eBay - the right way!

Re: Another seller warning and Paypal gem

Jonathan — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:30:57 GMT

OK, a follow up on the fake A8s....

Before I disputed through Paypal, I contacted the seller asking if he would take them back as I had been mislead. I gave him the option to refund or to dispute it through Paypal. He responded with "We'll see what Paypal says". So I commenced the dispute process.

As mentioned earlier, I had to provide evidence that they are fakes. Paypal granted me a few days extension for this and I faxed them on the Thursday. They confirmed they received my fax on Friday.

On Monday I received an email that I had to print out and fax back to them. This was a document that I had to sign stating I would destroy the headphones!! I faxed it back immediately! Yesterday I received confirmation that they received my fax.

This morning I had an email from Paypal stating that I received a full refund! Thanks Paypal!! I also received an email from the seller stating: "Send me back the headphones and I'll refund your money."

Well, by this stage it is just too late. I offered the seller the chance to be fair, and he chose to take a risk. I now have my money back and he's lost his headphones!

Happy times with the scissors

Re: Another seller warning and Paypal gem

PhilLondon — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:25:38 GMT

jldmelb:

Also, the seller had a photograph (not a file photo) of genuine A8s on his listing. He stated that they may or may not be fakes, and I reasonably assumed the picture was of the actual item so bought on that basis. If he had have put a photo of the actual item, I would not have bought them as I would have been able to detect straight away.

To me, the listing was misleading so I should therefore be entitled to a refund on that basis alone.

You have more chance by claiming that the item is "not as described".

Re: Another seller warning and Paypal gem

PhilLondon — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:23:36 GMT

You are right... they only accept fake claims from the brand in question, otherwise they are happy to leave it there.

I think 20% of their income comes from fake, so why would they stop it.

Re: Another seller warning and Paypal gem

Medogsfat — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:57:28 GMT

It doesn't help that ebay simply refuse to cancel these fake listings. I used to report at least a dozen a week with nothing done about it so I stopped bothering. Even B&O don't seem too bothered and we know they watch Beoworld where these have been highlighted time and again.

The only way to guarantee the real McCoy is to buy from B&O.

Chris.

Re: Another seller warning and Paypal gem

Jonathan — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:05:24 GMT

mediabobny:

Since the seller disclosed in the auction that they might be fake, and you bid anyway, how do you have a case?

edit: think I answered my own question: you're not allowed to sell fakes on eBay

Also, the seller had a photograph (not a file photo) of genuine A8s on his listing. He stated that they may or may not be fakes, and I reasonably assumed the picture was of the actual item so bought on that basis. If he had have put a photo of the actual item, I would not have bought them as I would have been able to detect straight away.

To me, the listing was misleading so I should therefore be entitled to a refund on that basis alone.

Re: Another seller warning and Paypal gem

mediabobny — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:10:52 GMT

Since the seller disclosed in the auction that they might be fake, and you bid anyway, how do you have a case?

edit: think I answered my own question: you're not allowed to sell fakes on eBay

Re: Another seller warning and Paypal gem

PhilLondon — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:03:59 GMT

Maybe that would help:

http://reviews.ebay.co.uk/Fake-Bang-amp-Olufsen-A8-Earphones_W0QQugidZ10000000002314859

Re: Another seller warning and Paypal gem

PhilLondon — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:02:19 GMT

Providing a proof that they are fake? Is it not to the seller to provide a proof they are real??

Can you not photograph them and send a link to an original photo on the B&O website highlighting the differences?

Re: Another seller warning and Paypal gem

Jonathan — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:49:57 GMT

I stupidly bought some A8s on ebay and received fakes.

I've disputed with Paypal saying they are fake. The seller has acknowledged they're fake in his responses, yet I still have to provide proof!! And Paypal has given me 3 days to provide it.

The 3 days are a Saturday, a Sunday and a Monday. The Monday is a Public holiday here, meaning everything is closed.

How stupid is that???

Re: Another seller warning and Paypal gem

alexb1406 — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:09:16 GMT

Far from it! It was my credit card that provided the refund, not Paypal.

Re: Another seller warning and Paypal gem

Ilikehifi — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:57:57 GMT

Wow, sympathy for Paypal ?? That makes me feel kinda queasy.

Re: Another seller warning and Paypal gem

alexb1406 — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:19 GMT

I have had a very similar experience when buying something outside of ebay. The item (an automotive air bag control box) was sold to me as a fully working unit - well, it didn't work, and being an auto electrician I knew this was the cause of the problem. The seller would not refund claiming I had damaged the unit when fitting it. Paypal would not refund because the transaction had been carried out outside of ebay. I then put a claim to my credit card that I used to pay for the item and they eventually refunded the full amount. I don't know if they recovered it from the seller but hey!, I was satisfied with the outcome.

The thing to remember is that most (if not all) credit card providers give a 90 day warranty on any goods purchased using their card. I always use it when buying goods, especially on ebay where one doesn't know the integrity of the seller, and it can be a useful second insurance if Paypal let you down. So Jonnie, if you used a credit card to buy this and you are still within the 90 day limit you may be able to make a claim.

Alex

Re: Another seller warning and Paypal gem

mobeyone — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:01:44 GMT

Paypal has always been risky, just has become riskier... I only use it as a last resort after my Bl7000 stand went "missing" despite having proof of postage.

Re: Another seller warning and Paypal gem

SWISS_2 — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 01:27:45 GMT

Martin;

You make a very good point.

In our two claims, PAYPAL did require the return of the damaged items to the seller first, before our repayment. We also did this at our cost, another PAYPAL stipulation.

In one case, neither of us (the seller or buyer) expected the shipper to hole the carton with a forklift, tearing into a leather chair inside, and just tape it over. The shipper's response ? " Damage unknown to us " and " Are you covered by an insurance policy ? " A wonderful deflection of responsibility, and perhaps there is some merit to insurance for large expensive items. But does the buyer or seller purchase said policy ?

Both sellers and buyers suffer the consequences of the " Jim Carrey-Pet Detective " shipping professionals on an ongoing basis, who are never, ever found at fault. Damaged shipment received ? Stipulate returning it back to the seller before allowing repayment.

Re: Another seller warning and Paypal gem

SWISS_2 — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:51:53 GMT

Martin;

You make a very good point, and something I need to clarify regarding PAYPAL.

In both of our claims, which were large value items, the damage clearly resulted in the shipment process. We did not anticipate the shipper to hole the carton ( in one incident ) with a forklift and the leather chair arm inside, anymore than the seller did. As buyer and seller we both expected something more professional than masking tape over the holed and stating they were not responsible.

The ever-innocent shipper asked to see our insurance policy. We had not done this. Is the buyer or the seller also to take out an insurance policy for EBAY-PAYPAL transactions ? In hindsight, perhaps.

However, in both cases, PAYPAL required the items to be returned to the seller FIRST, via a tracking numbbefore repayment was made to us. PAYPAL also stipulated the return of the damaged items was at our cost.

We found that remarkably, that our cost was one third of that charged originally to us by seller.