Pseudo Private Sellers. Is it fraud?

[ackers-fine-antiques-jewellery]

If I buy an item from a seller who is registered as "Private Seller" I now pay 10% additional fee to eBay and the seller pays no selling fee.

What if that seller is clearly a "Business" and not a "Private" seller?

I am paying an addition amount due to misrepresentation.  Have I been subjected to a fraudulent act?  

Would eBay be seen as jointly liable due to lack of, Due Diligence, if it was found to be a fraudulent act?

Your opinion is invited.

[action_man]

Huh? You appear to be asking if eBay has committed a fraudulent act if you buy from someone you say is clearly a business and not a private seller. If it is clear to you, why would you buy from them in the first place and then blame eBay for not doing their Due Diligence? It doesn't appear to make much sense.

[papso22]

The seller is guilty of misrepresenting themselves as a private seller when they are really a business.

They are also guilty of a breach of consumer law because they are not displaying contact details and may have a no returns policy.

Ebay is not responsible for a seller's account choice and they do have a number of published policies that explain when sellers need a business account.  I double very much that joint and several liability would apply, at least without a law that says so.

[ackers-fine-antiques-jewellery]

---

@action_man wrote:

Huh? You appear to be asking if eBay has committed a fraudulent act if you buy from someone you say is clearly a business and not a private seller. If it is clear to you, why would you buy from them in the first place and then blame eBay for not doing their Due Diligence? It doesn't appear to make much sense.

---

I do not ask if eBay has committed a fraudulent act, I ask, if it were are fraudulent act, (committed by the seller), would eBay have any liability.

It is not clear to me that it would be  a fraudulent act, I only ask if it is and what others think. 

In addition, I make no claim that the seller, (a seller), is misrepresenting themselves or that it is clear to me that they are. 

I only ask, what if and what are opinions of others.

[action_man]

You say: "I make no claim that the seller, (a seller), is misrepresenting themselves or that it is clear to me that they are".

Your post said: "What if that seller is clearly a "Business" and not a "Private" seller?"

[ackers-fine-antiques-jewellery]

papso22 

Thank you for you input.

The law can often fall on what is a reasonable expectation. That is often for a judge to decide.

Is it reasonable to accept that a seller with say, sales of 20 items a month and hundreds of items listed for sale on an on going basis, is a private seller?

They could legitimately be a private seller though would perhaps reasonably be required to in some way show how they are so.

[papso22]

I make my own mind up on whether a seller is a business or not.  It involves more than number of sales or listings and I wouldn't say that the numbers you give are definite indicators of a business.

Some indicators of a business are multiples quantities of new items of a type that are unlikely to be from a collection. 

Collection sellers are very tricky to be sure about, especially stamps, records and postcards.  Even antiques are tricky, it could be selling off a deceased relatives stuff.

[ackers-fine-antiques-jewellery]

---

@action_man wrote:

You say: "I make no claim that the seller, (a seller), is misrepresenting themselves or that it is clear to me that they are".

Your post said: "What if that seller is clearly a "Business" and not a "Private" seller?"

---

Yes, I wrote, "what if a seller is clearly a "Business" and not a "Private" seller".

I do not state that is, "clearly to me", but generally.

Perhaps, in their opinion, to other eBay users.

Perhaps to the Inland Revenue.

Perhaps, by the data they hold and claim to analyse for such purposes as to ascertain if a seller should be deemed a "Business Seller", eBay

[ackers-fine-antiques-jewellery]

@papso22

"...........and I wouldn't say that the numbers you give are definite indicators of a business."

Surely you are experienced enough to understand the numbers I gave were an unqualified example and not quantitative analysed data.

@papso22

Collection sellers are very tricky to be sure about, especially stamps, records and postcards.  Even antiques are tricky, it could be selling off a deceased relatives stuff.

Agreed. Though of course "deceased relatives" stuff, would have needed to be declared as part of the  probate process.

[action_man]

OK, so....

You say: "I make no claim that the seller, (a seller), is misrepresenting themselves or that it is clear to me that they are".

Your post said: "What if that seller is clearly a "Business" and not a "Private" seller?"

Now you say: "I do not state that is, "clearly to me", but generally",

Oh, you're one of those people I see. Life's too short for that nonsense. That coupled with your response to @papso22 shows you're not being genuine with your "invitation".

[ackers-fine-antiques-jewellery]

---

@action_man wrote:

OK, so....

You say: "I make no claim that the seller, (a seller), is misrepresenting themselves or that it is clear to me that they are".

Your post said: "What if that seller is clearly a "Business" and not a "Private" seller?"

Now you say: "I do not state that is, "clearly to me", but generally",

Oh, you're one of those people I see. Life's too short for that nonsense. That coupled with your response to @papso22 shows you're not being genuine with your "invitation".

Not sure which reply to @papso22 you are referring to or what part of that reply.

My "invitation" as you call it was to ask others to give their opinion.

Do I have to fully agree with their opinion?

I can myself take it on board and decide what I think of the input of others as can everyone else.

It t also gives others the option to take in what is said and form their own opinion.

I am confident that there will be differing opinions.

Is that not healthy debate?

I do not see where I am being "not genuine" in asking other opinions.

---

[carbtec]

---

@ackers-fine-antiques-jewellery wrote:

If I buy an item from a seller who is registered as "Private Seller" I now pay 10% additional fee to eBay and the seller pays no selling fee.

What if that seller is clearly a "Business" and not a "Private" seller?

I am paying an addition amount due to misrepresentation.  Have I been subjected to a fraudulent act?  

Would eBay be seen as jointly liable due to lack of, Due Diligence, if it was found to be a fraudulent act?

Your opinion is invited.

---

You are presented with the cost to buy & it is your choice whether to proceed with the purchase.

I like it when people 'think' about their purchasing decisions & what drives the conclusions they come to. You are questioning whether your decision to buy from a seller who may be acting fraudulently is ebay's responsibility? Good luck with that one. Ebay may come across as stupid & incompetent in very many ways, but hear me now . . . They have the BIG questions well covered.

You could possibly explore your point in law if you could find legal representation that would take the case on, assuming of course that you have an understanding of just how much it may cost, do you have an understanding of how much it may cost? I'm just guessing here, but I don't think that you are prepared to put a few £HUNDREDS £THOUSANDS £POUNDS to explore the possibility because your feelings have been hurt by the addition of 10% on top of your £8.28 purchasing decision.

[ackers-fine-antiques-jewellery]

@carbtec

"You are questioning whether your decision to buy from a seller who may be acting fraudulently is ebay's responsibility? "

I do not say it is in any way, eBays direct responsibility, I merely ask, if it was deemed to be a fraudulent act, could eBay in anyway be found to be complicit due to lack of "Due Diligence".

That would be for a judge to decide, subject to appeals.

I am only asking what other think.

You could possibly explore your point in law if you could find legal representation that would take the case on, assuming of course that you have an understanding of just how much it may cost, do you have an understanding of how much it may cost? I'm just guessing here, but I don't think that you are prepared to put a few £HUNDREDS £THOUSANDS £POUNDS to explore the possibility because your feelings have been hurt by the addition of 10% on top of your £8.28 purchasing decision.

It is not my "point of law", it is a question for debate.

Not sure I have bought anything recently for £8.28 so I assume that figure is just an example.

I am too old and too tired to want to pursue such a lawsuit but if I was to do so, would only do it on a win fee basis and any right minded law firm would only do that if they felt it was a slam dunk in their favour, plus I am sure they would only consider it as a class action.

[forestfeline62]

Private sellers can sell new items as long as they are not all the same ,to be a business seller they need to be selling the same identical thing .I had this explained to me by ebay after I was concerned about a private seller listing lots & lots of brand new underwear ,it was all new but no 2 pieces were the same so ebay said the seller is not doing anything wrong . If the seller was to sell say lots of new kettles and they were all identical then they would be classed as a business seller not a private seller .

[ackers-fine-antiques-jewellery]

---

@forestfeline62 wrote:

Private sellers can sell new items as long as they are not all the same ,to be a business seller they need to be selling the same identical thing .I had this explained to me by ebay after I was concerned about a private seller listing lots & lots of brand new underwear ,it was all new but no 2 pieces were the same so ebay said the seller is not doing anything wrong . If the seller was to sell say lots of new kettles and they were all identical then they would be classed as a business seller not a private seller .

---

Interesting. I wonder if HMRC would have the same take on that......not according to their rules....as I understand them to be.

[dch2112011]

An interesting and relevant scenario.

Looking at ebay's policy and user agreement, they seem to cover themselves by:

Offering advice and rules on which type of account to use :

Putting the complete responsibility onto the seller, explicity stating that ebay have no responsibility on the basis that they are not a distributor or merchant and the content of a listing is entirely the responsibility of the seller.

They also have facilitated 'the relevant authority' trading standards to report any such infraction and guarantee to remove the listing within 2 hours of receiving such a report.

My personal interpretation is that ebay leave the policing of businesses misrepresenting themselves to the appropriate authorities and make it clear that they have no responsibility.

Trading standards state that they will only take action if a consumer has been specifically disadvantaged.  This is because of the lack of resources to police such a huge market place such as ebay. 

The laws concerning 'platforms' is lacking and many of the existing laws do not specifically cover how platforms work, the laws are constantly being updated but it takes years  and in the interim ebay voluntarily and in consultation with the authorities offer some compromise to trading standards and only enforce compliance to legislation when it is compulsory - hence why changes tend to occur when legislation that applies to ebay comes into force.

A small claims court could rule on a financial loss - how far up the court system and how much it would cost to pursue ebay is advice that only specialist legal professionals could give you - I dout it would be easy nor certain otherwise it would have already forced ebay to act.

[ett1954]

"Private sellers can sell new items as long as they are not all the same ,to be a business seller they need to be selling the same identical thing .I had this explained to me by ebay" - This is total rubbish.  The definition of a trader / business is determined by HMRC's badges of trade: BIM20205 - Meaning of trade: badges of trade: summary - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK 

You should be dismissive of any advice regarding UK law from eBay customer service operatives who are probably based on the other side of the world and who haven't any idea of UK laws.

[action_man]

It's amazing just how many legal professionals hang out on the eBay forums enlightening us all. I had thought it might be busybodying know-it-alls, but it's comforting to know it isn't, so we're in good hands.

[dch2112011]

Not so many legal professionals but quite a few established business people who as part of due dilligence when running a business are obliged to be aware of and implement actions which ensure that the businesses they run comply with legislation particulalry when it comes to consumer law, employment law and health and safety.

A business cannot use ' we did not know' as a defence - the law expects businesses not only to comply with the law but also to be aware of the law, hence why reputable business owners can and do pass on this knowledge but always with the caveat that proper legal advice should be sought,

I do understand that a member who is selling as a private individual or as a small micro business may not understand the advice, debate or reference because they have not made themselves aware of any legal responsibility and that is quite evident from the posts complaining about ebay and buyers from these members that they just don't get the words ' legal responsibility' and that is why the more knowledgeable can and do comment on legal requirements.

[action_man]

Ah, right. So they comment on legal requirements, but are not actually qualified. I think the manner in which they assert themselves so strongly makes it seem like they aren't simply aware of these things, but rather trying to enforce them. But as they aren't qualified in the first place..........