Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx for your feedback. That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect. I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect. However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why. To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case on this topic that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage. Thank-you.   EDIT:  Just to be clear, I am not intending to go against established advice by suggesting that appeals should ALWAYS be made, just my thoughts on the particular case of paying for parking and entering an incorrect VRN. Should this ever happen to me, I will make an appeal at the first stage to avoid any problems that may occur at a later stage. Also, I continue to be grateful for any advice you give on my own particular case.  
    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Ebay and consumer Contracts Regulations 2013


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2772 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi guys. Here is an interesting one for you that I would appreciate any help in clarifying.

 

In short, I purchased a buy-it-now item on Ebay. The seller is a business. Before I paid the seller contacted me to increase the cost of the postage (I do not live in Highlands or anywhere like that). I did not agree with this and when he followed up with a rude message, I chose to not proceed.

 

So, I messaged the seller and politely told them I would not proceed and requested they simply cancel the sale. They refused. They then re-listed the item immediately AND subsequently opened a non-paying bidder case.

 

Now this is where I would like clarification. Unless I am mistaken, the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 allows me to cancel within 14 days following the day of delivery. There is no beginning point, just an end point - 14 days following the day of delivery. So I could cancel now, tomorrow or any point up to that end point. I chose to cancel immediately as said.

 

There was no payment made and thus the item was never sent.

 

Again, unless I am mistaken it is an offence for a business to attempt to discourage a consumer from cancelling. Indeed I successfully sued Plusnet last year when they tried just that.

 

And this is where it gets interesting - Ebay happily open the unpaid case, which by definition puts me under pressure to pay even though I do not want to proceed. Do not worry, I will not pay but some would.

 

So, can anyone please confirm if Ebay business sellers are exempt from the CCRs (I don't expect for a moment that they are) or if Ebay are technically aiding and abetting breaking the law by allowing business sellers to try to talk consumers out of cancelling by threatening detrimental action on their buying accounts if they do not pay.

 

Whilst Ebay do think they are a law unto themselves, business sellers in the UK must comply with CCRs and do not have exemption when using Ebay. Unless you know otherwise?

 

Many thanks

Rob

Edited by robthebuilder
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting question.

I am quite sure that the rules relating to cancellation of off-premises contracts apply to eBay sales.

 

Furthermore, as it appears that your seller attempted to change the terms of the contract by increasing the delivery cost, this also would be a basis for terminating the contract.

 

I would suggest that you let eBay know that this is a contract which is subject to the rules contained in the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2014 and as such you are simply exercising your entitlement to cancel within 14 days. Inform eBay that if they prevent this, that you will report them to trading standards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BankFodder. I already did that and they played the usual Ebay card 'It is in our terms blah blah', to which I pointed out that their terms cannot override the law. They then backed off and said to contact them again once the non paying strike has completed and they will remove it.

 

This effectively means that Ebay will back down, but that business sellers can attempt to illegally persuade consumers to waive their legal rights.

 

Anyone else?

Edited by robthebuilder
Link to post
Share on other sites

you have your remedy so no damage done. You are right about the law but many business sellers on ebay are really just amateurs buying stuff in China and reselling without knowing anything about busines and ebay, being based in the US, doesnt apply the law of the land of the country in which it operates to its terms. This means that explaining things to a customer services agent in the Phillipines doesnt usually result in getting the matter sorted first time round. The naswer lies inyour own hands, as you have found out but it is a pain and a waste of time.

The real problem is that ebay will not say or do anything to educate of make the seller comply with the law.

Thanks BankFodder. I already did that and they played the usual Ebay card 'It is in our terms blah blah', to which I pointed out that their terms cannot override the law. They then backed off and said to contact them again once the non paying strike has completed and they will remove it.

 

This effectively means that Ebay will back down, but that business sellers can attempt to illegally persuade consumers to waive their legal rights.

 

Anyone else?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are of course all quite correct in your observations.

 

Ebay has become a really bad place to buy items from businesses (at least in the UK). I bought a dashcam last year that was supposedly 1080p. On investigating it was actually 720p and was a counterfeit item. Ebay give the initial response of 'we do not tolerate counterfeit items' but the reality is that they very much do as that seller is still selling the same item a year later.

 

Bottom line is Ebay will turn a blind eye so they can keep raking in the fees and dishonest sellers are cashing in on the fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had a press contact about the story. Would you be prepared to speak to a journalist about this? I think it will be very helpful to you and also to other eBay customers if you would.

 

Please would you send your contact details to me at our admin email address. Email – not private message. Please include a telephone number and I will pass the details directly onto the journalist.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had a press contact about the story. Would you be prepared to speak to a journalist about this? I think it will be very helpful to you and also to other eBay customers if you would.

 

Please would you send your contact details to me at our admin email address. Email – not private message. Please include a telephone number and I will pass the details directly onto the journalist.

 

Thanks

 

No, sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...