else using your account unknown to you and without your permission forms a contractual relationship with eBay. That's what the court would have to rule on.

GabbaGabbaHey

tightauldgit said:

GabbaGabbaHey said:

km1500 said:

The debt is not owed to ebay by the OP that is the whole point - the debt is owed by an unknown fraudster.

No - the transactions were carried out on the OP's account, and the OP is the one who has a contractual relationship with eBay, therefore the OP is liable for the debt. That they were defrauded by an unknown person is irrelevant to this point.

I don't think that someone else using your account unknown to you and without your permission forms a contractual relationship with eBay. That's what the court would have to rule on.

No - using your account in accordance with eBay's Terms and Conditions is part of the contractual relationship that you have with eBay. If an unknown third party maliciously exploits that account, then that is your problem, not eBay's (unless you can prove that the account compromise was eBay's fault).

There are only two parties to the contract - the OP and eBay. If it came to court (which is unlikely) then the court would only be concerned with whether the account registered to the OP was responsible for the debts incurred. Unless the OP could prove that it was eBay's fault - which isn't going to happen.

If somebody picks your pocket when you're walking around Tescos, it doesn't mean that you can walk out without paying for your groceries - or expect Tesco to give you your money back.

tightauldgit

There's no evidence that the OP has used the account otherwise than in accordance with eBay's terms. If eBay want to claim 6000 from the owner of that account then it's up to THEM to show they are owed it. 

An account is not a legal entity that can enter into contracts with eBay so the court would have to determine that the person who owns the account is responsible. Which it's surely difficult to do if the person didn't take the actions which led to the debt accruing. 

If someone steals your car, drives up to Tesco petrol station , fills up and drives off that doesn't make it your responsibility to pay just because you're the owner of the car. 

In this case the OP is in a stronger position because eBay don't have his money yet. 

GabbaGabbaHey

The OP set up an account with eBay and agreed to comply with the Ts&Cs of that account - hence they have a contractual relationship with eBay.

They said that a "scammer got in to their account". Now that could have happened in a number of ways (perhaps they are in collusion with the scammer; perhaps they provided enough information on social media to allow the scammer to impersonate them; perhaps they fell foul to a scam call; perhaps somebody broke into their house and read the password written on the Post-It under their keyboard; whatever) but regardless of how it happened [*] they are responsible for any activities carried out by that account.

The fraudster here has got away with £6,000. At the end of the day, that money has to be paid by either the OP or by eBay. I can't see any reason why a court would expect eBay to pay it.

[*] The one exception would be if the compromise happened at the eBay end. Good luck proving that!

soolin

tightauldgit said:

There's no evidence that the OP has used the account otherwise than in accordance with eBay's terms. If eBay want to claim 6000 from the owner of that account then it's up to THEM to show they are owed it. 

An account is not a legal entity that can enter into contracts with eBay so the court would have to determine that the person who owns the account is responsible. Which it's surely difficult to do if the person didn't take the actions which led to the debt accruing. 

If someone steals your car, drives up to Tesco petrol station , fills up and drives off that doesn't make it your responsibility to pay just because you're the owner of the car. 

In this case the OP is in a stronger position because eBay don't have his money yet. 

EBay have no real mechanism or history of persuing debt as far as court, they tend to do it by stealth. As I mentioned earlier no one has yet demonstrated on any forum that I’ve seen that court action has been taken.

however what often happens is that people stop using eBay for a while but either they mistakenly think they are free of it, open a second account successfully and then a few months later find eBay holding the funds on that second account . Or even more commonly, someone in the same household opens an account, perhaps even a child or a parent or spouse and that is linked by eBay and that account is blocked with funds held. 

Pre 2FA eBay did tend to have much more sympathy for hacked accounts. Unfortunately it seems reading other accounts of similar cases it seems that eBay take a more hard line now that a third party has managed to successfully either email confirmation to change details and /or authorisation by mobile phone code. There were hundreds of accounts of people unable to even get in their own accounts once 2FA was brought in, so eBay seem to consider it more as full blown negligence now rather than just an unfortunate lapse of attention .

It’s the same as the banks , 2FA was brought in apparently for our safety, but personally I also think that is was also for their benefit as it means it is harder to get hacked so the owner of the account ‘must’ either be complicit or negligent and therefore not the banks responsibility.

if it became a case that an owner of an account was never liable, regardless of what they did as you are suggesting then it would be a scammers paradise. Secretly sell your log in details let the scammer run rife and then just claim back your money .

OP needs to demonstrate to eBay that due to some fault of theirs this is somehow partly eBay’s fault to have any sort of hope here. If the account was little used and suddenly had expensive cameras listed but without eBay holding funds for security, then perhaps that is a way in. Abnormal behaviour  should be a trigger for some sort of concern, the sticking point though is that any emails or contact to confirm details would have gone to the scammer as this wasn’t just eBay that had been hacked it was emails as well. 

tightauldgit

soolin said:

tightauldgit said:

There's no evidence that the OP has used the account otherwise than in accordance with eBay's terms. If eBay want to claim 6000 from the owner of that account then it's up to THEM to show they are owed it. 

An account is not a legal entity that can enter into contracts with eBay so the court would have to determine that the person who owns the account is responsible. Which it's surely difficult to do if the person didn't take the actions which led to the debt accruing. 

If someone steals your car, drives up to Tesco petrol station , fills up and drives off that doesn't make it your responsibility to pay just because you're the owner of the car. 

In this case the OP is in a stronger position because eBay don't have his money yet. 

EBay have no real mechanism or history of persuing debt as far as court, they tend to do it by stealth. As I mentioned earlier no one has yet demonstrated on any forum that I’ve seen that court action has been taken.

however what often happens is that people stop using eBay for a while but either they mistakenly think they are free of it, open a second account successfully and then a few months later find eBay holding the fu ds on that second account . Or even more commonly, someone in the same household opens an account, perhaps even a child or a parent or spouse and that is linked by eBay and that account is blocked with funds held. 

Pre 2FA eBay did tend to have much more sympathy for hacked accounts. Unfortunately it seems reading other accounts of similar cases it seems that eBay take a more hard line now that a third party has managed to successfully either email confirmation to change details and /or authorisation by mobile phone code. There were hundreds of accounts of people unable to even get in their own accounts once 2FA was brought in, so eBay seem to consider it more as full blown negligence now rather than just an unfortunate lapse of attention .

It cannot surely be legal to take funds from person B to pay debts of Person A just because they share an address? Or even a last name. 

soolin

tightauldgit said:

soolin said:

tightauldgit said:

There's no evidence that the OP has used the account otherwise than in accordance with eBay's terms. If eBay want to claim 6000 from the owner of that account then it's up to THEM to show they are owed it. 

An account is not a legal entity that can enter into contracts with eBay so the court would have to determine that the person who owns the account is responsible. Which it's surely difficult to do if the person didn't take the actions which led to the debt accruing. 

If someone steals your car, drives up to Tesco petrol station , fills up and drives off that doesn't make it your responsibility to pay just because you're the owner of the car. 

In this case the OP is in a stronger position because eBay don't have his money yet. 

EBay have no real mechanism or history of persuing debt as far as court, they tend to do it by stealth. As I mentioned earlier no one has yet demonstrated on any forum that I’ve seen that court action has been taken.

however what often happens is that people stop using eBay for a while but either they mistakenly think they are free of it, open a second account successfully and then a few months later find eBay holding the fu ds on that second account . Or even more commonly, someone in the same household opens an account, perhaps even a child or a parent or spouse and that is linked by eBay and that account is blocked with funds held. 

Pre 2FA eBay did tend to have much more sympathy for hacked accounts. Unfortunately it seems reading other accounts of similar cases it seems that eBay take a more hard line now that a third party has managed to successfully either email confirmation to change details and /or authorisation by mobile phone code. There were hundreds of accounts of people unable to even get in their own accounts once 2FA was brought in, so eBay seem to consider it more as full blown negligence now rather than just an unfortunate lapse of attention .

It cannot surely be legal to take funds from person B to pay debts of Person A just because they share an address? Or even a last name. 

It depends how linked eBay consider them to be. 

tightauldgit

GabbaGabbaHey said:

The OP set up an account with eBay and agreed to comply with the Ts&Cs of that account - hence they have a contractual relationship with eBay.

They said that a "scammer got in to their account". Now that could have happened in a number of ways (perhaps they are in collusion with the scammer; perhaps they provided enough information on social media to allow the scammer to impersonate them; perhaps they fell foul to a scam call; perhaps somebody broke into their house and read the password written on the Post-It under their keyboard; whatever) but regardless of how it happened [*] they are responsible for any activities carried out by that account.

The fraudster here has got away with £6,000. At the end of the day, that money has to be paid by either the OP or by eBay. I can't see any reason why a court would expect eBay to pay it.

[*] The one exception would be if the compromise happened at the eBay end. Good luck proving that!

Yes the OP set up an account with eBay and have a contractual relationship. For what they do on the site and their use of that account. 

Indeed, the person could be dishonest or negligent and that may indeed render them liable IF eBay can demonstrate that to a court. 

The scammer has got away with £6000 of buyers money yes. Normally that would be a loss for the buyers or a claim with their banks/credit cards. But eBay have decided to compensate these people and offer that protection - so that's why eBay should pay it. 

The OP cannot surely be held liable for any losses on a transaction they were not a party to. The only people involved in these sales were scammer, eBay and buyer. That a scammer used your account as a tool to enact the scam shouldn't change anything anymore than you being liable for a burglar using your hammer to break a window. Unless you can show OP was complicit. 

eBay play fast and loose with the law when it suits them so I've little sympathy for them when and if it works against them. 

soolin

tightauldgit said:

GabbaGabbaHey said:

The OP set up an account with eBay and agreed to comply with the Ts&Cs of that account - hence they have a contractual relationship with eBay.

They said that a "scammer got in to their account". Now that could have happened in a number of ways (perhaps they are in collusion with the scammer; perhaps they provided enough information on social media to allow the scammer to impersonate them; perhaps they fell foul to a scam call; perhaps somebody broke into their house and read the password written on the Post-It under their keyboard; whatever) but regardless of how it happened [*] they are responsible for any activities carried out by that account.

The fraudster here has got away with £6,000. At the end of the day, that money has to be paid by either the OP or by eBay. I can't see any reason why a court would expect eBay to pay it.

[*] The one exception would be if the compromise happened at the eBay end. Good luck proving that!

Yes the OP set up an account with eBay and have a contractual relationship. For what they do on the site and their use of that account. 

Indeed, the person could be dishonest or negligent and that may indeed render them liable IF eBay can demonstrate that to a court. 

The scammer has got away with £6000 of buyers money yes. Normally that would be a loss for the buyers or a claim with their banks/credit cards. But eBay have decided to compensate these people and offer that protection - so that's why eBay should pay it. 

The OP cannot surely be held liable for any losses on a transaction they were not a party to. The only people involved in these sales were scammer, eBay and buyer. That a scammer used your account as a tool to enact the scam shouldn't change anything anymore than you being liable for a burglar using your hammer to break a window. Unless you can show OP was complicit. 

eBay play fast and loose with the law when it suits them so I've little sympathy for them when and if it works against them. 

My point above still remains in that with 2FA I believe OP would have difficulty in persuading ebay that they were not negligent at all. I understand this is a really horrible situation, but OP needs to find something ebay did that resulted in someone gaining access to their account or not protecting them as per the T and Cs.

I suspect the latter point will be the easiest to persue as if this was a wider ebay hack then there will more in the various forums (and yes it has happened in the past ). So that leaves the latter point, using ebay T and Cs against them to prove they did not give OP enough protection when something unusual happened with their account, and that's the place to start. If OP wasn't in the habit of listing high value cameras why weren't funds held? Can OP get access to any of the emails or 2FA checks that occurred once scammer had access to their emails and/or phone? It's the best place to start.

soolin

Looking at other forums and even trawling through ebay community boards it seems that ebay are still refunding or writing off 'debts' where there has been an obvious scammer involved, which suggests there is something in this case that has concerned them. It might be useful if OP could try and spend some time to narrow down exactly what happened which is why I think gaining access to any emails sent during the hacked period would be useful- did ebay make a proper attempt to check that the changes to the account were being authorised by the account holder? This assumes that OP opted for email for 2FA if the usual mobile phone path was used then it would seem that OP has a bigger issue and would need to ensure their phone is safe.

I've no idea how to check if a phone has been cloned, is that even a possibility, can someone else advise about that, or is this just a case that someone has managed to divert ebay's 2FA to a different phone? This is a bit techie for me..

I say this as someone who can't even do much at all on their own ebay account unless I have my phone to hand! If I want to check my pending balance I need a code sent to my phone, if I need to make any changes, again I need a code. The days of trying to quickly do something on my PC , or heaven forbid buy something are long gone, I now have to remember to make sure I'm glued to the phone.