Ebay's new buyer protection scam

[wayne15071965]

So I have been a seller on and off her since June 2001, Over the years I have sent items recorded delivery that either never turn up , or arrive with no notification of delivery.  Now someone wants to charge a buyer a fee for safe delivery, when they would have been charged that in the P&P cost.  Frankly it sounds more like a scam than customer service and Ebay are also trying to force us to use their shipping option, So much for free enterprise, sound like trying to get the monopoly on delivery as well.  As for hanging on the sellers cash til 2 days after delivery, really so post office goes on strike and you don't get paid, Think I may start looking to leave. So much for eBay's loyalty to us .

[goodibags]

Yes, I agree.

Since there's a £1K allowance for trading, limiting sales to 10 phones per year would probably be fine. But NOT 10 per account, of course. 

This process is so much easier when the 'evaluation' is done by actual humans. Ebay's scaremongering algos generally haven't a clue. 

[ett1954]

"Since there's a £1K allowance for trading, limiting sales to 10 phones per year would probably be fine." - I think your missing the point here.  Trading is trading and defined as a business , and by law (Consumer Rights Act - 2015) registering as a business on eBay is a requirement to be compliant with that law  to ensure the consumer is fully aware and entitled to their rights when purchasing from a business.  Profit, turnover, selling limits or anything else doesn't come into it.

[lucy_farmer]

How could anybody who is not a business *have* 10 brand new phones a year to sell in the first place? (regardless of any HMRC trading limits)

The trading limit stuff is totally beside the point here.... cornwall is one of the accounts that ebay are trying to 'nudge' into going business account, because they should already be there.

[capt_rico]

Im baffled by the system.  I clicked on a tape deck. BIN price 574.93 plus 14 for shipping.  Hit Buy it Now and the price at check out i 577.92 plus 14 Shipping.   Nothing on there saying there is a BPF or an amount indicating a fee.    There must be one and its not just £3. This is a private seller too.  I see this on my listings too.  When i click on it the price goes up a few pounds on top of the fee thats already applied. *bleep*?  Ebay has totally buggered this system up.   Its so much easier just to have a system where you can put the price you want including the BPF and ebay works out the listing price so its a nice rounded figure displayed.  

[goodibags]

I haven't a clue why anyone would want to buy 10 phones but I imagine if you were 'trading' you might be 'buying stuff to sell on'? I'm guessing it takes all sorts.

I don't make up UK tax law. There is a personal allowance for online (e.g. Ebay) trading up to £1000 and presumably that was brought in specifically for this reason. 

@ett1954 

Trading above a certain level would highlight that there may be a business, but below £1000 you do not need one since EVERYONE has the same personal allowance.

Of course, the flipside here is that you could very easily be selling your own possessions and 'appear' to be trading too. 

The badges of trade is a useful checklist. At the end of the day, this is what HMRC use.

Badges of Trade | Menzies LLP

[goodibags]

I agree about that particular user running a business tho'. Way too many of these on Ebay.

But as I posted elsewhere, Ebay seems to be happy with this scenario. Especially once buyers fees start rolling in. Why should they take any 'action'? ☹️

Conversely, it's the low-volume but high-value private sellers that Ebay would most like to upgrade to business accounts. No sales but pay anyway?

[lucy_farmer]

'Conversely, it's the low-volume but high-value private sellers that Ebay would most like to upgrade to business accounts. No sales but pay anyway?'

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

Well.... low volume sellers don't have that many pages that ebay can make money from by plastering with adverts or promoted ebay sales (that have also been paid for)

So they may be thinking high-value low-volume accounts could make them more money from business sellers fees rather than advert income.

But large "private'"sellers with loads of pages get loads of advert income, *and* can't have their contact details on listings so it's more difficult to 'off-ebay' trade and avoid (the now buyer's) fees.

So I think they've always been happy to leave the large "private" sellers alone- up until now.

(In the near future, it will become pretty obvious who is trading and who is not when all sales details are shared with HMRC. And if HMRC and Consumer Law get their act together, they may start to come down more heavily on "private" sellers because they're breaking consumer law, and even cause trouble for ebay for facilitating this.? This may explain the 'encouragement' to get "pirate" sellers to register as businesses)

[1964pickup]

its completely messed with pricing , makes it an awkward  off putting to buyer figure ,so sellers feel obligated to lower price and it still comes out at an akward price because its a percentage , plus it doesnt gel well with bidding start it now prices , just an all round frustration for sellers and buyers alike , also what are buyers getting extra with these new fees  that  the postal service and ebay didnt provide previously  ,seems to me ebay re going to be making  much increased profits also with the contract with postage services and increased insurance pricing . Become a bit of a mare for private sellers and buyers alike .

[goodibags]

Yes, I agree. It's statutory reporting that will be key. If only they could get a handle on making it more accurate. e.g. Not bundling postage in with income.

Ultimately it's HMRC's job to collect the right taxes not Ebay's. So while Ebay can make noises about everyone doing the 'right thing', if it also has some vague interest in them not doing that their noise will be pretty muted. Besides, proper investigations need resources and their costs would impact on profits.

It's that 'bottom line' again. 🤔

[capt_rico]

I have used ebay since 2001.  I didnt mind paying seller fees and was happy as it was.  I buy more than i sell nowadays, but i will not pay all these BPF on a small private item that cost 3-4 pounds.  I expect i will buy from businesses mainly, but it will affect the private sellers with small items.    But its a bit of a pain trying to price things knowing that the buyer is going to be charged extra % on top of your price, and it makes the whole thing a bit sloppy, with oddball price.   When i see a listings that have a weird £256.72 price, i automatically skim over these assuming they are in the USA or overseas somewhere.  If i see £250.00 i know right away its in the UK, so this is what i dont like with the new set up.  

[goodibags]

I agree with you. On the one hand Ebay has generated heaps more work for private sellers trying to reduce their costs. And on the other it's pretty obvious to buyers which items are being privately sold. It's a real mess and the private sellers are the ones having to deal with the fall out. It's almost as if Ebay genuinely wants rid of them?

[lucy_farmer]

'When i see a listings that have a weird £256.72 price, i automatically skim over these assuming they are in the USA or overseas somewhere.'

Yes, the odd prices have that effect on me as well.

[andha-21]

"It's a real mess and the private sellers are the ones having to deal with the fall out."

Initially, maybe. But that will roll through to the business sellers too. In a circular economy there is no escape.

[vintique*violet]

Business sellers cannot be charged a fee for something which already exists ie Consumer Laws etc 

Which in definition whereby the MBG is in place, why are buyers  purchasing from private sellers being charged an additional "protection" fee? 

[velobitz]

I doubt they've just realised, it was surely part of the plan alll along. They obviously felt obliged to follow the way other upcoming companies are doing it.

[velobitz]

I would call it 'stealth', it's plain to see. I think they are just responding to the way some of the newer companies are charging... Vinted for one. Either way, there's no free lunch, someone has to pay!

[vintique*violet]

Vinted has the BPF only and held funds etc was their "operation" from the start.

eBay has the MBG... there is no reason to bring in the BPF and I agree it is nothing more than a " stealth tax'... to line their pockets. 

[goodibags]

"Which in definition whereby the MBG is in place, why are buyers  purchasing from private sellers being charged an additional "protection" fee?"

This is very much like the 'buy one get one free' that we see in supermarkets. But being Ebay it's the complete opposite of that.

[goodibags]

Oops! Managed to reply to wrong message somehow.

[papso22]

Maybe ebay has simply decided that what they provided for free before now comes with a charge.

Businesses can do that.