(Yes, it's time for another episode of `adventures in customer service'.) Occasionally I buy things via eBay, an online auction service. Usually these transactions proceed smoothly, and items usually sell well below their retail values, so it's good value. Occasionally, however, they don't.
(I'm aware that this isn't a very interesting piece, but obviously I have a duty to warn others against dishonest merchants.)
Last week I bought from `Snowdon Computers' (which appears to be a one-man operation) a terminal server (if you don't know what one of those is, you probably don't want to). This was described by its vendor as `removed from a working environment' (eBay for `was working when obtained by vendor') though the vendor didn't claim to have tested it himself. I bought this item.
On arrival, it didn't work. I inspected it and discovered that it had suffered from a large current discharge, almost certainly from a nearby lightning strike (this is a common cause of failure for terminal servers, because they are often connected to long cables which are vulnerable to nearby strikes); this current had destroyed one of the rear-panel sockets:
delaminated a PCB trace (top arrow), and arced to the device's box (bottom arrow):
(apologies for lousy photo). It is not surprising that a device damaged in this way didn't work very well, and as you'd expect about half the ICs on the board were in a short-circuit condition just sitting there getting hotter and hotter rather than actually doing anything.
So I pointed this out to the vendor, expressing my surprise that he had not seen fit to mention this obvious damage to the device in his advertisement. He said that he hadn't opened it up at all(!). I pointed out that it is fairly dangerous to be selling electrical equipment without inspecting it, and he replied (hilariously styling himself Niel Humphreys of the `eBay department', presumably in an attempt to make his pissant operation look bigger than it really is),
Yes, I do not consider computer voltages to be dangerous.
-- suggesting that the talentless fucknut doesn't really understand enough about electricity to be dealing with it in a professional capacity.
Naturally I asked for a refund, since given the above I felt it unlikely that Mr. Humphreys was competent to repair the unit. (It certainly is repairable, but not, I suspect, economically.) Initially, shit-for-brains refused, even, idiotically, remarking,
I note you are relatively inexperienced on Ebay. I can only suggest in future you read and understand auction descriptions fully and do not bid on any items if you are not willing to accept the level of testing advertised. This item was listed in good faith with no reserve according to the auction description, I did not ask you to bid the amount that you did & expected you to evaluate the risk in relation to the information given. It seems you expect the best of both worlds, perhaps Ebay is not for you?
This suggests that he doesn't understand the Sale of Goods Act either. The Act -- which covers sales via eBay just as well as it covers sales in a shop, a fact which I fear some eBay customers don't know and which some eBay vendors no doubt don't want them to -- requires items sold to:
``conform to contract''. This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).
An obviously faulty item which has been destroyed by a lightning strike cannot have been from a `working environment' and so is not `as described'; nor is it `fit for purpose' or `not inherently faulty at the time of sale'. The Sale of Goods Act gives the customer (roughly) the options of repair, replacement or refund of cost of an item which is not of merchantable quality.
Although Humphreys has now refunded the money I paid him, he evidently felt that he was doing me an enormous favour in doing so. Since the worthless fucktard doesn't seem to understand the legal requirement to sell goods of `merchantable quality', I would suggest that it is him, not me, who is unsuited to using eBay.
eBay has a system of `feedback' in which you can leave your comments on the results of each transaction. Reviewing my purchase of his dodgy crap, he wrote,
Item supplied as described, returned totally blown & useless. Bidder admitted he'd had the case open and poked around inside.
This, of course, is a lie; and it is defamatory, since Humphreys is implying that I damaged the item. (I did not, by the way, `admit' that I had opened the unit: I showed the little shit the photos above, to demonstrate to him that he had sold me faulty goods which were dishonestly described.) His account is also not consistent with his behaviour; if I really had destroyed the terminal server, he would presumably not have refunded my money, as he would certainly not have been liable to do so. In fact, he knew damn well that he had to give me a refund, since basically he'd tried to defraud me and I'd called him on it. He is still trying to weasel out of refunding the cost of returning his faulty goods to him. We'll see about that....
(I was also amused that Niel Humphreys is obsessed with the phrase `poked around', sparing no opportunity to describe the simple process of inspecting electronic equipment as `pok[ing] around inside' it. Perhaps psychoanalysis would furnish an explanation of this fixation.)
So, in sum, do not buy anything from Niel Humphreys of `Snowdon Computers'; on eBay he presently calls himself `snowdonia2002'. He is a liar and incompetent; he sells shoddy goods which are dishonestly described; and he is reluctant to fulfill his legal obligations. It is often said of such people that they are not fit to run a `whelk stall'; I suspect that would be far beyond the abilities of Mr. Humphreys.
(Other than this, by the way, my experience of eBay has been good. eBay itself is an odd organisation; they are the largest online auction outfit in the world, yet they are barely capable of sending a correctly-formatted email, and their website is, frankly, shoddy. But most eBay vendors I've dealt with have been scrupulously honest and efficient. All the more reason to draw attention to those, like hopeless numpty Niel Humphreys, who are not.)
So, sorry: no graph today, though this digression may entertain you.
Update: hopeless dishonest person Niel Humphreys is apparently so self-obsessed that he couldn't resist posting about this page on a public newsgroup, writing inter alia: (emphasis mine)
URL reservered [sic.] (email me if you want a laugh & I will send it [later he posted it to the group]) as it is highly profane and I was basically in the wrong anyway but the guy was such a dick about it I decided to argue. I did refund after a bit of an entertaining barney though. :)
-- showing, I think, that the English words `basically' and `anyway' now have almost no meaning.
A commenter -- who did not follow the comments policy and whose comment is therefore no longer visible -- remarked on the fact that `snowdon2002' has (other than mine) no `negative feedback' on eBay. The commenter argued that this suggested that my complaints above about human turd Niel Humphreys are unreasonable. This is one possible interpretation, though it is not the correct one. Note from the history of pseudonyms on the eBay site, Niel Humphreys regularly changes his eBay pseudonym, presumably in order to escape from any negative feedback. (eBay do not show feedback for his old pseudonyms, so this cannot be verified.) Secondly, Humphreys is a keen student of how to remove `negative feedback' from his profile. It is hardly surprising that there isn't any there.... (There's a point in here about reputation systems which is of wider interest; perhaps I'll write about those later.)
Update #2: the silly cunt writes in another newsgroup post,
If he's have been reasonable and polite from the start he'd have found me reasonable and polite and I would have refunded without question immediately.
Here is the text of my first email to him:
Having now found time to test this unit, I discover that it has suffered fatal damage, most probably from a lightning strike. The damage is obvious from a cursory inspection; I am surprised that it was not mentioned in your description of the item. Thoughts?
(As another brief note, posting this seems to have brought all sorts of creatures out of the woodwork, all of whom seem intent on commenting but somehow have failed to read the comments policy, which states various guidelines for commenters, including that they should: write something interesting; give their full real name and email address; and avoid errors of grammar and orthography. It's no good expressing surprise that your comments don't get displayed if you don't comply! Idiots.)
(I have removed the word `crook' from the above description. I am absolutely and wholly satisfied that Mr. Humphreys is in no way a crook and apologise unreservedly for any offence caused by my so describing him.)
Comments
Posted by Steve Jones, Thursday, 9 September 2004 21:27 (link):
From the description in the auction, I'd say you got exactly what he advertised. You were lucky to get the refund you got. I'd have told you to take a flying leap.
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Thursday, 9 September 2004 21:37 (link):
And you, like him, would have been in the wrong and you would have had to refund me in the end (though you perhaps might have been more of a nuisance about it than Humphreys). Read what I wrote above about the Sale of Goods Act. Note that without the protection of the Act, I certainly wouldn't have bid on an item of that description!
Posted by Andy Farrow, Thursday, 9 September 2004 22:09 (link):
You are incorrect, changing the Ebay ID does not hide previous feedback at all and all comments travel with the account regardless of the name.
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Thursday, 9 September 2004 23:41 (link):
Fair enough. I stand corrected. I assume that the complaining-about-feedback thing he mentions still works, though; he's mentioned it several times, most recently in a gloating email to me earlier. Silly man.
Posted by Alex Threlfall, Thursday, 9 September 2004 22:29 (link):
"Item supplied as described, returned totally blown & useless. Bidder admitted he'd had the case open and poked around inside. This, of course, is a lie; and it is defamatory, since Humphreys is implying that I damaged the item. "
You're incorrect in that this is defamatory. He has merely stated what condition it was in, and that you'd opened it. How can he know if you managed to kill it?
Secondly your comment:
"Update: hopeless crook Niel Humphreys is apparently so self-obsessed that he couldn't resist posting about this page on a public newsgroup, writing inter alia: (emphasis mine)"
Could well be interpreted as libelous and/or defamatory. Certainley if you were describing myself in this way i'd be consulting my lawyer!
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Thursday, 9 September 2004 23:26 (link):
He's lied about its condition prior to shipping it to me, therefore implying that I damaged it.
Nope -- certainly fair comment.
NEXT!
Posted by Michael Brooke, Friday, 10 September 2004 10:30 (link):
I have to say I agree with Alex. Niel's description might be contentious based on what you've written (which is all I have to go on), but it certainly isn't libellous or defamatory. The only thing that could be interpreted as a direct accusation is "Bidder admitted he'd had the case open and poked around inside" - which you yourself corroborate (admittedly using different terminology from "poked around inside", but the substance is broadly accurate).
On the other hand, calling someone a crook most certainly is defamatory, and could very well be considered libellous. In the admittedly unlikely event that Niel sued you, how would you prove to the satisfaction of a court that he'd knowingly engaged in criminal activity, which is what you appear to be accusing him of? And I doubt a court would have much sympathy for a defendant who posted such an accusation in a page whose very title includes the phrase "lying incompetent cunt".
Sorry, Chris - you might be in the right (I don't know either way: it's your word against his), but your hysterically vituperative tone is having exactly the opposite effect on me to what was presumably intended.
Posted by Simon Keal, Friday, 10 September 2004 10:40 (link):
"Sorry, Chris - you might be in the right (I don't know either way: it's your word against his)"
Niel has acknowledged he was 'basically in the wrong anyway', so no it isn't.
Posted by Michael Brooke, Friday, 10 September 2004 11:01 (link):
Niel has acknowledged he was 'basically in the wrong anyway', so no it isn't.
Which, I have to say, reflects very well on Niel - as does the fact that he's refunded Chris's original purchase price.
Which provides further evidence that he's not a crook, thus reinforcing my original point that Chris is being more defamatory than Niel here.
I'm genuinely trying not to take sides here, but if I had to give an honest answer as to which of the two parties is behaving more reasonably here, Niel is currently winning by a short head.
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Friday, 10 September 2004 11:27 (link):
The one-sentence version runs: he didn't act reasonably in describing the goods (his description of them as being `from a working environment' was dishonest); he was arsey about refunding me; and he is trying to avoid refunding the return shipping costs. Two or fewer of those and I probably wouldn't have been too bothered.
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Friday, 10 September 2004 10:48 (link):
My accusation is that he is dishonest rather than necessarily criminal.
`Hysterically vituperative' is a reasonable description of the style here.... I admit to being very quickly irritated by this kind of crap customer service.
Posted by Michael Brooke, Friday, 10 September 2004 11:02 (link):
My accusation is that he is dishonest rather than necessarily criminal.
But where's the evidence to back this up? What has he told you that was subsequently proven to be a flat-out lie?
Posted by john b, Friday, 10 September 2004 11:05 (link):
While I think Niel Humphreys deserves everything he's being given, Michael may have a point on your use of the word 'crook'. I think Neil Hamilton, who is a proven liar, still won a libel suit against someone who described him as a crook on the basis that he'd never been convicted of a criminal offence.
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Friday, 10 September 2004 11:11 (link):
Fair point; now retracted -- see above.
Posted by Daniel Davies, Friday, 10 September 2004 00:31 (link):
A bit academic since you've got your money back now, but in a small sideline I had in the past punting dodgy vans from a kerbsides in North London, I had occasion to have the odd barney with annoyed punters about the Sale of Goods Act.
Basically, the "merchantable quality" obligation only applies to merchants. In a private sale, it just has to be "as advertised" and "fit for purpose" ("fit for purpose" being a surprisingly weak protection in the context of cars; it basically seemed to mean that it just had to be a car). This is why [not that I'd know about this your honour ahem] disreputable car salesmen will attempt to structure their businesses as a series of private sales and do their level best to stop any punter finding out that they're a merchant. Surprised that "Snowdonia Computers" didn't have the wit to use this well-known dodge.
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Friday, 10 September 2004 00:38 (link):
Not quite -- he still owes me for shipping (which was quite expensive, since obviously I had to buy insurance and delivery confirmation, since otherwise he'd presumably just claim it had never arrived or been damaged in transit; there's a separate story of Royal Mail incompetence here which I won't bore you with...).
It's good to see you doing your best to educate the public ;-)
Posted by Alex Threlfall, Friday, 10 September 2004 15:59 (link):
Well, he's shipped the item to you, and there was obviously nothing wrong with the shipping so I don't see why he should refund your shipping on this.
I don't know if there is any case that says anywhere if the SoG act applies to auction purchases, especially in caveat empor cases such as this. I'd not want to test this in court though!
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Friday, 10 September 2004 16:23 (link):
The Sale of Goods Act has a specific exemption for auctions in which the products for sale are available for inspection. It applies to all other auctions (for instance, those on eBay) with a commercial seller.
He should refund the return shipping because he is liable to do so. He shipped goods to me which were not of merchantable quality -- as he has now admitted. I have had to return them, at my expense; I have incurred this expense only because of his dishonest conduct.
`Caveat emptor' does not really apply to this type of transaction, because the Sale of Goods Act places the onus on the vendor to supply goods of satisfactory quality and describe them honestly.
Posted by Alex Threlfall, Saturday, 11 September 2004 20:44 (link):
The act states the following:
(2A) For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.
Now Niel described the terminal server with the following:
This item is used and was recently removed from a working enviroment. It has been tested to Power up. Fan runs quietly. I was unable to test any further due to my lack of knowledge about this item. Sold as is.
I fail to see anything that would reffer to a seller's responsibility to pay for the return carriage. However nothing says that you *must* send the goods back either. Merely that you may reject them. I'm not that legally minded to think of how the various act's work, in that if you tried to reject the goods under Section 35 of the act and the seller relied on Section 14 to point out that based on the description of the goods you weren't entitled to reject them.
SoG Act Ammendments
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Sunday, 12 September 2004 01:50 (link):
If it was removed from a working environment, it would have been working. It was not. The description was a lie. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, and I am surprised that you are having trouble with it.
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Sunday, 12 September 2004 02:25 (link):
Oh, I see. You don't actually understand why the stupid cunt has to pay for the return of the goods?
As you are aware, the Act doesn't require rejected goods to be returned. However, Niel refused to refund me without their being returned, saying that he did not `accept liability'. This doesn't mean anything, because he had not supplied goods of merchantable quality and therefore was liable; in any case, he has now accepted his liability.
In any case I judged that it would be quicker to return the goods, incurring an expense for which Niel must compensate me because he has breached the implied contract of sale, than to sue the stupid fuck straight off. And to his -- very limited -- credit, having realised that he wasn't going to be able to screw me out of the money he owed me, he did send the partial refund fairly promptly. It seems he's going to be recalcitrant about the rest of it, but that's pretty much as expected.
Posted by Simon Keal, Friday, 10 September 2004 00:58 (link):
The claim that Niel Humphries has received no other negative feedback isn't even true; his member profile reveals seven 'members who left a negative'.
Posted by Michael Brooke, Friday, 10 September 2004 11:26 (link):
Note from the history of pseudonyms on the eBay site, Niel Humphreys regularly changes his eBay pseudonym, presumably in order to escape from any negative feedback.
I don't think there's any evidence to support this presumption. Since 28 October 2000 - i.e. nearly four years ago - he's used three pseudonyms, and he's had the current one for over two years. Surely changes would be far more frequent if your allegation held any water?
Since we're playing guessing games here, would it not be equally reasonable to presume that "kickabout" was changed because it lacked gravitas and "snowdoncomputers" because it was too long-winded? I don't know either way, but it's just as plausible as your theory!
Posted by Niel Humphreys, Friday, 10 September 2004 11:43 (link):
Correct to a point though this is not my primary selling ID anyway. I use this one mainly for buying stuff and every now and again for items I am prepared to ship internationally. Hence I am finding all this fuss quite amusing and entertaining, certainly more so than if my main selling account had been involved.
Posted by Steve Jones, Friday, 10 September 2004 18:11 (link):
I think that you should all put this to bed now. I know Niel personally, he is an honest businessman and a nice guy, and they can be pretty rare combination at times. He goes to great lengths to correct problems, and at his own expense. He has sold hundreds and hundreds of items on e-bay, and he has proved his integrity. You may notice that he doesnt mention the times where payments for purchases have gone wrong, stolen credit cards etc. so give him a break. The purchaser got his money back but isnt content with that, he wants to ensure that he proves to the world that he has some kind of chip on his shoulder.
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Friday, 10 September 2004 18:45 (link):
Nope. See above.
No I haven't. He is still refusing to refund my return shipping costs -- a substantial fraction of the total. And you don't need to take my word for it that he's in the wrong -- he's admitted it himself. And given your previous statement on your standards of customer service, you're not really one to be lecturing on business ethics.
Look, I would love never to experience such dreadful customer service; and it really does have to be pretty bad to make me write something like this. Something about Humphreys -- and especially the way that he knew damn well that he was wrong and still tried to screw me over -- really, really irritates me. There's no reason to put up with this kind of crap from a business, and I don't plan to.
Posted by alex, Friday, 10 September 2004 18:24 (link):
well chris, do I detect that you might have been in a bad mood when this all kicked off?
I think the tone of your post, while amusing, is actually (for once) a little OTT... for example the stuff about hiding negative feedback was made in your usual authoritative tones, but, if the comments are to be believed, you were in fact ill informed / stabbing in the dark. Normally I enjoy your ‘exploits in the world of customer service’. In this case it does sound like you were sent dodgy goods, but your reaction seems uncharacteristically over the top…
While I’m all for the putting-to-bed-of-this, I would love to know somehow what the ‘honest’ seller (he may well be, I don’t know) was thinking when he put the thing up for auction. Presumably he knew it was broken (otherwise, he’s lazy/incompetent) so why did he choose to word his auction in such a way as to hide that, if he is such a great and honest e-bayer? It does smack somewhat of someone trying to ‘pull a fast one’ – not the actions of the man with such glowing character references as given above. There must be (=I hope) an explanation which is less awful than chris’ analysis – I just don’t can’t see what it is, yet.
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Saturday, 11 September 2004 01:26 (link):
... yeah, I had rather lost patience after the first few emails from this bloody idiot. (And I'm also not too enthused about going on and on about it, however it may seem.....)
-- yeah, looks like I'd misunderstood that (we must give Andy Farrow the benefit of the doubt, despite his undeclared interest here). Though on a related subject, I'd say that this comment from Niel: tells us that he's still keeping several pseudonyms active for some purpose. I haven't seen anything in the eBay terms and conditions which suggests that you need to have several if you want to `ship internationally' (though I understand that having several active accounts is itself permitted).You also wonder,
I'd love to know too. I find the motives of these people mysterious, frankly.Posted by Alex Threlfall, Saturday, 11 September 2004 20:47 (link):
tells us that he's still keeping several pseudonyms active for some purpose. I haven't seen anything in the eBay terms and conditions which suggests that you need to have several if you want to `ship internationally' (though I understand that having several active accounts is itself permitted). Yes, it's permitted as long as he doesn't use them to bid on his other auction id's. Also should one of them become suspended then all the others become suspended as well. Unlikely to happen though as he is a powerseller.
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Sunday, 12 September 2004 02:52 (link):
Obviously, only if he has told eBay that they all belong to the same person.
Posted by Alex Threlfall, Sunday, 12 September 2004 11:59 (link):
Well presumably they all have the same billing info for selling, but there's nothing stopping you notifying ebay when one of them gets NARU'd and they do actually do this sort of thing fairly quickly...
Posted by jools, Saturday, 11 September 2004 11:54 (link):
Chris
I really think you have over reacted to this issue and your use of foul language and the insults you have used against Mr Humphrey’s discredits your position.
Firstly the sale of goods act only applies to goods described as new. Caveat emptor applies to any auction where the goods are second hand and that means, “buyer be beware” legally this means you are taking a risk buying anything second hand of Ebay and also applies to all general auctions.
If you didn't want to take this risk you should have bought a brand new one from the manufacture or authorised supplier and that would have been very expensive.
The auction clearly states the item had not being fully tested yet you still bid.
The TOS terms of sale clearly states no warrantee so as such effectively “sold as seen” yet you still bid.
I’m surprised you even got a refund at all! As a seller I would have been very suspicious about this transaction for the follow reasons.
We only have your word that the offending item was damaged prior to delivery, suppose Mr Humphrey’s had sent a working unit and the damage occurred while it was in your possession, at the time I recall the whole of the UK experienced severe electric storms then rather then claim for the damage of your insurance you decide to rip off the seller?
A customer I had built a computer for contacted me as the computer had broken down; the hard drive had failed so I returned it to DABS, shortly after I was told by DABS “no refund customer had caused damage” Subsequently found out my customer had been doing DIY and had drilled in to his house wiring and blown all his electrical equipment up, rather than claim on his house insurance he decided to rip me off.
As a final point if you had bought this from DABS you wouldn’t have got a refund for the unit let alone the postage as you have interfered with it by opening it.
I suspect if you had been a bit more reasonable and simply told Niel the unit was faulty you would have had a much better response but it seems to me that you aggravated him by pulling the thing to bits and then showing him pictures your handy work.
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Saturday, 11 September 2004 12:14 (link):
I'm going to let your comment stand, even though you're hiding behind a made-up name, because it illustrates some useful points.
Basically everything you've written is incorrect. I'm not going to correct you point-by-point; go and read up on what you're talking about before you spout any more crap. And read the comments policy while you're at it.
I.e. you're accusing me of damaging it. Well done! You're even more of an cunt than Niel. You stupid fuck. (Your standard of written English could do with some work too.)
Nonsense. Dabs are good at fulfilling their legal obligations (obligations which you plainly do not understand); they do not try to weasel out of them on completely spurious grounds like those you suggest. This explains why they are still in business.
Here is the text of the first email I sent him (repeated for the second time for illiterate idiots like you):
Given his behaviour in misleadingly describing the item, I think this is about the most reasonable email I could have composed. Humphreys -- who has admitted that he knew he was in the wrong from the start -- responded with some shite about how the device was working (a lie), how I shouldn't have opened it (crap) and how he had no obligation to refund me (bollocks).
Look: he had three options: (1) behave reasonably; (2) if he wouldn't behave reasonably, at least fulfill his legal obligations; (3) other. He chose (3). If he'd had the good sense to choose (1) or (2) I would have been perfectly happy.
You stupid fuck. I did not `pull the thing to bits'. I disassembled it carefully to inspect it. How the fuck else was I supposed to determine the nature of the fault? You stupid fuck.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Read the above; you might learn something.
Christ, is eBay really such a hive of useless morons? It's astounding....
Posted by john b, Saturday, 11 September 2004 19:00 (link):
You're even more of an cunt than Niel. You stupid fuck. (Your standard of written English could do with some work too.)
The curse of "ironic typos in grammar flames" strikes again ;-)
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Sunday, 12 September 2004 02:05 (link):
heh ;-)
By the way, to the dreadful shower of fuckwits who have been complaining about my removing comments: read the fucking comments policy you illiterate fools! If you do not give your real name and email address, you should not expect your comments to be posted because you are an illiterate fool incapable of obeying the simplest instructions.
I think the fact that so many of Niel's little eBay chums are unable to obey simple instructions such as the comments policy here probably augers ill for their ability to obey anything slightly more complicated, such as the law of England and Wales.
If you want to play here, you must obey the rules. If you want to play on eBay, you must obey the law. Neither of these is a difficult concept, and only a fucking idiot would have any trouble with it. If you're not capable of obeying the rules, you can fuck off. If you're still going to disobey the rules here, you might want to read s.1 of the Computer Misuse Act (1990), bearing in mind that `level 5 on the standard scale' is £5,000.
Posted by Chris Rowland, Sunday, 12 September 2004 05:15 (link):
While I have read your side of the story I will have to say that most people do not open up electronic equipment to check every trace prior to selling the item. Now while I do agree if it was obvious from the outside of the equipment (the only pictures I have seen above are the ones that you took while inside the case) that Neil should refund the money. The only problem that I have with all of this is that you feel that he should have to pay for return shipping. While this is the case I do think that he did hide behind the slogan that most ebay sellers put on their auctions. SOLD AS-IS. When that is listed (in my opinion) then you get what you get. Now I know what your response is going to be ahead of time. It will be something along the lines that he said it was pulled from a working enviroment. This leaves a few questions unanswered though. #1 When was the item pulled from working service? The traces on the back with the rust says to me there is a posibility that it has been in the a damp enviroment. #2 You did open the item. With most companies this automatically gets you knocked out because as several others have mentioned: How does Neil know what your competence level is when dealing with electronics.
Now I am not taking sides here. I do think that Neil should refund. I do also believe that you went overboard with this entire thing (esp the crook part as there has been nothing above to suggest that he is a crook in any way shape or form). Your attitude would have kept you from getting refunded by a vast number of ebay sellers. Once again you are usually not buying from large companies when you are buying from ebay. It is usually a person to person sale which is not mandated by the same laws as a company to person sale.
Of course as with all of the other reasonable posts. I am donning my flame retardent suit now (in expectation of the flaming) :>
Chris
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Sunday, 12 September 2004 11:03 (link):
Identifying the damage did not require inspection of `every trace' on the board -- it was pretty fucking obvious as soon as the case was open. I did take steps to confirm the nature of the damage.
The point -- as I keep mentioning, is that you can't hide behind this slogan. You have to describe the goods reasonably and honestly; Humphreys did not. Go and read the Sale of Goods Act.
My attitude -- that I expect them to act reasonably, or, failing that, fulfill their statutory duties? Ultimately, they don't get a choice in the matter. It's just a question of how much of a nuisance they intend to be before doing so.
(I should say, I have never had this kind of trouble with an eBay seller before. I don't know if what you say there about the `vast number' of eBay sellers is accurate, but it doesn't conform with my experience.)
Posted by Chris Rowland, Sunday, 12 September 2004 16:52 (link):
Once again the thought behind the sentence above was that most people/companies do not open up the electronic item before sale. I know that if I power it on and it it lights up and what not then it is assumed ready for sale (with regards to networking items). In regards to the item being not as described, The item was described reasonably. He stated that the lights came on when it was plugged in (you never said above wither or not this was the case). He stated he did not have the
As I said above, you may be in the right but to be honest you did go a bit overboard with all of this. Personally I would have given you the refund for the item and told you to keep it (although I have been burned by this on ebay as well by "unhonest" buyers).
----See above----- You must take the entire description into context (and not just the single line that you keep raving about). A reasonable person would have understood the item to be untested (as it stated in the ad). Personally I feel that you need to read the Sale of Goods Act (as in the entire thing not just the parts that you feel apply to you. If this was to go to court I personally feel that they would take the entire law into context (and not the small part that you keep referencing).
So do you make it a point to do stuff like this all of the time? I personally have not even purchase from the vast number of ebay sellers so I cannot say what they would or would not do. BUT I do feel that most would err on the side of common sense and after all of this I am not to sure you would win.
Either way from what I understand it is all taken care of at the moment. You got your refund (although you have to pay for return shipping). This page is evidence that you have more time than you know what to do with (as it would have cost more in time (for me) then the return shipping was worth. As to your morals in exposing a "dishonest" seller, After reading all of this as well I would be more inclined to add you to the blocked bidder list as opposed to not buying stuff from Neil. I have never met either of you (nor have I done business with either of you before) but I do believe that he has been quite reasonable in regards to the sale of a "As-Is" item.
Chris
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Sunday, 12 September 2004 20:59 (link):
The substantive bits of the description are as follows:
One trivially correct statement; one lie. Not exactly impressive, and certainly misleading. This is not a difficult concept to understand. I do not understand why you are having trouble with it.
I occasionally write up particularly bad or good examples of customer service (one or two a year, usually). This is by far the worst I've come across in the last five years. Most vendors which provide poor customer service are merely incompetent, rather than actively dishonest. And, yes, obviously I have a duty to warn others about it. It would be irresponsible not to.
Why? Are you afraid of being called on to obey the law or something?
Posted by Chris Rowland, Monday, 13 September 2004 00:48 (link):
Actually as incorrectly noted: I feel that there is another truth that you keep forgetting to mention. The "it lights up but I cannot test it any further due to my lack of knowledge of this item. Sold as-is" (paraphrased) part.
So now I count at least 2 statements (3 if you take it in parts) that are correct and one that is a "lie" as you put it. Looks like he is in the lead again.
I am not afraid of being called in to obey the law (although I am not in the UK so this law in particular would not apply (it is questionable as to wither or not you are correctly applying it in this case anyways). However unreasonable customers do cost businesses money. You = Unreasonable Customer
Chris
Posted by Frank Dutton, Monday, 13 September 2004 08:22 (link):
Oh come on Chris, you don't expect Mr Lightfoot to conceded any kind of error on his own blog do you? I am surrised he allowed your posts to stand such is the level of cencorship he practices on here against anyone who disgrees with him who either have their posts cancelled or labelled a "Fucking Idiot". If you are keeping score, have you taken the thread in uk.people.consumer.ebay relating to this? 4 supporting him and 14 againt, producing comments such as:
-Never mind Niel, I'm sure there's plenty more of him around for everyone to have one!! -OMG I just looked at it - Anorak alert !!! LOL -How much time does this guy have to waste. He has no life! -More like a self-important little twat -He seems more like a stalker type. -Excitable little twonk, isn't he? You have my sympathies for having to deal with this idiot. -I'm jealous. I thought I was the Nutter Magnet(tm).
and the most telling is allegedly from his ISP after someone complained about the profanity:
- It should have be clear from the title and content of the article that Mr Lightfoot is an unhinged lunatic capable of wielding extreme profanity in his web log, so the response you received can hardly have been unexpected.
If you look over his site it becomes evident that he seems to be anti-capitalist and I wonder if he would have gone to all this trouble were Humphreys not running a profit making organisation but selling this item privately and not for profit.
I also noted that Humphreys seems to have posted to this log using a pseudonym (bad form) somewhere above but Mr Lightfoot seems not to have noticed this in his crusade. I am assuming that the email address given by the contributer above is almost identical to a previous Ebay user ID that it is less than co-incidental....
I am submitting this now but I do not hold out much hope of it being permitted to stay 'up' or, if it does, my chances of not being referred to as a fucking idiot. We shall see if there is a shred of maturity in Mr Lightfoot's psyche....
Posted by john b, Monday, 13 September 2004 10:25 (link):
and the most telling is allegedly from his ISP after someone complained about the profanity: "It should have be clear from the title and content of the article that Mr Lightfoot is an unhinged lunatic capable of wielding extreme profanity in his web log, so the response you received can hardly have been unexpected"
For some reason, I'm sceptical that this comment was really from Chris's ISP. Anyone capable of carrying out a WHOIS lookup might understand why...
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Monday, 13 September 2004 09:18 (link):
That's not a substantive statement. It contains no useful information. In particular, as I have pointed out above, `sold as-is' is completely irrelevant -- verbal chaff which auctioneers put in their auction descriptions because of a mystical belief that it somehow absolves them of their responsibilities -- and the bit about Niel being incompetent and ignorant is completely irrelevant to the description of the item on sale.
And the stupid fuck wouldn't be `in the lead' even if, in addition to a blatant lie, his advertisement contained other irrelevant information which happened to be true. He'd still be trying to screw money out of his customers by lying about the item he was selling.
I am surprised that you do not think there is anything wrong with lying about the description of an item in a sight-unseen auction.
No, you stupid fuck. I require that Niel either (a) behave reasonably; or, if he is not going to behave reasonably, (b) fulfill his legal obligations. These are by definition reasonable requirements.
Businesses who try to screw customers out of money are `unreasonable'. Businesspeople who admit that they are in the wrong and still try to screw customers out of their money are `unreasonable'. Your claim seems to be that, having lied about the description of an item, it would be `reasonable' for you not to refund the money you owed. The most charitable explanation I can think of for this is that you do not understand what the word `reasonable' means.
You also probably shouldn't be trying to explain what Niel's obligations are or are not from your current position of utter ignorance.
Posted by Ian Melton, Monday, 13 September 2004 16:32 (link):
Could someone please give me Mr Lightfoots ebay id so I can add him to my list of blocked bidders as I would hate to suffer the same abuse as Mr Humphreys has just because somebody can't read auction descriptions
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Monday, 13 September 2004 18:07 (link):
By `abuse' I take it you mean `expectation that you will refund a customer you have misled, in conformance with your ethical and legal obligations'?
Blocking my eBay ID doesn't absolve you of your responsibilities to your customers, and the implication that you won't sell to customers who expect your goods to meet a minimal standard of merchantability is fairly damning. I wonder what Anglesey Trading Standards think about it?
You people should grow the fuck up and realise that the fact that you're selling on eBay doesn't in any way change your responsibilities to your customers. This really isn't very hard to understand, even if it runs counter to your deeply-held fantasies or your business practices. Even Niel Humphreys understands this, even if the stupid sod still hasn't paid all of what he owes.
(I'm bored of explaining this to people. Any more comments that simply repeat the statement ``But I sell on eBay and I want to carry on believing that the Sale of Goods Act and like legislation doesn't apply to me'' will be dropped, though I may post a list of the names of sellers who suffer from this misconception.)
Posted by Pete Stevens, Sunday, 12 September 2004 14:08 (link):
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=niel+humphreys&btnG=Google+Search
Google has spoken!
Posted by Edd Southerden, Thursday, 16 September 2004 03:04 (link):
In the words of Basil Fawlty, 'It's perfectly simple': Humphreys sold Lightfoot a popped modem and then refused to refund the money until sufficient fuss was made. This makes him a cunt. Everything else is just hand waving.
As for the shower of shit that seem to be Humphreys' eBay comrades, I don't think it that unfair to wish upon them some sort of flesh eating bacteria, of the sort that plagued certain kinds of apple juice in the early nineties.
Posted by Edmund von der Burg, Friday, 17 September 2004 14:45 (link):
Not wanting to get bogged down in this I am writing an indirect comment. Like Chris my eBay experiences have been overwhelmingly positive. Once though I bought a dodgy magnetic card reading keyboard. I emailed the seller and he sent another one which worked nicely. When I asked him what he wanted done with the old one he said 'bin it'.
My thinking is that the seller thought to himself "this chap has a dodgy keyboard, do I want it back?" and answered "no".
Why would any seller want a buyer to send them back kit that they acknowledge to be dead rather than refund the buyer and get them to chuck it at their end? Someone more cynical than me might want to save a search on eBay for "terminal server" and see if an answer arrives by email.
Posted by Cheryl-Anne Jenkinson, Wednesday, 13 October 2004 22:55 (link):
Well guys - I came to this site for the first time on some kind of thread this evening. God only knows how and I sure won't be back.
I'm (in one role) a customer satisfaction consultant, dealing with the customer oriented problems of large corporate clients. I am, frankly surprised and horrified that a whole group of intelligent people would spend such colossal amounts of time in posting a back and forth communication on something that doesn't even matter to the vast majority. It's a matter between Niel and Chris, guys, why even bother? You are all looking pretty silly for the time wasting and I'm thinking - are you all retired or is life so tedious there's nothing better to do?
Chris, in the days you must have spent assembling comments containing useful explanatory words such as such as 'fuck and 'cunt' which are only juvenile and demean you - you'd possibly have earned the post and packing equivalent a hundred times over, if you'd spent the time in a meaningful job.
I also had an unresolved customer service issue that irritated the hell out of me - I stayed polite, said what I had to say, and I let it go. Otherwise it uses vast amounts of time to achieve nothing. It detracts from ebay also. I am surprised this kind of stuff is able to be viewed as it is brand-destructive.
Niel, you come out of it well, having said little which is often the most appropriate thing.
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Thursday, 14 October 2004 00:29 (link):
I don't know what a `customer satisfaction consultant' is, but I'd be astounded if you were in any position to lecture other people about what is, or isn't, a `meaningful job'. As for being polite, well, I tried that, and the stupid fuck tried to screw me out of my money. A lot of fuckwits did waste their time here trying to argue that Niel was in the right; to be honest, the hordes of idiots who swarm out of the internet woodwork on these kinds of subjects continue to astound me.
As for me, I don't think I've wasted the little while I put in to this -- it's everyone's duty to warn others about dishonest businesses, and Google suggests that I've done so effectively here.
Perhaps you would consider reading the above -- I have no complaint with eBay in this matter, and have said so.:w
Damn right it is, and that's exactly why I've published it. If you think that the fact that something is `brand-destructive' ought to be a reason for it not to be `viewed', then you are an even sillier woman than your self-description suggests -- especially as it is you who chose to do the viewing.
Posted by Pete Stevens, Thursday, 14 October 2004 10:06 (link):
I think you've missed some of the points and helpful things this discussion has brought forward.
Customers have rights granted to them by the Sale of Goods Act. In order to sell products, a vendor must abide by the Sale of Goods Act. Thanks to this page and the comments, a number of people have just been told what their rights are, and a number of other people have pointed out that their companies willfully and deliberately ignore the customers rights.
Neil did not have to refund the post and packaging because it would be a nice thing to do, he's legally obliged to do so, and the fact that Neil is prepared to ignore his legal obligation in the course of running his business is a matter for the public record.
The fact that you were prepared to 'let it lie' with your customer service difficulty means that another company has been encouraged to break the law with regards to their obligations towards customers in the search of increased profitability.
However, I would agree with you that Chris' use of profanity has been somewhat over the top in many cases.
Post a new comment.
Comments copyright (c) contributors and available under a Creative Commons License. See also the comments policy.