<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: I'm 53, disabled, no C.C. to verify age and likely wouldn't qualify for one. Had Ebay account 22 in Buying</title>
    <link>https://community.ebay.co.uk/t5/Buying/I-m-53-disabled-no-C-C-to-verify-age-and-likely-wouldn-t-qualify/m-p/7916789#M78527</link>
    <description>&lt;H3&gt;Defences under the Offensive Weapons Act 2019&lt;/H3&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you are charged with an offence of selling a corrosive product to a person under the age of 18, you can use the due diligence defence.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Where a sale is a remote sale, the due diligence defence can only be proved if you meet the following conditions:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;you operated a system for checking that the buyer was not under the age of 18 and that the system was likely to prevent such a sale&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;just stating the account was over 18 years old would not cover due diligence. Because the account could be accessed by someone under 18. Hence eBay’s stance. At least requiring a credit card information is inputted does more to prevent someone under 18 getting through to make a purchase.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2025 22:49:27 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>jonatjonatjonat</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-08-23T22:49:27Z</dc:date>
  </channel>
</rss>

