Ebay forces upgrade to Business due to new HMRC regulations

[sportex-uk]

Hi All.

I've received an email from ebay forcing me to switch to business account due to the volume of my recent sales. Customer service explained that I exceeded £1800 in one month, so they act in line with new HMRC regulations. The email is a bit threatening: "We need you to make these changes to your account within the next 21 days. If you don’t, your selling privileges may be blocked. This includes listings ended and loss of selling history."

However, As I'm not ready to go business and I consider my increased activity as temporary, Customer Service advised that if reduce my sales volume, I can stay private. Has any of you passed through this process?

Also, what happensto your existing promo listings if you switch to business? Are they allowed to continue on promo terms and with 'no returns accepted' until they sell or end?

[therenewalworkshopltd]

I mean honestly, we could tell in seconds, one dedicated member of staff lets say doing 1 a minute, could do 480 account checks a day, 13,440 a month, 161,280 a year. Give 'em a wage of 36k a year that would cost 22p per account check.

Just a tad optimistic to work at that pace don't you think?   🙂

I do think something like 5-10 minutes per account is more reasonable.  Which knocks your checks down quite a lot and the expense up a fair bit.  But can you really imagine checking 1 account per minute.  Never mind that sometimes it will take longer than that just to load.....  

[jokers_toybox]

Even at a £1 per account every 4 minutes, averaging out the obvious vs the others, it's still pay for itself pretty quick 

[theelench]

I did read your earlier posts and appreciate that you were replying to someone who is determined not to accept any advice from whatever source.

I wasn't saying that changing the emphasis for that seller might work, I'm sure it would not, but the change might work in more general circumstances.

Instead of throwing a mix of laws and ebay rules, all emphasising different aspects of how trading should be conducted leading to a sort of 'tick box' approach and the thinking that as they tick some / most of the boxes they're not doing too much wrong.

Just emphasise the basic crime of mis-representing themselves as a private individual and not making it clear that they are a business, which is a crime in itself.

It might concentrate the mind better if the answer can only be Yes or No.  Rather than "I give consumers their rights or at least some of them without being properly registered?

[theelench]

After reading several posts from private sellers that ebay have required to convert to selling on a business account for what appear to be entirely unjustified reasons I replied with #294.

Basically, in an effort to show that it is doing something it is hitting random private sellers and forcing them to up-grade because they are less profitable to ebay.

I would guess that it makes more from the larger fish if they promote their listings but otherwise pay no fees, than it does from a genuine private seller who has only ever sold a handful of items and paid FVF on at least some of them.

For ebay it's all about money, so it 'makes an example' of the genuine private seller, ignoring the more profitable blatant business.

From what I've read on the BSB from those who keep watch on particularly annoying "private" sellers, there seems to be few signs of larger offenders changing to businesses and plenty of evidence that they are carrying-on as normal, completely untouched.

[vintique*violet]

That makes sense... 

[jokers_toybox]

Ran a basic search, using Bing, first result as attached.

I'm no legal expert but... surely calling it an offence suggests it's a thing punishable by law?

[theelench]

Is that just the first paragraph of the result or all it has to say on the question?

If that's all there is it looks to me to be saying that it's necessary for a business to declare itself as such in all commercial transactions.  Not just when selling??

[4_bathrooms]

---

@theelench wrote:

Is that just the first paragraph of the result or all it has to say on the question?

If that's all there is it looks to me to be saying that it's necessary for a business to declare itself as such in all commercial transactions.  Not just when selling??

---

That AI result has returned the Directive; not the Regulations that stemmed from it. As per the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations the following is in all cases deemed an unfair commercial practice and therefore an offence:

"Falsely claiming or creating the impression that the trader is not acting for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession, or falsely representing oneself as a consumer." 

So yes, it applies whenever a trader is selling or purchasing. The reason being in any transaction between a business and a consumer the business is judged to be in the stronger position. If a business is purchasing something it is obviously in the business's interest to pay as little as possible which is contrary to the interests of a private seller.

[ett1954]

"it looks to me to be saying that it's necessary for a business to declare itself as such in all commercial transactions" - In essence that is correct.

Whilst the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 has been well covered; requirements of contact details, compliant returns policy, etc.; the The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 is probably a better example to quote from rather than Unfair Commercial Practices as it supports and works in conjunction with the Consumer Rights Act which has the specific advantage of dealing with online and distance selling.

Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading reinforces the offence of a trader falsely claiming they are a consumer to avoid their legal obligations to you, including the existence of any cancellation rights.  In addition the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 give you rights to redress: the right to unwind the contract, the right to a discount and the right to damages.

Offences under the Unfair Trading Regulations can result in, obviously depending upon severity, a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum upon summary conviction; and on conviction on indictment, a jail sentence up to 2 years, a fine, or both.  Unlikely I know; unless of course a sale from a illegal trader resulted in serious injury to a consumer through failure to meet necessary legal safety requirements a business seller has to adhere to.

[therenewalworkshopltd]

Unlikely I know; unless of course a sale from a illegal trader resulted in serious injury to a consumer through failure to meet necessary legal safety requirements a business seller has to adhere to.

That's the thing though, it may be unlikely, but why take the risk?

[4_bathrooms]

---

@ett1954 wrote:

Offences under the Unfair Trading Regulations can result in, obviously depending upon severity, a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum upon summary conviction; and on conviction on indictment, a jail sentence up to 2 years, a fine, or both.  Unlikely I know; unless of course a sale from a illegal trader resulted in serious injury to a consumer through failure to meet necessary legal safety requirements a business seller has to adhere to.

---

There have been prosecutions under the CPUTRs but almost all have been car dealers masquerading as private sellers. If you Google "guilty of masquerading as a private seller" you will find a few prosecutions that were reported via local news websites. 

[ett1954]

@4_bathrooms   You are correct of course, and I always value your well-informed input, however it does not preclude the Act being used to bring a prosecution.  Trading Standards used the Act over several years to target rogue car traders to combat media and public concerns at the time.  I am aware that it would be extreme to use this Act but it remains a possibility although in reality the Consumer Rights Act would most likely be used due to it specifically covering online selling.

I raised the safety issue due to safety concerns regarding the selling of food on eBay by private sellers.  I reported one such seller to eBay a week or so ago who was selling a food product which was not being shipped in accordance to Food Safety Regulations for that particular product.  Whether it was even being stored by the seller correctly I have no idea.  The food was one often given to very young children but can pose a significant risk to both children, pregnant women, and anyone immunocompromised  if not stored correctly.

eBay policy is that a food seller must be registered as a business for obvious reasons.  After a few days I was advised that AI had determined my report invalid and the product wasn't removed.  It is only a matter of time before someone is seriously harmed, or worse, by such sellers.  I can imagine the 'hand-wringing' and blame game that will erupt between Trading Standards, eBay, and private sellers on just who is to blame should it attract media attention.

One thing it does show is that eBay's use of AI is not only unfit for purpose, it is dangerously unfit for purpose, and it cannot even determine a clear violation of eBay's own policies.

[therenewalworkshopltd]

The annoying thing though, is that it's not just AI responses.  When supposedly customer services have looked, they are 99% of the time wrong.

I've reported for email address's in pictures and such like, but no matter which response I get, it's rarely accepted as a problem.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@ett1954 wrote:

I am aware that it would be extreme to use this Act but it remains a possibility although in reality the Consumer Rights Act would most likely be used due to it specifically covering online selling.

---

In the case of the car dealers who were masquerading as private sellers that wasn't the only offence they were committing. Depending upon when they were prosecuted they were also committing offences under the Sale of Goods Act and/or the Consumer Rights Act. However, Trading Standards will normally focus a prosecution on the most serious offence they can prove hence why they were prosecuted under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

Where an online trader is concerned the order of severity is CPUTRs -> CRA -> CCRs. Offences committed under the CCRs are the least severe - i.e. they attract the least punitive penalties - but they are the easiest to prove (i.e. failing to disclose the identity and address of the trader prior to the sale). I'm pretty sure if Trading Standards were to bring a prosecution they would start from the top down and focus on the offence that would attract the largest fine and/or sentence as that is how any criminal or civil prosecution is generally conducted.

---

@ett1954 wrote:

eBay policy is that a food seller must be registered as a business for obvious reasons.  After a few days I was advised that AI had determined my report invalid and the product wasn't removed.  It is only a matter of time before someone is seriously harmed, or worse, by such sellers.  I can imagine the 'hand-wringing' and blame game that will erupt between Trading Standards, eBay, and private sellers on just who is to blame should it attract media attention.

---

I have absolutely no idea why eBay allows private sellers to sell food items. Well, as you correctly point out their policy is that only businesses can sell food items but their platform does not prevent private sellers from doing so. If something happened - and I hope it doesn't - I can't imagine eBay would be able to hide behind their "Seller assumes all responsibility for this listing" disclaimer.

On a related note I have no idea why anybody would purchase food - even canned food - from a complete stranger on the internet!

---

@ett1954 wrote:

One thing it does show is that eBay's use of AI is not only unfit for purpose, it is dangerously unfit for purpose, and it cannot even determine a clear violation of eBay's own policies.

---

I completely agree. In fact, it even finds violations where none exists such as the genuine private sellers being forced to "upgrade" to business accounts and a seller of vinyl records - who has never sold anything sharp - being ordered to comply with eBay's knives policy.

 

[jokers_toybox]

Honestly I dunno, I just ran a basic search that a member requested that he claimed would show NO illegality in him masquerading as a private seller when he's clearly a business. that was the 1st result, didn't dig further

[sportex-uk]

Ebay is not randomly forcing accounts to switch to business. Instead, they select from top performing private sellers who has the 'privilege' to be invited to the switch. When you notice surprised individuals they often sound like 'I have been selling small items for a long time, I am a private seller with 100% positive feedback and now ebay asks me to switch...'. Yes, they source best performing private sellers and just consider it as a prize.

[abigem2527]

ive just received the same email due to increased sales in last month.. but this is because i am selling off a private collection that ive amassed over last 25 years and am now downsizing significantly... i am a private seller, and once these items are gone ill be back to a few sales per year... what should i do?

[jokers_toybox]

Switching to a business account doesn't change any tax implications, and looking at your listings, if you sell enough you'll fall under them reporting it to HMRC anyway.

I'd say convert to a business account before they make you, and then set up another private account to sell off some smaller lower value items to build that up so you can go back to private at a later date

[nabeel_nabs]

Its not possible to revert a business account to personal.

[susapric-68]

Always best if not sure is to see an accountant, most offer a free hour. looking at your listings it does look like you're a private seller selling a collection off. If you have gone above the limit you could always call the HMRC and ask their advice. I doubt you have anything to worry about but it's always best to be sure