Asking eBay to help me get in touch with other buyers defrauded by the same rogue seller

[photocat_uk]

In the last month, I have been scammed by the same seller 3 times. Scams which do not just go against eBay policies, but actually violate UK contractual law (Barry v Davies [2000] 1 WLR 1962). Each time I contacted eBay to complain and each time eBay did nothing. Looking at the seller feedback, I noticed other  buyers complaining about EXACTLY the same pattern of abuse and also mentioning eBay seemingly unwilling to step in.

I am fed up and about to start a formal legal case against seller in Small Claims Court. I wanted to give other scammed buyers opportunity to join me. Since the names of buyers are anonymised, I wanted Ebay to contact buyers with MY contact details and ask them if they want to get in touch.

In effect, I am giving away my contact details to other affected buyers without knowing theirs. If they do not want to respond - they could just ignore the inquiry and that would be it.

Now, eBay is seemingly having great trouble handling this request. I am not sure how to express it to them.

-------------------

They list items for sale, let auction run its course (5 days) and accept payment. If they do not like the final price, after about a week they declare that the item is "cannot be found", provide refund and IMMEDIATELY list identical items for sale. They keep this scam repeating until they get the price they think they deserve.

In most blatant case, my item was "lost", they said that if they find it - they will contact me and let have it . They didn't, but in the next 3 weeks (starting at 2 days AFTER the "item" was lost), they listed 5 absolutely identical items for sale (down to description). I won one of those. That one was ALSO "lost" and miraculously immediately relisted (twice). Third time, I got it - apparently the items no longer get "lost" once they pass  £105 threshold. 

Their excuse? Well, the items had "different serial numbers" (funny that they never put SN into listing), so technically it is "not the same item", hence "bad luck".

[red_magpie]

As far as eBay is concerned, sellers who cancel sales without a valid reason are dealt with by leaving appropriate feedback and by eBay itself penalising the seller with account defects. (It doesn't take many defects for a seller to be banned from selling.) From whay you say, you have always been refunded so there's no case to use eBay's money back guarantee. 

I very much doubt whether they will help you by contacing other buyers on your behalf. In any case, as you have always been refunded, it isn't clear what losses you have suffered? 

Unless you have suffered a loss it's hard to see what point you see in going to the small claims court. It would be sensible to take advice first. You coud end up liable to pay the other party's legal costs.

If you are determined to proceed with this you don't need to ask eBay's help anyway; just go to the member's profile and click on "send message". But be careful what you say. It is not allowed to send or request any contact details and any discussion of past transactions could be falsely recognised by eBay's scanning robot as attempting to do business outside of eBay. Which would prompt a warning or account suspension.

[photocat_uk]

According to a number of well-established precedents in UK contractual law, for example Barry v Davies [2000] 1 WLR 1962, an auction, without reserve, involves an offer to sell to the highest bidder. My bid was accepted and therefor the seller is bound to sell the item at that price. The items in question were manifestly not unique, hence if one is lost, the seller was obligated to offer me another one.

 

In terms of why I do not consider refund adequate. I have won the item at a price significantly lower than market value. In such situation, the court will force the seller to either provide identical item OR recover the difference between market and the agreed price.

I talked to eBay and thy stated that they considered refund sufficient resolution - no strikes against seller were raised.

The court will specifically take very deem view if a pattern of "bad faith" could be demonstrated, hence my interest in contacting other affected buyers.

Since the names of buyers are hidden, I cannot (and, frankly, do not want) to contact them directly. And this is the reason why I am trying to manage those communications through eBay itself.

I have been trained as paralegal and so far went to Small Claims Court 11 times in various disputes (never  eBay, but there is always a first). I have won every single case - either by court judgement or by other party agreeing to an out-of-court settlement. I believe I have a good case here.

[papso22]

You may or may not have a good case, but unless you can find a legal reason why ebay must assist you, they won't. 

I presume you have been writing to the address for legal notices given  in the user agreement?

[jckl1957]

I understand that you are disappointed, but BHF (which is a wonderful charity) currently has 21000 items for sale.  They sell hundreds of items every day to raise funds for research, support and inititives like the Strong Woman Challenge.

Those items won't all be in the same place I am sure and, personally, I find their reason for cancelling sales perfectly credible.

In the past few weeks, I have bought three separate items from BHF and they have all arrived in a timely fashion.

Looking at their 200 most recent feedbacks, there are no negatives.  I know I would find some if I hunted back further, but 200 positives in a row does not indicate a dishonest seller. Their feedback score is 99%.

I genuinely believe you have simply been unlucky and hope you will rethink spending your money on what could well be a pointless endeavour.

[plpmr]

eBay won't do what you want - you want eBay to become a party to building a legal action against a seller.

You are accusing a very big UK charity of fraud and being a scammer.

Over the last 12 months they received 232,513 positives and 1797 negatives.

[photocat_uk]

You literally just confirmed that legal action is the right thing to do.

The legal action is for a particular pattern of actions by a particular part of the charity - the argument that eBay shop part of the charity cannot do fraud because the charity as a whole is "wonderful" is "non sequitur". 

Out of 11 Small Claims Court cases I won, 3 were against companies I am still with - I insisted that they stick to contractual law, I won, I continue to do business with them after that since "they learned their lessons and we will not have this stupidity again".

[photocat_uk]

I intentionally keep eBay out of it - I am annoyed at them for not enforcing their own policies, but objectively their behaviour is nowhere near threshold justifying a legal case.

However, requesting service company (even if they are held blameless) to assist in releasing details for valid prosecution is a common pattern in UK law. 

[photocat_uk]

Spot on - that was my reason for the original post. I thought that arguing a clear precedent (Barry v Davies [2000] 1 WLR 1962) would persuade eBay that my complaint is valid, but obviously eBay does not feel this way. Hence I thought maybe I worded my request incorrectly.

Right now, I am playing  strictly by eBay rules - I am going out of my way to do it through proper channels. If I were to feel that I am not going anywhere, I have other means to get the information I need (I am a lead solution architect with 30+ years in IT security, including government, defence, etc).

[photocat_uk]

A QUICK UPDATE

Seller has decided, in their infinite wisdom, that I do have a valid grievance, that replacing "lost" items with identical ones is the right thing to do and previous sniggering communications advising me effectively that "you do not have a case here" were "sent in mistake".

So - they did exactly (to the letter) what I demanded from Day 1, hence there is no longer a need for a legal case. If only they responded to my (initially polite) requests - the whole mess could have been avoided. 

It is fascinating how a competent credible threat of legal action citing specific previous cases could produce... hmmm... attitude adjustment. 

I extend my specific thanks to various "Experienced Mentors" for helping me to elevate the visibility of this case. Without you - it would have dragged for much longer.