eBay dispute - advice sought

[Marcellus]

I sold a pair of boots on eBay in April 2011.

These were boots my wife bought from a shop in 2005/6 and never wore so were sold as "new with tags".

The buyer paid, the boots were dispatched and the buyer recieved them on 25th April.

The buyer is now saying they they are uncomfortable (to the point of blisters) and that their further investigation lead them them to be fakes and are demanding a full refund.

They have gone further and advised me of a Trading Standards case number and have said that they have sent me a letter (recorded delivery, as yet not recieved) demanding a full refund within 28 days under the SOGA 1979.

To this point I have;
a) said that I do not believe them to be fake
b) that I will happily help the Trading Standards with any investigation
c) that I do believe them to be; i) as described ii) of satisfactory quality and iii) fit for purpose.
d) I have also advised the buyer that the fact that they "do not fit" you or you "simply don't want them" are not rights afforded to them under the SOGA
e) and said upon receipt of the boots (on or before 25th April 2011) they had the opportunity to inspect the items and could compare them with another pair which were available to them (even though there may well be differences between adult and non adult boots) and had they not been satisified that they were the genuine article then raise this issue within a reasonable time.

Is there anything else I should do to protect myself or does anyone have any usefull counsel?

[Marcellus]

You're joking?... they were sold some new boots which they have used so can no longer be sold as new!!

Will Paypal really just give a refund for them without any proof?

[Marcellus]

cuneus said:

WRT to SOGA and ebay

"One of your statutory rights is that any item you buy from a retailer or manufacturer must be of satisfactory quality. However if you buy from an individual in the context of a private sale, this statutory right does not apply and you will have no legal redress if the item is unsatisfactory."

WRT ? Not sure I follow the abbreviation there

[Marcellus]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Marcellus, are you a trader on ebay?

If not, as far as I am aware the SOGA does not apply to private sales.

I am not a trader on eBay or anywhere in any way shape or form.

[Marcellus]

Seight_Returns said:

Then (the unfairness of Paypal aside) you have nothing to fear unless the goods were not as described.

Have they told you what's lead them to beleive the boots are fakes ?

They had concerns as they wore them and they were very uncomfortable alledgely causing blisters.

philmots said:

Also... If you cancel or move cards away from your paypal account that you use for funding etc, they will just take it from your paypal balance and leave it at say, £-49.99 or similar. You'll be in debt to them.

This will be done, thanks for the heads up on that.

catman said:

My take on this is that they are trying to panic you into refunding the money.

Obviously, Trading Standards wouldn't get involved, unless your buyer lied to them about your trading status.

I would forget about this, until you receive something official through the post!

Tim

My thoughts entirely, I have said I will await contact from the Trading Standard before I comment further and that I consider the only credible judge of whether they are counterfeit or not is an independant examination by the orginal manufacturer who I assume will be contacted by the Trading standards and if they deem them to be counterfeit then I owe the buyer an apology and will of course refund them.

loggan said:

The buyer doesn t have a leg to stand on, the strange thing is why he wanted boots?

lol... horse riding jodpur boots!!

[Marcellus]

Completely agree with you all!!

This has gone back and forth for the past few days now.

The buyer has said she's spoken to the manufacturer who are "very interested in the case", to which I've stated that if the manufacturer examines the boots and then says they're counterfeit I will of course give a full refund.

Yet the buyer is now saying regardless of anything else they require a full refund or will take Civil Action against me.

[Marcellus]

cuneus said:

OP - Don't suppose you have kept or can downloaded bank statements back that far ?

Sadly, yes we have and can prove that on the 6th May 2007 we spent money in the Tack shop which relates to the boots......

[Marcellus]

This could be about to get even more interesting!!

I have this morning spoken to the Manufacturers who have said;
"Based on the photos supplied by Mrs XYZ, we have no qualms about confirming these are Genuine Boots, we're just about to email Mrs XYZ to confirm this and we will of course copy you in"

What do we reckon her next tactic will be?

[Marcellus]

I thought this would get even more fun!!

I have now received this message from the buyer;
"I will not drop this case against you. I think this is a regular side line for you. I wonder what other copy goods you sell. It is people like you that give genuine sellers a really bad name. Copy goods, no matter how good the copy are ruining retailers."

She has not accepted the boot manufacturers oppinion which was based upon the photos she sent them so is sending them the boots for furthe examination.

I have already said to her that if her allegations are proven then I will refund the postage to the manufacturers.

Have we now entered the grounds of libel laws?

[Marcellus]

Cheers 7db.... the sale date was 17th April, the buyer paid on the 20th April and raised the case on the 2nd June 2011 is the 45days from date of sale or date of payment?

My returns policy was;
"The seller will not accept returns for this item.

Sellers may be required to accept returns for items that are not as described."

which are the standard eBay ones.

As per below, the OEM has now looked at the photos supplied by the buyer and said they believe them to be genuine but the buyer isn't accepting that and sending the boots to them for further examination. I honestly believe that this examination will result in the Manufacturer saying "yes they're genuine" but the buyer is still saying even if they do she won't accept that and has started proceedings against me in the civil courts.

I am going to ignore her on eBay resolution centre for now, but how can I further protect myself against paypal paying out?

[Marcellus]

and it takes another turn!!

Now that the Manufacturer has said "yes they look like genuine boots" the buyer isn't satisfied with that so asked to send them to the manufacturer for examination to which they agreed.

She has now discovered that the boots are actually manufactured in the US so has demanded that the manufacturer sends them there for examination which the manufacturer has agreed to.

Now for the twist; surprise surprise she's changed the basis of her complaint against me to "they're not of satisfactory quality" needless to say that I've responded that if they are New and if they are Genuine then there's no grounds for complaint.

Is there anything else I should be saying?

[Marcellus]

streaky said:

Marcellus said:

Now that the Manufacturer has said "yes they look like genuine boots" the buyer isn't satisfied with that so asked to send them to the manufacturer for examination to which they agreed.

Do you have that directly from the manufacturer, or from/via her? And in what form?

Yes directly from the manufacturer both verbally and by email

streaky said:

Marcellus said:

She has now discovered that the boots are actually manufactured in the US so has demanded that the manufacturer sends them there for examination which the manufacturer has agreed to.

Ditto.

No, I was intending to wait a few days and then speak to the manufacturer again to see if they had received the boots, what their opinion was on their authenticity and then ask them what their next stage was.

Marcellus said:

Is there anything else I should be saying?

Nothing that wouldn't get you arrested.

Streaky

But is there any way how I can ensure that Paypal don't issue a refund from my account in the interim?

[Marcellus]

So today's update is that I received a very simple message from the buyer;

"To whom it may concern, For information North Yorkshire Trading standards have taken possession of the boots And will lianas with the Ariat Europe, America, the shop you claim to have bought them from and yourself. I will leave it in their capable hands"

[Marcellus]

oobster said:

Did you respond to this message? If so, what did you say?

I did along the lines of;
Dear Mrs H, thank you for your update could you please give me the name of the Trading Standards Case Officer who is invesgigating your allegations"

So far no response... I'll be on the phone to NYCC this morning.

[Marcellus]

To update; I've just spoken to a very nice man at Trading Standards who is actually "investigating" the complaint.

He basically outlined that they are "duty bound" to investigate any reports of counterfeiting which is why he's doing anything. He has the boots and is about the package them up and send them to the Manufacturer for their report. If that report comes back that they're genuine then the buyer doesn't have any claim against me however if it comes back that they're counterfeit then I would be required to give a refund but then could, if I so choose pursue the retailer for selling counterfeit goods.

All in all as I say a very nice man, seems reasonable and did say don't worry about anything until the manufacturer reports back.

(now for the slightly naughty bit :blush: just because she has pissed me off so much I have asked the buyer to confirm that she will accept the view of The Trading STandards and if they say they're genuine then she will stop this nonsense and give me an apology.... sorry I know all advice was not to engage her in dialogue but I couldn't resist.. if I had a salt pot I would be looking for those blisters she alledgedly has!)

[Marcellus]

don'tbesilly said:

Apologies if I missed it, but what sort of money are we talking about here, how much did the boots sell for?

This woman seems to be going to extraordinary lengths to get her money back, and drag you through the mud!

Is she an ex and you don't know it?
Did you smash her back doors in and leave the next morning without saying goodbye?
Is she the mother of a lovechild that you don't know about?

She sounds a thoroughly vindictive person for some reason,is she really this demented?

To me it's not about the money (£50) it's more about being called an unscrupulous criminal, being a liar, a thoroughly nasty peice of work, being some sort of mastermind behind a massive counterfeiting ring, being held responsible for the demise of genuine manufacturers and the sort of seller who gives eBay a bad reputation to whom someone needs to stand up against to ensure that I can't con other poor unsuspecting members of the public.

streaky said:

OP - from what you posted yesterday, I thought the manufacturer already had the boots and had said they were genuine. I'm confused.

Sorry, just to clarify;
The manufacturer was in receipt of photos sent by the buyer who said "anyone who knows anything can instantly tell they're fake and these photos prove it".

Obviously the manufacturer knows nothing and has less than half a brain as they said "from these photos they look genuine to us" so the buyer then demanded they be sent to the US for another opinion (she obviously thinks that those in the US have more than half a brain).

Then as opposed to sending them to the Manufacturer gave them to the Trading Standards Officer.

[Marcellus]

Oh what to do??

I've just had a call from Trading Standards to say "we've not got the full report back from the manufacturers who have confirmed that they're genuine boots so as far as we're concerned the case is closed"

They also said they've tried to get hold of the buyer to let her know.

So, how long do I wait for her apology before I let rip and make her life hell?

[Marcellus]

Well after 3 days waiting since the buyer was told by Trading Standards that she had no complaint against me I have sent her this message;

message to buyer said:

Dear Mrs

By now you should have returned the message that Trading Standards North Yorkshire left for you on Thursday and be fully aware that they have confirmed that the Ariat Heritage Paddock Boots that you gave them for investigation and which you wrongly accused me of selling as counterfeit ARE GENUINE and completely as described by me in my advert.

They have therefore closed their investigation.

Therefore, I await;
a) your full and unreserved apology for all of this nonsense
b) for you to close this "report"
c) for you to remove your libellous feedback.

Yours sincerely Marcellus Pryor"

I have also "escalated" to eBay customer services with;

message to customer services said:

Dear eBay Team.

Mrs has obviously bought boots that do not fit her which is not my fault in any way.

Her only way to try and get a refund from me was to claim that they were counterfeit and not as advertised which she has done.

As you will see from the communication back and forth she has made some wild accusations as well as wasting my, the original retailers, the manufacturers and Trading Standards time and resourses.

Everyone, apart from Mrs , has said that the boots are genuine and as described.

Trading Standards have closed their investigation, returned the boots to Mrs and advised her that my advert was accurate and she has no grounds for complaint against me.

The Original retailer has confirmed to Mrs that my wife bought the boots from them and they only sell genuine items.

The Original Manufacturer has physically examined the boots and formally said the Trading STandards they they are genuine.

However, Mrs still does not have the manners to admit that she has falsely accused me.

Therefore, could you please close this case, remove her libellous feedback and release the £51 hold that you've put on my paypal account.

Many thanks
Marcellus Pryor

Let's see what happens.

Edited by Marcellus on Monday 20th June 11:32

Edited by Marcellus on Monday 20th June 11:33

[Marcellus]

well she's continuing in her pursuit;

email from buyer said:

---

From:
To: marcellus
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:49:21 -0400
Subject: Ongoing issue

As you will be aware Ariat Europe, who are distributors of Ariat boots, not manufacturers and have no quality control department, have looked over the boots I purchased from yourself via EBay.

This has highlighted the following discrepancies.

1) The label in the boots relates to labels produced for boots in April 2001.

2) You said you purchased the boots in 2007 from an unconfirmed supply route in 2007 by which time the boot model had been upgraded, the boot I purchased was no longer available.

Therefore, I am going to return the boots to the manufacturer for their examination.

Either myself, Trading Standards or my solicitor will be in touch in due course.

Regards

To which I replied;

my reply said:

From: Marcellus
Sent: 18 June 2011 20:08
To:
Subject: RE: Ongoing issue
Importance: High

Dear Mrs

To recap the advert as published.
> This is a pair of brand new, never worn, black jodhpur riding boots for ladies.
> Size 6.5UK (Euro 40, USA 9).
> These are genuine Ariat Heritage boots.
> Given as a present but never worn.

Please advise what part of this advert you now consider is incorrect?

Trading Standards have even confirmed that there is no case for me to answer.

Mr Grant of Sheepgate Tack and Tog has confirmed the transaction on the date previously advised.

By all means waste more of your time and effort on a lost cause, continue your lies to whomever you choose.

Your foolish pride is now getting in the way of you seeing sense in this matter.

You seem to think that your bullying and threatening behaviour to a genuine eBay seller in order to gain a £51 refund for boots that simply don’t fit you is acceptable.

SO that you are explicitly aware to date I have not received the letter that you said you’d sent to me on the 3rd June.

Yours sincerely

so she then comes back;

from buyer said:

---

From:
To:
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:34:50 -0400
Subject: RE: Ongoing issue

How the plot thickens!

You say they were given as a present, yet in your messages to me via eBay, you advised your wife purchased them for herself in 2007.

Ariat have stated the label in these boots is genuine from boots made in April 2001, which was not the model on sale in 2007.

There are definitely some conflicts here.

regards

So my final reply;

to buyer said:

From:
To:
Subject: RE: Ongoing issue
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 21:14:04 +0000

Dear Mrs

There is no plot to thicken, when will you grasp this fact?

Trading Standards have said that they are genuine boots and were accurately described.

It is really about time you acknowledge the fact that you have no case against me as confirmed to you by Trading Standards who you have previously said were capable of undertaking a satisfactory investigation.

I have advised eBay of this fact and even if you won't close the case on eBay they will be as it has now been proven that the boots were acurately described.

Your vendenta against me is getting to the point where if it continues I shall have no alternative than to take further legal advice about your behaviour and unfounded allegations, the cost of any such advice will be sought from you.

I will enter into no further communication directly with you on this matter.

Yours sincerely

ETA

Personal information removed, please be aware of the RofP's

Edited by Big Al. on Saturday 18th June 22:59

Edited by Marcellus on Monday 20th June 11:35

[Marcellus]

Whoops sorry, and thanks for the edit Big Al :thumbsup: