Charged fees for something ebay perceives as being sold off ebay

123578

Comments

  • Brooker_Dave
    Brooker_Dave Posts: 5,196 Forumite
    Provided they don't help themselves to your bank account or credit card, I'd just ignore them, your eBay account is toast anyway, and given they are trying to cheat you out of money, why deal with them again?
    "Love you Dave Brooker! x"

    "i sent a letter headded sales of god act 1979"
  • theonlywayisup
    theonlywayisup Posts: 16,031 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post First Anniversary
    katy123 wrote: »
    Thanks for the replies, the piano was listed on both ebay and gumtre from the outset. When ebay restricted the buyers account, I then found a buyer on gumtree. I then removed the listing (item not available anymore option)

    In my original message to the buyer(via ebay), my reference to ebay and paypal fees was incorrect. I should have referred to paypal fees.

    After the listing had ended, my ebay was restricted. i was on holiday for 3 weeks so ignored it. Then came the invoice last week.

    It sounds like you didn't cancel the sale. Despite the initial FVF being given as £1 it seems eBay have either decided to charge you the full rate or slammed on the full FVF as they think you traded off eBay. Either way you needed to cancel the sale properly.

    Whichever way you look at it, you've sold on eBay and there is no cancellation/NPB to refute that.
  • robatwork
    robatwork Posts: 7,090 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post First Anniversary
    Gary123456790 wrote: »
    Just received an email from ebay which states

    When we believe a transaction has been completed outside of eBay, we’ll take the following actions:
    ✓ On the first offence, we’ll send a warning.
    ✓ Repeat violations may result in a temporary selling restriction of up to 7 days.
    ✓ We may charge offenders for lost fees and apply an indefinite restriction to serial offenders.

    Is this your first offence? If so i'd tell ebay they are not following their own guidelines.

    Thanks,

    Gary.
    katy123 wrote: »
    At no point was the transaction completed outside of ebay.

    Very interesting wording.
    As you said, the selling of your piano, was completed outside of ebay.

    So "the" transaction would have been your ebay listing.

    Ebay state "a" transaction. This could be interpreted to mean any sale of your piano.

    Don't pay, let them take you to court if they will, and see how a judge interprets this. There's no way ebay will win but it may get someone in TS or government to actually examine their terms.
  • askmeaboutsofas
    askmeaboutsofas Posts: 171 Forumite
    So I'm sure you've got it figured out by now, but it's the mention of eBay charges combined with a BACs payment method that's got you in trouble.
    For anyone looking to avoid that problem in the future, you need to shoe-horn the phrase "complete your purchase through eBay" into EVERY message you ever send to a customer that even remotely touches on anything like payment methods, discounts, prices etc.
    "When you buy through eBay and pay by BACs we could let you have this item for £blah as we'd save a bit of money on PayPal fees."would have been fine.

    If you're not planning on using eBay ever again, it might be worthwhile fighting their charge. It does seem very unfair! But they'll still be within their rights to ban you from the site, even if you win, so if you do want to carry on using eBay you should have a good think about it first.
    Well informed on the subjects of sofas and wood furniture, and well opinionated on everything else :rotfl:
  • bris
    bris Posts: 10,548 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper
    katy123 wrote: »
    This was my message to a potential buyer:

    If you don't mind I would also prefer BACs payment as ebay and
    paypal charges are quite hefty for a high value item, that would really help me out!

    Whilst it's sharp practice they haven't really done anything wrong. The bold part of your post clearly points to fee avoidance, to them there is no doubt.


    Whether or not you sold it on Gumtree will make no difference to them, that is damming evidence and it's not really difficult to see why.
  • Pierre_De_Grenoble
    Pierre_De_Grenoble Posts: 478 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post
    If the Op's claims that the item was sold on Gumtree to a different buyer than the one that was messaging on eBay are correct then:

    eBay's grab of FVF's isn't sharp practice it's THEFT. pure & simple.

    the problem is: how does an individual take on a huge corporation & win.
  • theonlywayisup
    theonlywayisup Posts: 16,031 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post First Anniversary
    Pierre_De_Grenoble wrote: »
    If the Op's claims that the item was sold on Gumtree to a different buyer than the one that was messaging on eBay are correct then:

    eBay's grab of FVF's isn't sharp practice it's THEFT. pure & simple.

    the problem is: how does an individual take on a huge corporation & win.

    They do it through the correct channels. Theft isn't the offence however as others have alluded there could be inconsistencies with our consumer legislation.
  • Pierre_De_Grenoble
    Pierre_De_Grenoble Posts: 478 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post
    theonlywayisup wrote: »
    They do it through the correct channels. Theft isn't the offence however as others have alluded there could be inconsistencies with our consumer legislation.

    I was taught as a child that If I take something that does not belong to me, it does not matter how much I try to justify it, that I am stealing.

    I don't believe that there is a "correct channel" for theft.
  • d123
    d123 Posts: 8,621 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Pierre_De_Grenoble wrote: »
    If the Op's claims that the item was sold on Gumtree to a different buyer than the one that was messaging on eBay are correct then:

    eBay's grab of FVF's isn't sharp practice it's THEFT. pure & simple.

    the problem is: how does an individual take on a huge corporation & win.

    It isn’t theft, it is a company sending an invoice for services it considers it has given and that the OP has attempted to circumvent agreed fees.

    If it goes to (civil) court a judge might decide the OP doesn’t owe the amount claimed, but eBay certainly has eveidence of an attempt to circumvent the fees.
    ====
  • pinkshoes
    pinkshoes Posts: 20,082 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Photogenic First Post
    d123 wrote: »
    It isn’t theft, it is a company sending an invoice for services it considers it has given and that the OP has attempted to circumvent agreed fees.

    If it goes to (civil) court a judge might decide the OP doesn’t owe the amount claimed, but eBay certainly has eveidence of an attempt to circumvent the fees.

    They are not just sending an invoice though, they are taking the money.

    The OP may not have had a positive balance in paypal, but others have had money taken from their balance.

    They are taking money based on speculation rather than proof.

    Yes the OP also mentioned eBay fees, which was daft, but it was clear they were referring to wanting a cash payment for an ebay sale.

    If the Op can prove this was sold elsewhere, then they should take eBay to court for a refund.
    Should've = Should HAVE (not 'of')
    Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')

    No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards