Buyer making false claim

[jack_himself]

I sold a use iPhone on eBay. The phone and its software worked completely fine apart from the defects I stated in the listing, which were a crack on the screen and an issue with the speaker not working unless the phone was on loud speaker. The phone turned on fine and was in working order. I actually recorded a video of the phone working before I posted it and you can see the phone is working in the photos on the original listing. 

The buyer has contacted me 3 weeks after the purchase saying he took the phone apart to replace the screen and when he’s put it back together, he’s saying the phone no longer works and the ‘motherboard is defective’. He’s then sent a request to return the phone for a refund. 

I’ve spoke to eBay and they’ve said I have to accept the return then contact eBay once I have the phone back. 

I see no reason that I should have to offer a refund. The buyer has taken it apart and broke it and now expects a refund from me. If I bought a car and then crashed it 3 weeks later, I wouldn’t go back to the person I bought it off and ask for a refund. 

Has anyone dealt with an issue like this before? 

[jckl1957]

I would say the best way to deal with this is to accept the return and provide a label.

If you don't, the buyer can ask Ebay to step in.  They will probably refund the buyer from your funds and tell them to keep the item.

Then, when you have the item back, you need to contact Ebay asking them to step in on your behalf for a resolution.  (Link below)  Tell them the item has been returned in a different condition which is not allowed according to their guarantee conditions.

They will (hopefully) look at the messages from the buyer stating the item did work until they messed about with it.

You need to take action promptly after you get the item back.  48 hours after receipt, the buyer can ask Ebay to step in and force the refund.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/selling/managing-returns-refunds/ask-ebay-step-help-sellers?id=4702&st=3...

[ile136yz]

If the Buyer opens an eBay case for 'not as described' within the 30days Guarantee period, you will have to refund in full & send the Buyer a Returns Postage label.  Then contact eBay CS as they suggested when you get the phone back.

[darryl63_60]

The whole ebay return policy is a farce. I have had to issue a refund for a false claim that the item was not as described. There is a so called appeal system, but basically it's your word against theirs and ebay will always take the buyers side. 

Another thing that I think sellers should be aware of is buyers threatening to make a claim for a full refund to try and get a partial refund. Knowing that some sellers will do this to stop the hassle of having to give a full refund. 

[susapric-68]

If not an eBay policy, it's a policy under the consumer rights act and ebay have to follow it

[4_bathrooms]

---

@susapric-68 wrote:

If not an eBay policy, it's a policy under the consumer rights act and ebay have to follow it

---

The Consumer Rights Act - just like any Act or Regulation containing the word "Consumer" in it's name - only applies to contracts formed between traders (businesses) and consumers. Where private sellers are concerned the Sale of Goods Act is the most pertinent piece of legislation.

Not that any of it matters as eBay's policies and the (never read) User Agreement affords buyers more rights than they have enshrined in law anyway.

[susapric-68]

Under the consumer rights act the item has to be as described even if sold by a private seller. Video is no proof it worked. eBay have no choice if a claim is open for INAD from both private and businesses 

[4_bathrooms]

---

@susapric-68 wrote:

Under the consumer rights act the item has to be as described even if sold by a private seller. 

---

The Sale of Goods Act applies to the sale of all goods regardless who the seller is. Here is the section that explains which contracts the Act applies to. 

Where consumer contracts are concerned - which means contracts between traders and consumers - much of the SoGA has been superseded by the Consumer Rights Act. Where the sale of goods is concerned the CRA states which contracts are covered thus:

"This Chapter applies to a contract for a trader to supply goods to a consumer." 

The Sale of Goods Act was never repealed so it still applies to private sales and the sections not marked as being replaced by the CRA still apply to consumer contracts. Where the SoGA is concerned the following is stated for goods being sold by description:

"Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied term that the goods will correspond with the description."

The goods must therefore be as described under the SoGA (not the CRA) where a private sale is concerned.

[susapric-68]

Took a long time to get here but it's not an eBay policy, eBay have to follow it. Buyer should never have tried to repair it but challenging that will just have them saying their account got hacked and someone else must have sent it. In the end the buyer has probably just swapped their old not working phone for this one

[darryl63_60]

That is all very well, but I am looking at it more from an ethical point of
view. A buyer should not be allowed to make a fraudulent claim so easily
for a refund because he is able to abuse the law. When I contacted ebay on
the phone about this, also pointing out that I had a 100% positive feedback
record, I was that I was only in the same situation before the sale so
hadn't lost anything, which was actually false because I had to pay for the
return postage, and i can always relist the item.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@susapric-68 wrote:

Took a long time to get here but it's not an eBay policy, eBay have to follow it. 

---

The SoGA applies to the contract between the buyer and the seller, not the separate contract each has with eBay (eBay are not the seller of the goods).

The point I was making earlier is that eBay gives buyers more rights than they have enshrined in law; something buyers and sellers agree to by operating an eBay account. The OP was not obliged to refund their buyer under the SoGA if the device had been exactly as described when their buyer received it. However, they were obliged to pay for a return shipping label and ultimately issue a refund under the terms of eBay's Money Back Guarantee and eBay's User Agreement. That is, unless they were otherwise able to convince eBay their buyer was abusing the MBG.   

[4_bathrooms]

---

@darryl63_60 wrote:
That is all very well, but I am looking at it more from an ethical point of
view. A buyer should not be allowed to make a fraudulent claim so easily
for a refund because he is able to abuse the law. 

---

It is eBay's Money Back Guarantee policy they are abusing. Some of the few defences sellers have against abusive buyers are the ability to report them for abusing the MBG and adding their user ID to the buyer block list preventing that user making further purchases and/or communicating with the seller in the future.

Don't get me wrong; eBay should do far more to police some of the worst abusive buyers. I rarely suffer them but one of the last ones I encountered - which was nearly a year ago - had left nothing but negative feedback for sellers over a few dozen (then) recent transactions. I have no idea why eBay is seemingly so reluctant to consider such buyers a "risk to the eBay community" like they so often do with sellers for what are often the smallest of perceived infractions. I do have personal experience of reporting an abusive buyer and receiving a reaction from them suggesting eBay had either sanctioned or threatened to sanction their account. However, often the first communication you receive from such a buyer will tell you that this isn't their first rodeo.