From: bcc97 on

Peter Parry wrote:
> If the goods are rejected under the DSR's the seller is specifically
> prohibited from reclaiming any such fees from the buyer and must
> refund the buyer in full.

You're quite correct, but I'd read Niel's comment as relating to the
seller's right to claim the final value fee back from eBay, not from
the buyer.


> >The automatic knock
> >on effect of course is that the buyer will be given a non-payment strike on
> >their account by Ebay. [...]
>
> Any seller trying this might well find themselves doing some
> explaining as it would be illegal. One thing which does get Trading
> Standards stirred up is people who try to limit consumers use of the
> law by underhand methods.
>

I'm not sure that the use of a non-payment strike by the seller would
actually be 'illegal' per se.

I'd agree that a contract term, threatening negative feedback and/or
NPB strikes in the event of cancellation under DSR, would be unfair
under the unfair terms regulations and in breach of Reg 25 of the DSR.

But if the seller doesn't in fact have such a term, then how else would
use of a NPB strike be 'illegal'? Are you thinking that it's some sort
of tort?

From: Need a little help please on

"Niel Humphreys" <admin(a)sznzozwzdzoznzczozmzpzuztzezrzs.co.uk> wrote in
message news:hYqdnSJYofDhqenYnZ2dnUVZ8t-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net...
> "bcc97" <bcc98(a)stork.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:1165241207.692282.153290(a)73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Niel Humphreys wrote:
>>> What is the timeframe required by law for the seller to respond to a
>>> complaint then before it is classed as ignored?
>>
>> In this case, I'd class the DSR cancellation as having been ignored (or
>> denied) as soon as the seller sent a further e-mail requesting payment.
>
>
> ..but they didn't send any email, they filed a Non Payment report which
> sent the OP a system generated payment reminder. There is still nothing
> conclusive to say that the seller has actually received any emails from
> the 'buyer', they (or their ISP) may be erroneously spam filtering emails
> for some reason. Assuming the 'buyer' sent a message through the Ebay
> system perhaps they don't check their Ebay messages online. Unlikely but
> possible.


Entirely irrelevant, as the OP's opening message of this thread clearly
states the business did reply to an email sent through the eBay messaging
system. The format of the reply is unclear, however, the fact remains a
dispute exists because according to the OP the request for cancellation
under the Distance Selling Regulations was ignored, the response from the
business being a request for payment and statement the sale will stand.

>
> If I had not heard anything either way by now I would have requested
> contact details and spoken to the seller on the phone though I suspect
> this is something the 'buyer' hasn't the balls to do. They would perfer to
> whinge and whine in this newsgroup where they are surrounded by his
> syncopates who are re-enforcing his delusions that he is not responsible
> for his actions regardless of the legality of the VAT situation auction
> and whether or not it was deliberate or an accidental ommission. Marcus
> decided the seller has tried to scam him very early on in this affair and
> way before other evidence came to light to suggest otherwise and having
> publicly stated his beliefs he isn't backing down to save face.
>
> --
>
> Niel H
> http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Snowdon-Computers
> http://www.ebayfaq.co.uk/
> http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_Powersellers/
>

Entirely irrelevant again for the above reason, and with all due respect, it
appears at least to myself Neil that it is yourself that "isn't backing down
to save face" despite having no legitimate lawful grounds to support your
stance. If you feel that to be incorrect, by all means, cite reference to
the legislation supporting your argument.

It is a very lamentable and frustrating reality that eBay make the recovery
of fees awkward, however, that is an entirely separate issue, worthy of a
seperate thread.

It is also a very lamentable and frustrating reality that some eBay buyers
will often not read and / or understand the description fully and / or
correctly, and / or will not ask questions before confirming a bid or using
Buy it Now, and / or fully understand the full nature of the transaction
they have chosen to participate in, for whatever reasons.

Clearly, any buyer should do all the above, it is after all common sense,
but this is not an ideal world and the fact is that is not the case, and UK
Law allows all consumers to enjoy the powers allowed to them by the Distance
Selling Regulations, powers the consumer can invoke without given reason if
they so wish. Effectively, as you put it, the law determines in this
instance, the buyer "is not responsible for his actions".

The fact also remains that compliance with the law is not optional and
businesses are required to act accordingly. Further, ignorance of the law is
not a defence, indeed, any prosecution would no doubt term it negligence,
and any attempt to argue along your lines would be thrown out as irrelevant.
Further still, where businesses do not find UK Law agreeable, they have the
option or moving their operation to a location outside its jurisdiction,
which again lamentably, many do indeed choose to do much to the detriment of
the nation.



From: Niel Humphreys on
"Need a little help please" <nospam(a)thisaddress.net> wrote in message
news:el1mgh$6gc$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net...
> Entirely irrelevant, as the OP's opening message of this thread clearly
> states the business did reply to an email sent through the eBay messaging
> system.

Oh yea, missed that.

> Entirely irrelevant again for the above reason, and with all due respect,
> it
> appears at least to myself Neil that it is yourself that "isn't backing
> down
> to save face"

Actually I already 'backed down' once when I admitted I didn't realise that
it was illegal not to advertise the VAT inclusive price. All my auctions are
VAT inclusive anyway so this area is something I never have conflicts with
in the normal course of business.

I am not 'backing down' in my defence of the seller's right to claim the
Ebay fees back on a cancelled sale though. That is an absolute right.
--

Niel H
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Snowdon-Computers
http://www.ebayfaq.co.uk/
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_Powersellers/

--

Niel H
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Snowdon-Computers
http://www.ebayfaq.co.uk/
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_Powersellers/


From: Toby on

"nick" <pizzalovingcriminal(a)allstar.gg> wrote in message
news:4573f435$0$2434$db0fefd9(a)news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Marcus Redd" <read(a)it.com> wrote in message
>
>> p.s. if you haven't already, check out his neutral and negative feedbacks
>
> You bid on his auction, and then didn't pay, and now you encourage people
> to look at *his* negs??


And there is a large number of those.


Toby


From: The Older Gentleman on
Marcus Redd <read(a)it.com> wrote:

> You don't have to read my posts.

Good.


--
BMW K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 Z650
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....