Seller refusing to ship item due to dispute

[missbmb]

I purchased an item last week. After communicating quite a lot with the seller prior to buying, she seemed to cease all communication once the payment was made. I acknowledge that I over reacted a little, and was starting to feel wary. She hadn’t replied to numerous messages so I opened a paypal dispute. Immediately after that she contacted me stating she would not ship the item unless I cancelled the dispute. I have apologised to her and told her I don’t feel comfortable with that, as if she doesn’t send the item for some reason I have no means of being refunded. I feel like she is holding me ransom! She has received her payment of AUD$116 so I feel it is unfair of her to do this. I have told her I will close the dispute if the item is shipped. What would you do?

[brerrabbit585]

No, your post didn't come across as argumentative. I just wanted you to know that I wasn't trying to argue about it either.

[4channel]

---

@k1ooo-slr-sales wrote:

---

@4channel wrote:

   . . . . An associate of mine has been ripped off and lied to like you wouldn't believe. Yes, so it's understandable.

---

well, couldn’t possibly be as bad as one case I read on these boards once.  The buyer got a turntable (or similar item) at a good price from a seller in the UK.  Then, if can you believe it, the seller says the item got damaged and they threw it out with the rubbish.  The buyer got a refund, but his associate here in Australia went to the trouble of finding out which council area the seller lived in and phoned the council to find out the garbage collection day for the seller’s address.  Can you believe that?  That a person here in Australia would go to such lengths just to find out if the seller’s story stacked up?

Bottom line is that the buyer didn’t end up getting the item . . . . and we found out the lengths some members will go to when they suspect a gross injustice has been perpetrated by an unscrupulous seller!

---

In relation to the discussion here, there's no point in bringing this up. But since you have, there's more to that story.

First of all the item was an audio decoder, not a turntable. The reson for the calling to the UK was because the fellow helping the victim here who won an item fair and square for $40 was entitled to it. The seller came up with a flimsy story that he couldn't supply it because it had been dropped on the floor. When the seller was contacted with a offer to take the item as is because the associate of the buyer can fix broken curcuit boards and get it working again (as there were nomechanical parts within). So the associate of the buyer who had a background as well as a managerial position closely associated with the transport industry, decided to make some enquiries. In short, his job that he worked in some years prior involved tracking down and locating missing goods as well as following up on claims. Well, the seller said that he couldn't do that as he had dumped the item in his rubbish bin. He was contacted and he replied   ..   .. "Sorry, it's too late ... it was collected on such and such a day".

Now,  phone made to the UK for a couple of reasons.
* 1 to see if this was the case
* 2 to do what can be done before a negative was left

Well, the buyer wasn't telling the truth because the local council in his area confirmed that the bin wasn't collected on that day he said.

* Prior to this buyer had been the victim  of dishonest sellers. This case was one in a series of unfortunate auctions. He had won a bunch of stuff from a seller in Australia. Never arrived and when the seller was contacted, she blamed her husband or something. Nothing was done. He won a Hi-Fi decoder (Not related to the one here) from an overseas seller. Decoder had a blown channel. Then the seller delayed contact and then said he was taking a world trip and was going to be uncontactable for months. The option to leave feedback then run out. Some investigation turned up some interesting facts. The seller was discussing in a form the exact decoder with the exact same problem it had. Pictures and all confirmed it. Yet the item was advertised in top working condition and suppoedly checked by professionals. Buyer was out of pocket $200 plus postage. Now stuck with something that does not work, and would cost hundreds to fix.  ..... 

* Another case was winning a huge powerfil four channel amp from an Australian seller. The amp arrived and we discovered something very fishy. A dead (blown) channel was hot-wired to a live one to give the impression it was working. A total dishonest representation. The item was sent back and the buyer was out of pocket $70. Seller refused to refund the postage of $35 plus the return cost of the same amount.   ... ..  

* And there was another case of damage to an item by a seller's negligence etc.

So, after all of this, I hope you can see why this measure was taken. Every avenue to be explored  (that could be done at the time) and every chance given to the seller before leaving a negative. And the fellow assisting the buyer who had been denied his winning item had a previous occupational background in investigating such matters.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

ra157 had a similar fate

Seller Cancels Auction Sale After Item is Paid for. / Bargains Depend entirely on Goodwill
https://community.ebay.com.au/t5/Buying/Seller-Cancels-Auction-Sale-After-Item-is-Paid-for-Bargains/...

Seller Cancels Auction Sale After Item is Paid for. / Bargains Depend entirely on Goodwill Part 2
https://community.ebay.com.au/t5/Buying/Seller-Cancels-Auction-Sale-After-Item-is-Paid-for-Bargains/...

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

[*tippy*toes*]

Were you aware that according to forum policy, you're not allowed to repost removed content? I'm sure this post will also be removed.

[4channel]

---

@*tippy*toes* wrote:

Were you aware that according to forum policy, you're not allowed to repost removed content? I'm sure this post will also be removed.

---

This is NOT removed content. This is a totally different write to what was posted yesterday

[repentatleisure1952]

" And the fellow assisting the buyer who had been denied his winning item had a previous occupational background in investigating such matters."

I wonder why the investigator would help a buyer who was not telling the truth.

[4channel]

---

@repentatleisure1952 wrote:

" And the fellow assisting the buyer who had been denied his winning item had a previous occupational background in investigating such matters."

I wonder why the investigator would help a buyer who was not telling the truth.

---

I'm afraid I'm not with you tuckcase. Which buyer are you referring to? And where is the buyer not telling the truth?

[4channel]

---

@4channel wrote:

---

@k1ooo-slr-sales wrote:

---

@4channel wrote:

   . . . . An associate of mine has been ripped off and lied to like you wouldn't believe. Yes, so it's understandable.

---

well, couldn’t possibly be as bad as one case I read on these boards once.  The buyer got a turntable (or similar item) at a good price from a seller in the UK.  Then, if can you believe it, the seller says the item got damaged and they threw it out with the rubbish.  The buyer got a refund, but his associate here in Australia went to the trouble of finding out which council area the seller lived in and phoned the council to find out the garbage collection day for the seller’s address.  Can you believe that?  That a person here in Australia would go to such lengths just to find out if the seller’s story stacked up?

Bottom line is that the buyer didn’t end up getting the item . . . . and we found out the lengths some members will go to when they suspect a gross injustice has been perpetrated by an unscrupulous seller!

---

In relation to the discussion here, there's no point in bringing this up. But since you have, there's more to that story.

First of all the item was an audio decoder, not a turntable. The reson for the calling to the UK was because the fellow helping the victim here who won an item fair and square for $40 was entitled to it. The seller came up with a flimsy story that he couldn't supply it because it had been dropped on the floor. When the seller was contacted with a offer to take the item as is because the associate of the buyer can fix broken curcuit boards and get it working again (as there were nomechanical parts within). So the associate of the buyer who had a background as well as a managerial position closely associated with the transport industry, decided to make some enquiries. In short, his job that he worked in some years prior involved tracking down and locating missing goods as well as following up on claims. Well, the seller said that he couldn't do that as he had dumped the item in his rubbish bin. He was contacted and he replied   ..   .. "Sorry, it's too late ... it was collected on such and such a day".

Now,  phone made to the UK for a couple of reasons.
* 1 to see if this was the case
* 2 to do what can be done before a negative was left

Well, the buyer wasn't telling the truth because the local council in his area confirmed that the bin wasn't collected on that day he said.

* Prior to this buyer had been the victim  of dishonest sellers. This case was one in a series of unfortunate auctions. He had won a bunch of stuff from a seller in Australia. Never arrived and when the seller was contacted, she blamed her husband or something. Nothing was done. He won a Hi-Fi decoder (Not related to the one here) from an overseas seller. Decoder had a blown channel. Then the seller delayed contact and then said he was taking a world trip and was going to be uncontactable for months. The option to leave feedback then run out. Some investigation turned up some interesting facts. The seller was discussing in a form the exact decoder with the exact same problem it had. Pictures and all confirmed it. Yet the item was advertised in top working condition and suppoedly checked by professionals. Buyer was out of pocket $200 plus postage. Now stuck with something that does not work, and would cost hundreds to fix.  ..... 

* Another case was winning a huge powerfil four channel amp from an Australian seller. The amp arrived and we discovered something very fishy. A dead (blown) channel was hot-wired to a live one to give the impression it was working. A total dishonest representation. The item was sent back and the buyer was out of pocket $70. Seller refused to refund the postage of $35 plus the return cost of the same amount.   ... ..  

* And there was another case of damage to an item by a seller's negligence etc.

So, after all of this, I hope you can see why this measure was taken. Every avenue to be explored  (that could be done at the time) and every chance given to the seller before leaving a negative. And the fellow assisting the buyer who had been denied his winning item had a previous occupational background in investigating such matters.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

ra157 had a similar fate

Seller Cancels Auction Sale After Item is Paid for. / Bargains Depend entirely on Goodwill
https://community.ebay.com.au/t5/Buying/Seller-Cancels-Auction-Sale-After-Item-is-Paid-for-Bargains/...

Seller Cancels Auction Sale After Item is Paid for. / Bargains Depend entirely on Goodwill Part 2
https://community.ebay.com.au/t5/Buying/Seller-Cancels-Auction-Sale-After-Item-is-Paid-for-Bargains/...

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

---

CORRECTED CONTENT BELOW

Well, the buyer wasn't telling the truth  changed to Well, the seller wasn't telling the truth 

In relation to the discussion here, there's no point in bringing this up. But since you have, there's more to that story.

First of all the item was an audio decoder, not a turntable. The reson for the calling to the UK was because the fellow helping the victim here who won an item fair and square for $40 was entitled to it. The seller came up with a flimsy story that he couldn't supply it because it had been dropped on the floor. When the seller was contacted with a offer to take the item as is because the associate of the buyer can fix broken curcuit boards and get it working again (as there were nomechanical parts within). So the associate of the buyer who had a background as well as a managerial position closely associated with the transport industry, decided to make some enquiries. In short, his job that he worked in some years prior involved tracking down and locating missing goods as well as following up on claims. Well, the seller said that he couldn't do that as he had dumped the item in his rubbish bin. He was contacted and he replied   ..   .. "Sorry, it's too late ... it was collected on such and such a day".

Now,  phone made to the UK for a couple of reasons.
* 1 to see if this was the case
* 2 to do what can be done before a negative was left

Well, the seller wasn't telling the truth because the local council in his area confirmed that the bin wasn't collected on that day he said.

[4channel]

---

@repentatleisure1952 wrote:

" And the fellow assisting the buyer who had been denied his winning item had a previous occupational background in investigating such matters."

I wonder why the investigator would help a buyer who was not telling the truth.

---

Thanks for he proof reading tuckcase1989 and pointing out my typo. Indeed an example of how one incorrect word can throw it right out.  

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

@4channel

________________________________________________________________________________________

ra157 had a similar fate

Seller Cancels Auction Sale After Item is Paid for. / Bargains Depend entirely on Goodwill
https://community.ebay.com.au/t5/Buying/Seller-Cancels-Auction-Sale-After-Item-is-Paid-for-Bargains/...

Seller Cancels Auction Sale After Item is Paid for. / Bargains Depend entirely on Goodwill Part 2
https://community.ebay.com.au/t5/Buying/Seller-Cancels-Auction-Sale-After-Item-is-Paid-for-Bargains/...

________________________________________________________________________________________

I still maintain that the seller in the first saga experience of ra157 was an inexperienced seller who clearly, on the face of available evidence, had meant to cancel the auction before its conclusion and not to sell to the highest bidder 10 minutes out from the scheduled auction end time.

Spoiler

a fact, or at the very least a possibility, that you completely ignore every time you drag up that thread as an example of a seller refusing to sell.

Spoiler

the good news for anyone who decides to read that first thread is that all the available evidence at the time is preserved on that thread for all to see/read