Financial Ombudsman Service & The Data Protection Act

[4_bathrooms]

Long story short...

A buyer opened an INR case; I added tracking information to the case demonstrating the item had been delivered more than two weeks prior to the case being opened. This should have prevented the case being decided in the buyer's favour should they have escalated but it didn't - the buyer escalated yesterday and eBay closed the case deciding I hadn't provided "valid proof of delivery". They refunded the buyer from our funds and slapped a "Case closed without seller resolution" ding against our account. Obviously I'm appealing eBay's decision but should their decision stand I'll be making a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

The thing is in order to file the complaint I'll almost certainly need to provide the tracking information I gave eBay to the ombudsman. However, the tracking obviously displays the buyer's personal details and as a business I'm bound by the Data Protection Act. I would assume an ombudsman is a legitimate party but they're not (for example) a law enforcement agency. Should I just not give the carrier's link but a screenshot with the buyer's details obfuscated instead? Does anyone have any thoughts on how I would stand with this?  

[ojewellery]

I think there might be something in what you're saying but from a cold objectors point of view you're overthinking it.

If you do a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) or MOBR (Management Of Business Risk) analysis on it the risk of a buyer or any agency pursuing you for disclosing buyer details as part of tracking information to what are effectively an independent adjudicator are very, very slim.  

If the financial obudsmen reviewed the case and found in your favour chances are eBay would refund from their pocket not involving the buyer.  In that scenario who would pursue you.

[cobwebcottage]

I might have got the wrong end of the stick but can't you just input the tracking number on it's own? Not sure which courier you used but with most websites, you can just put the number in to show delivery.

Btw, I would be on the phone to CS every day until I spoke to a competent supervisor and received my money back.

[therenewalworkshopltd]

I'm not entirely sure that the financial ombudsman, will be able to help with this one.

However, surely you are running before you have even got started here?

If your appeal fails with Ebay and you can prove that the item was delivered, then surely your next course of action is to contact the buyer and ask for the return of your goods, or a refund.

If this is refused, then you should probably be looking at using the Small Claims procedure to recover your funds.

[ojewellery]

This is one of those I'm sure I've read somewhere things but can't qualify the source.

I thought something had been said about having to upload tracking to the sold item in the delivery window.  The system needs to recognise delivered by carier for cases to autoclose in sellers favour.

I know you mention you'd uploaded tracking to case but I think there was another thread a while ago where someone was told the customer service agent couldn't externally link to the tracking confirmation it needed to be in the system.

This is the only thing I can find but its not quite answering the reason the case wasn't correctly closed:

[vintagechinashop]

I've lost a couple of defect appeals as eBay say if you upload tracking after a case is opened then it's not valid 

honestly they make the rules up as they go along. Valid tracking is proof of delivery no matter when it was uploaded 

[vinylscot]

That would only happen if you didn't supply the tracking number within the timeframe given by eBay when the case is raised.

If you leave it until eBay have stepped in, you're too late. It may seem unfair, but here has to be a cut-off point somewhere.

[237ben]

IMHO I think you could argue that, within the terms of reference of the Act, you have a "legitimate interest" in sharing limited personal data in the way you describe here. Before doing so, I would take two precautionary steps. Ask the Financial Ombudsman Service if they are the appropriate body to which this should be referred (and I’m not sure whether it is) then ask the Information Commissioners Office what their view is. I’m assuming you’re already registered with the ICO. I’ve always found them very helpful in giving advice of this sort.

Do remember, at the heart of this, tracking is not necessarily proof of fact. Whilst eBay normally accept tracking as proof of delivery, there are many instances where couriers or postmen scan an item then 'disappear' it. We also see regular cases on these boards where eBay  determine an item has been delivered, but the photo provided is of the wrong address.

That said, I do hope you achieve a satisfactory conclusion. 

[dch2112011]

With regards to the ebay finding - only thought I have is that the customer proved that the tracking delivery confirmation was for the wrong address - it happens quite often - 

[4_bathrooms]

---

@therenewalworkshopltd wrote:

surely you are running before you have even got started here?

---

As it turns out, I was jumping the gun. I was not expecting eBay to alter their decision but this was their response to my appeal:

"Here is the resolution for you:

I am glad to inform you that I have granted your appeal based on the tracking information you have shared for the item. The amount of £139.99 will be processed to the source account within 24-48 hours, and this case will not count against your seller performance.

I appreciate you for reporting the buyer. Once you report the buyer, our dedicated team will look into this and appropriate actions will be taken against them which may lead to temporary restrictions to permanent suspension of their account.

Thank you for your patience along the way. We trust that your future transactions go a little smoother. I am happy that I could help you to get your funds released."

The really odd thing is another (unrelated) buyer who purchased a different item - sent with the same carrier - also opened an INR case on the very day I created this thread. This particular buyer had actually set my alarm bells ringing before they even purchased as they messaged to ask "As this is your last item could you please confirm it is free of damage?". That really did seem like an odd thing to ask as the item was listed as "New" and "in original, unopened retail packaging". Unknown to this buyer it wasn't the last item I had in stock - it is a stock item I sell regularly on and off eBay - I had simply listed some at a (vastly) discounted rate to free up some warehouse space.

The day the buyer received their item I saw a message from them with an attachment and before even reading the message I knew exactly what was coming - some *problem* had been found that could easily be resolved with a partial refund. In their message the buyer didn't claim there was any damage but did claim a (very small) shelf was missing and asked how this "problem" could be "resolved". Knowing their claim was absolute rubbish - they had simply removed the shelf before taking the picture - I directed them to open an INAD case so I could send a prepaid return label. I also blocked them as I had no interest in engaging in messages where I knew they would just constantly plead for a partial refund. However, instead of opening an INAD case they opened an INR case which I provided the tracking information to just as I had with the previous case. The buyer used the case to constantly plead for a partial refund as they couldn't message me via normal eBay messages; I instead again directed them to open an INAD case explaing how the process worked. However, instead of opening an INAD case they continually pleaded for a partial refund and made further (demonstrably) false claims. Three days after I made it absolutely clear to them that I would not be issuing a partial refund under any circumstances and directed them - yet again - to open an INAD case they asked eBay to step in. Unlike the case I started this thread about this was eBay's decision:

"We reviewed this case and have closed it without any refund to the buyer.

The case will not affect your seller performance. Any Feedback left for this transaction will be removed.

We received tracking information that shows the item was delivered to the buyer's address."

As the same carrier was involved in both cases I'm not sure why there was such a discrepancy in the original outcomes.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@ojewellery wrote:

If you do a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) or MOBR (Management Of Business Risk) analysis on it the risk of a buyer or any agency pursuing you for disclosing buyer details as part of tracking information to what are effectively an independent adjudicator are very, very slim.  

---

I know it may have seemed like paranoia but as we take card payments directly via our own website and in-store we are required to complete an annual PCI DSS questionnaire. Although eBay transactions do not fall under the remit of our PCI DSS compliance there are questions such as "Have you ever disclosed personally identifiable information to an unregulated third-party without the user's consent" type questions (that's just a hypothetical example as I can't remember the exact questions). Basically, anything that could be a breach of the DPA has to be reported in the questionnaire.

Anyway, I have since been advised that passing on necessary details to the FOS via their online reporting form would not have breached the letter nor spirit of the regulations.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@237ben wrote:

Ask the Financial Ombudsman Service if they are the appropriate body to which this should be referred (and I’m not sure whether it is)

---

They most certainly would have been the appropriate body if eBay had not upheld my appeal. Our company would have been caused a loss due to eBay - an FCA regulated financial service provider - not following their own published policy.

---

@237ben wrote:

then ask the Information Commissioners Office what their view is.

---

I had sent an email to our data controller (who is also the HR manager). Unfortunately she is very busy with HR work at the moment and I didn't want to pester her too much over a case of this value. However, she did eventually get back to me and let me know that as the FOS are a regulator with statutory powers and the information I would be providing would be strictly that which was necessary there wouldn't have been a problem. 
 

---

@237ben wrote:

Do remember, at the heart of this, tracking is not necessarily proof of fact. Whilst eBay normally accept tracking as proof of delivery, there are many instances where couriers or postmen scan an item then 'disappear' it. We also see regular cases on these boards where eBay  determine an item has been delivered, but the photo provided is of the wrong address.

---

The fact the item had been delivered wasn't actually in dispute - the buyer had themself confirmed this in the case. I have absolutely no idea why they opened an INR (rather than an INAD) case as the circumstances were similar to the other buyer mentioned. However, for some reason eBay now tells buyers an item has been "sent untracked" if the seller doesn't provide tracking information to the sales record. Maybe that had a bearing on the decisions these buyers made; as they're now blocked I suppose I'll never know!

[cke786]

The way eBay does things sometimes often defies logic, this same situation happened to us a couple months ago, but the roundabout way is just so needless.