Jump to content

colsy73

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. Afternoon one and all. Hope you're all doing well? I was hoping that someone might be able to advice me of something just milling around my head. On the 7th of April, I found a car on Gumtree and entered into a conversation with the seller. After a while, my gut instinct was literally going ten to a dozen because the seller said that he wanted to sell the car to me using a third party, gullible as I am, I researched the said third party which was Reedy's Trading Group. I did quite a bit of research on Reedy's Trading Group and found many a website that verified that they were real. Even on their website and the back end they had Gumtree accredited within their SEO. I proceeded with the sale doing a bank transfer for £2779.00, Yes, I know, what a idiot. Turns out that Reedy's never existed, they had cloned all of these websites and created reviews. I got in contact with Gumtree to report the seller after reporting the fraud to Action Fraud for all the good its done. I work as a user experience designer and I wanted to ascertain exactly how Gumtree verify who is real and who isn't? I contacted Robert Hatterley who is the CEO of both Gumtree and Ebay UK and the only reply that I kept on getting was that how Gumtree are a classified add and they have a dedicated Fraud team... This is where I need the advice. 48 hours after the [problem], another company cropped up on Gumtree selling 15 cars, the name of the seller was Reedy Trade. I created a dummy account and these people sent through pretty much identical to how I was [problem]med before. I have reported this to Gumtree, 72 hours later, I checked and the seller is still there. If Gumtree is quoting itself saying that it prides itself on how it tackles Fraud and they have a dedicated team, yet in 48 hours I have managed to prove that the fraudsters are still trading on Gumtree, would I be able to claim damages back under the Misrepresentation Act of 1967? Because they are claiming that they are being vigilant, yet this isn't the case? Thanks in Advance Cole:|
×
×
  • Create New...