Raise a formal complaint against eBay for BPF and report to UK Trading Standards

[mals-marvellous-motors-2]

eBay are probably quite deliberately not fixing the current combined invoice issue because they want to foist their new shipping system on us. The BPF is also at the root of this. I neither want nor need the BPF because my buyers already have plenty of protection, mainly because I'm a good, reputable seller but I also use Royal Mail tracked shipping services as standard. 

I think the way forward regarding BPF is to complain en masse to eBay. Based on another post I read it would seem that eBay may be in breach of UK trading standards. I suggest we bombard them with complaints. You can write to them at:

eBay Commerce UK Ltd.
1 More London Place
London, SE1, 2AF, United Kingdom

In the meantime I'm going to be registering some complaints with them by phone and chat. Chat's good because you can keep a record of it more easily. 

[susapric-68]

Good luck with that, you agree to eBays T&C when you list an item to sell, trading standards will just say if you don't agree with it don't sell on it

[auctionmike1]

If it could have been fixed, it would have been fixed some time ago now.

This is either a deliberate design feature or it conflicts with the BPF changes - either way it's never going to reappear, no matter how inconvenient it is for so many of us.

If you buy on eBay.com you are still able to request a combined invoice, and get one (and without a buyer's fee).

It seems to be only eBay.co.uk where they have steamrollered in these appalling changes.

[mals-marvellous-motors-2]

I have just contacted my local trading standards office. You can find your local trading standards office here:

https://www.tradingstandards.uk/consumer-help/

[mals-marvellous-motors-2]

Yes, that's as maybe, but if eBay can do this legitimately maybe it will make folk realise they have a choice; stay with eBay and put up or leave eBay. At this stage in life I'm not sure I can be bothered starting it all again on a competitor's platform but there are plenty out there who will take their business elsewhere and that's something eBay don't want. They can't have it all ways.

[papso22]

"Based on another post I read it would seem that eBay may be in breach of UK trading standards". 

There are a number of wannabee lawyers and crusaders who post about changes being illegal or in breach of something or other, but no-one has the courage of their convictions to actually get legal advice on the matter.  Or maybe they do and as the advice doesn't support their views they don't come back and tell us what it was.

Are you going to ask a lawyer for their views?  It doesn't have to be a mass action, just a single conversation with a qualified legal professional who has the user agreement and ebay's policies to hand.

Personally, I don't think ebay are doing anything legally wrong and if loads of disgruntled sellers clog up the phones and chat, people with problems that can be solved are not going to get through.

It looks like your buyers should not be paying the BPF anyway, judging by what you buy and then sell.  Business accounts are not subject to the changes.

[arty.crafty.books]

Regarding Trading Standards:

What could be be more useful is to highlight potential breaches of UK consumer protection laws.  A complaint can to focus on the "unfair business practices" aspect and how it affects UK sellers due to the power imbalance over time.  This "boiling frog" scenario makes it harder to resist changes. 

I note the mention of T&C's:

While eBay's T&Cs provide a legal framework, the gradual changes over time, and the sellers' reliance on the platform, create a situation that feels like extortion (see the the threads about BPF and SD).

Sellers have invested significant time and resources into building their listings on eBay. (And save your breath about register as a business and peopel selling 'unwanted posessions' again - remember the formation of ebay) . People selling have established customer bases and reputations that are tied to the platform. This creates a dependence that makes it difficult to "take it or leave it.

The combination of sunk costs, dependence, and gradual T&C changes can create a feeling of being trapped. Sellers may feel they have no choice but to accept unfavorable terms.

[susapric-68]

eBay are not going to change to keep you, doing away with FVF for private sellers was a huge mistake and eBay knows that. eBay could have just reintroduced them but wanted to follow Vinted, they make more from low cost private sellers now. If low Price Private sellers leave then eBay still has low priced business sellers so they still make money. Combine postage problem is wrong but it's not a case of adding a new line into the program. Until it's sorted out just add to your listings about the problem and if anyone wants to buy more than 1 item to contact you and you can create a new listings with the items they want and they would only pay the postage once. Not really something trading standards would deal with. 

[susapric-68]

Built customer base? You sound like a business seller. Private seller is selling off unwanted items and have no need to worry about a customer base, everyone at eBay is their customer base. No one is trapped here, Remove listings and leave or is it hard to find another platform that lets you sell for free? Also "unfair business practices" So eBay should re introduce listing and FVF for private sellers to make it fair?

[plpmr]

adding to the advice already given -

Normally if a formal complaint is made [such as to trading standards] the person/account making said complaint would also be looked at.

[papso22]

"...remember the formation of ebay"

How is that relevant to today's issues?

Ebay is not the place it was then and neither are the laws that govern online selling.  The issue of private vs business account is at the heart of all this and cannot simply be ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative.

[andha-21]

---

@susapric-68 wrote:

Good luck with that, you agree to eBays T&C when you list an item to sell, trading standards will just say if you don't agree with it don't sell on it

---

Sorry, that is a logical fallicy.

Contracts themselves are not law, they are just contracts. If something is in them that runs against sovereign laws then they aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

The authorities don't have the manpower to hunt themselves so they rely on reports from concerned consumers. 

When they get enough reports about the same business entity then they start to actively hunt.

That's how Dixons Group got aware with their insurance scam for around a decade. It was always illegal but not enough people complained until they did. When they eventually did Dixons Group were up schitt creek without a paddle.

& Dixons Group at that time we're the biggest Electronics retailer in Europe at that time, they were huge. But they still got taken. Look at them now, a shadow of their former selves.

[susapric-68]

Another internet lawyer. Contracts are legally binding, you agree to them when you click to list your item and should read the T&C before you list something to sell. As a lawyer you also know you make a complaint over what you feel is an unfair contract with the UK Competition and Markets Authority not trading standards. Good luck with that one as if eBay are found guilty of an unfair contract they will have to make it fair for EVERONE so it's no fees at all or EVERYONE pays listing and FVF

[susapric-68]

Took a look at the Dixons Group mis selling, Geek squad was not a requirement of getting a contract with the company selling phones so had nothing to do with the contract, it was a pointless insurance pushed. Not even the same as BPF as customers do not get DSR protection from private sellers but have to by law from business sellers

[medealady]

Trading Standards do not have the finance or manpower to tackle dangerous goods on the market let alone ever changing buying and selling terms on online markets. Members of the public cannot contact Trading Standards direct they must go through Citizens Advice. A business can contact them directly but that is not the scenario here. From personal experience TS could not tackle the import of unsafe furniture in contravention of fire safety laws (chairs from China given a Scandinavian name, imported to France then shipped to UK with no checks as from EU at the time with fake labels) TS visiting and inspecting just admitted they did not have the money to tackle the well known seller. Secondly a faulty bath with a 25 yr manufacturers guarantee not being honoured despite the manufacturer saying 'do not fit as faulty'...TS basically 'nothing to see here' and as they come under Councils even a complaint goes nowhere. This decision meant any product guarantee or warranty was worthless.

TS is not the route...adapt or leave but basically in this economic climate people seek necessities only generally sourced from business rather than private sellers offloading one offs or ex collections.

The generation of knick-knack  accumulators is past leaving their heirs with 'unwantables' or 'cantaffordables'

[andha-21]

So if contracts are all legally binding why are there so many legal contractual disputes?

Why do so many contracts include the exemption "this does not effect your statutory rights" or similar wording?

And no, Trading Standards governs because of the nature and intent of the platform.

[andha-21]

---

@susapric-68 wrote:

Took a look at the Dixons Group mis selling, Geek squad was not a requirement of getting a contract with the company selling phones so had nothing to do with the contract, it was a pointless insurance pushed. Not even the same as BPF as customers do not get DSR protection from private sellers but have to by law from business sellers

---

eBay already include the MBG in every listing. The fact they choose to advertise it that way makes it a part of the contract of sale. Free item/financial protection for the buyer.

Charging for a second system is not only redundant, it's almost certainly fraudulent.

& Geek Squad wasn't the one I was referring to. That was the second smaller one that hit their mobile outlet. The first one hit Dixons, Currys, PC World and all their other smaller outlets. They were all charging for the first year of warranty in their extended warranties.

[susapric-68]

"this does not effect your statutory rights". Normally used to protect buyers. "No returns" on a private listing could be overruled by a buyer claiming it took away their statutory rights as a consumer. Entering into a contract with eBay is not buying anything from them. Like I said good luck, I don't mind everyone paying fees or no one paying them

[susapric-68]

MBG covers very little, if it did we would not even need consumer protection and DSR. Extended warranties have always been a scam and never been a legal requirement of a contract. Most electrical items are made to last a year these days, extended warranties were pointless as you paid the first year you already had FREE cover for and after that year the insurance company would reject the claim because it would be classed as wear and tear. You are taking something and trying to link it into something completely different

[susapric-68]

Last post on this. What are you taking action on? In the contract Ebay offers you free listing, do they deliver that? Yes. They also offer you free FVF, do you get that? YES. You're taking action because your customers have to pay a protection fee to make up for all the Consumer protection they don't get from a private seller and the price has made you less competitive with business sellers? That won't end well for a lot of you when they take a look at your listings. Good luck and have a nice day. Good luck to the OP, does look like you're selling a collection off and got caught in the crossfire because of the greedy business sellers on private accounts