Ebay screwed :( Ruined my month!

[Surfer]

he's already broke the first contract Rroff...... the contract that existed when sales of goods/services are undertaken. Or if there was no contract at all then its clear case of Fraud (another of the many different words for THEFT, TO STEAL etc )

 

["andy"]

Since he hasn't committed a crime it's a civil matter and not something the police would or should get involved in. Taking him to court won't get you anywhere if he doesn't have any money or assets to pay you with. Visa debit chargeback from the bank is the only real option other than waiting.

why are people assuming he has no money ? if hes scamming loads of people like this or if he had the money to buy the tickets in the first place then hes got money. infact if hes sold 3000 things on ebay he likely has money or assets

the small claims procedure would see this when they are deciding how much per month he should pay back to the op.

id even gamble that when he gets a letter saying he has to go to court and pay costs that he speeds up his return of the money

 

[Rroff]

The original contract would be to either supply the goods or refund the money - theres no stipulation in a generic contract in the manner or repayment - thats to be decided between the parties involved.

 

[Rroff]

why are people assuming he has no money ? if hes scamming loads of people like this or if he had the money to buy the tickets in the first place then hes got money

the small claims procedure would see this when they are deciding how much per month he should pay back to the op.

id even gamble that when he gets a letter saying he has to go to court and pay costs that he speeds up his return of the money

Absolutely - if he can't agree (and get it in writing) a reasonable repayment - then small claims is absolutely the next step to take this and they will look at what he can afford.

 

[fez]

I wouldnt bother mate, paypal and ebay have set themselves up so that they are covered legally. I have had no end of problems with them.

The only way you will have an easy experience is to do everything by the book and cover yourself on absolutely everything.

Although they are the same company, paypal and ebay dont share info. If you have spoken to the other party on ebay and agreed something, paypal again dont care.

I sent an item to a buyer and he agreed that I wouldnt do recorded delivery, he wanted to pay less for postage. I posted, didnt arrive, he complained and paypal refunded.

I am never going to use ebay again to sell anything, sounds like there are plenty of ways to get ruined as a buyer as well.

 

[mattyprice4004]

Jesus, this is why I use a credit card!

 

[Fuzz]

Lesson learnt not to be so ***** and buy things off a reputable seller instead!

A grand OUCH

Hope you get your money back anyway..

 

[Rigsta]

Ticket tout turns out to be a con artist. Who knew?

I have no patience for ticket touts at the best of times. Good luck getting your cash back, debit cards have similar online fraud protection to credit cards these days so chances are your bank will come through for you.

 

[soundb0y]

Sounds like he bought them, didnt realise his card was declined and in the meantime spent your £1000.

Good luck getting it back.

 

[Energize]

Of course he is, OP just paid him £1000 + and yet the seller magically doesnt have the funds to pay him back but wants to pay in installments.....

Maybe you don't understand how businesses work, but when they receive money they don't just leave it lying around in a bank account, cash flow problems sometimes occur in small businesses, that's life. It was months ago he bought them, not "just paid him".

Why not just bend over and accept monopoly money because its an obvious scam!

Doesn't add up, why sell 3000 items on ebay over the course of a few years to get £1000? Way too far fetched.

 

[Street]

Send him a recorded letter before action demanding the money, giving him some time say 14 days in the letter.

If this fails, use the money claim website https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome

Its a very easy way to use the small claims courts.

Do this.. I've used it in the past and have had good results!

 

[Rroff]

Ticket tout turns out to be a con artist. Who knew?

I have no patience for ticket touts at the best of times. Good luck getting your cash back, debit cards have similar online fraud protection to credit cards these days so chances are your bank will come through for you.

They annoy me too... so do the people who buy from them tbh... if everyone had the sense to not buy from touts they'd dissapear... but thats the human race for you... masters of our own misery.

 

[Surfer]

Maybe you don't understand how businesses work, but when they receive money they don't just leave it lying around in a bank account, cash flow problems sometimes occur in small businesses, that's life. It was months ago he bought them, not "just paid him".

Hold on, how his business works has absolutely nothing to do with the buyer.
So dunno what your point is bringing in such "business irregularities" and claiming its just the way it is..... uhh lol

Both parties agree on what is being bought and sold. Buyer has upheld his side he's paid for his product so should receive what he paid for - its that simple.

If you're saying that a lot of businesses operate on a daily basis unable to fulfill contracts because of financial problems then they should be prevented from operating - its that simple or should pay compensation and incur penalties for breach of contract. Perhaps there should be an insurance scheme for companies that lets them continue operating when/if the company becomes insolvent and unable to follow through on its contractual obligations to its buyers.

Said insurance scheme of course should be paid for by such businesses. (i suspect something like this runs already )

Doesn't add up, why sell 3000 items on ebay over the course of a few years to get £1000? Way too far fetched.

You dont know that the account isnt hijacked. The truth in this case is probably that the seller isnt deliberately trying to scam this particular person BUT rather that his business practice meant that he could not cover all his buyers.

But the very very least he should be doing is refunding the buyer immediately and the fact that he is refusing to do this is absolutely shocking. He's obviously using the OP's money to finance other transactions. I'm pretty sure the OP didnt agree to have his money stolen from him...

 

[Energize]

Both parties agree on what is being bought and sold. Buyer has upheld his side he's paid for his product so should receive what he paid for - its that simple.

That isn't being contested.

If you're saying that a lot of businesses operate on a daily basis unable to fulfill contracts because of financial problems then they should be prevented from operating - its that simple or should pay compensation and incur penalties for breach of contract.

No I'm not saying that, but from time to time all business have cash flow problems and that's the way it is, unforeseen circumstances happen.

The truth in this case is probably that the seller isnt deliberately trying to scam this particular person BUT rather that his business practice meant that he could not cover all his buyers.

Exactly what I've been saying from the beginning.

But the very very least he should be doing is refunding the buyer immediately and the fact that he is refusing to do this is absolutely shocking. He's obviously using the OP's money to finance other transactions. I'm pretty sure the OP didnt agree to have his money stolen from him...

How can he magically refund the money if he doesn't have it?

 

[Surfer]

how can he magically refund the money if he doesnt have it

Read through your last post (including my bits in quotes) again.

Now think. Join the dots! You dont see anything a bit odd?


Its not magic at all its not his money its the OP's money.

The contract is void because one party has not delivered.

But that party decides to keep the money anyway.

He refuses to return that money.

Its not his money.

The OP did not authorize this.

To all intents and purposes the "seller"

is a THIEF.

You can dress it up in whatever language you like to justify this apparently legit business practice but its still stealing of monies not belonging to them.

STOLEN

THIEF THIEF THIEF !!

 

[Energize]

Read through your last post (including my bits in quotes) again.

Now think. Join the dots! You dont see anything a bit odd?


Its not magic at all its not his money its the OP's money.

The contract is void because one party has not delivered.

But that party decides to keep the money anyway.

He refuses to return that money.

Its not his money.

The OP did not authorize this.

To all intents and purposes the "seller"

is a THIEF.

You can dress it up in whatever language you like to justify this apparently legit business practice but its still stealing of monies not belonging to them.

STOLEN

THIEF THIEF THIEF !!

I suggest you read the theft act, it is not theft. The person is having cash flow problems and has arranged to pay back the money.

 

[Gamer_T]

Ebay really can suck sometimes. Good luck getting it sorted mate.

 

[fendi]

Neg him to ruin that nice 100% record after this gets sorted out and you get your money back. Others should be aware of how he conducts his business.

 

[Scania]

I'd be tempted to ask a friendly well built Trucker to go round with you & kick the crap out of him.

I'm sure a pint would suffice for a nominal fee.

******. (The seller, not you!)

 

[Surfer]

I suggest you read the theft act, it is not theft. The person is having cash flow problems and has arranged to pay back the money.

Just for once it would be nice if people tried thinking for themselves... But whatever i'll play along


(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and 'thief' and 'steal' shall be construed accordingly.
Theft Act 1968

Thats the definition of theft. Now to decide whether someone has committed theft we have to check to see if the actions they took are in accordance with the above.

The fact that the seller has kept the £1k shows his dishonest intent even though he wilfully knows he cannot keep his end of the contract.

Further to this because the seller says he cannot give back the OP's money that means he has used the OP's money for some other financial endeavour.
That is in breach of the contract and is further evidence of dishonest intent.

The point you seem to fail to grasp, is that if the actions of stealing are the same whether committed by a business or committed by a person (ie not a business) and dishonest intent is evident then its stealing plain and simple.

Its utter bs to come up with stuff like "he has cash flow problems and wants to pay it back in installments"

If you seriously think that legitimizes his behaviour then i guess the following example would not be stealing for you either.

Person X walks into shop initially agrees with seller to purchase a walkman but decides to take it without paying and somehow manages to leave the shop unhindered.(Unbeknownst and without agreement from other party)

When confronted about his stealing later, person X agrees to pay in installments to seller saying he had cash flow problems at the time but still holds onto property that is not his.

See how ridiculous the above sounds and yet that is almost exactly what has happened with the OP's case....