From: The Older Gentleman on
Alison Hopkins <fn62(a)dial.pipex.com> wrote:

>
> Are you *really* trusting Usenet for expert advice? Honestly?


<VVBG>


--
BMW K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 Z650
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
From: Need a little help please on

"Niel Humphreys" <admin(a)sznzozwzdzoznzczozmzpzuztzezrzs.co.uk> wrote in
message news:5uudnUeff8tY_-nYnZ2dnUVZ8sKdnZ2d(a)pipex.net...
> "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.

Oh dear, never mind, these things happen......

>
>> 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.

Very commendable, however, are you also "backing down" in acceptance of the
real issue which is the OP's absolute lawful right to cancellation under the
DSR, and the unlawful action of the business in question refusing the
cancellation and demanding payment, regardless of your now well publicised
opinion of the OP and their actions. To date, your contributions at least
appear to support the unlawful action of the business in question whether
intentional and / or reflective of your real position or not.

>
> 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/
>
>

Nor should you, but as has already been stated, at no point has that been
disputed, nor is it relevant to the businesses unlawful refusal to comply
with the Distance Selling Regulations. Again, as already stated, 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.


From: Peter Parry on
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:56:48 -0000, "Niel Humphreys"
<admin(a)sznzozwzdzoznzczozmzpzuztzezrzs.co.uk> wrote:

>"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> 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.
>>
>> ("14. - (1) On the cancellation of a contract under regulation 10,
>> the supplier shall reimburse any sum paid by or on behalf of the
>> consumer under or in relation to the contract to the person by whom
>> it was made free of any charge...")
>
>What's this got to do with the Ebay fees Ebay will charge the seller?

Nothing - I had misunderstood what you were saying - see later.

>buyer doesn't pay the seller Ebay fees, the seller pays EBay the fees by way
>of commission on revenue raised. Deal cancelled = no revenue received so
>there should be no commission payable to Ebay by the seller.

I think we might be mixing up two things here. Firstly the DSR's. As
far as the buyer is concerned the DSR's allow them to cancel without
reason. When they do the seller must refund all the money the buyer
has paid (including outbound postage and packing cost). The seller
cannot deduct anything at all from the amount paid by the buyer.

The sellers eBay fees are a separate matter between the seller and
eBay. I had misread what you said here and thought you were
involving the buyer. The seller should be able to claim the fee back
from eBay but it does create an interesting situation if the goods
are rejected for no reason at all and the buyer won't do anything.

If the buyer doesn't communicate with eBay I'm not sure where that
leaves the seller other than possibly out of pocket as they would
have no choice but to refund the buyer and might have little evidence
for eBay that the sale has subsequently failed and no reason for it
having failed.

>Are you saying that according to the DSR sellers should pay Ebay fees on
>items where the buyer has returned them for a refund?

In the example I gave above I can see a possibility of that situation
arising. If the buyer refused to communicate with eBay all you might
have as "evidence" is a note saying "give me my money back".

>Isn't that grossly unfair to sellers?

Yes.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
From: Peter Parry on
On 4 Dec 2006 09:06:40 -0800, "bcc97" <bcc98(a)stork.plus.com> wrote:

>
>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.

Yes, I had misread that bit.

>> 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.

>[snip]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'?

For a start it would be a false claim. The effect of canceling under
the DSR's is to eliminate the contract. There can be no NPB as there
would be no contract requiring payment. Secondly to use it could be
seen as a threat to discourage people from using their rights in law.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
From: Niel Humphreys on
"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:uls8n29ueuojmioo59j1lotjc0beelfv56(a)4ax.com...
> On 4 Dec 2006 09:06:40 -0800, "bcc97" <bcc98(a)stork.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>But if the seller doesn't in fact have such a term, then how else would
>>use of a NPB strike be 'illegal'?
>
> For a start it would be a false claim. The effect of canceling under
> the DSR's is to eliminate the contract. There can be no NPB as there
> would be no contract requiring payment. Secondly to use it could be
> seen as a threat to discourage people from using their rights in law.


With respect how could it be false

Non Paying Bidder = The OP placed a bid (bidder) and hasn't paid (non
paying). What's false about that? :)
--

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