Nikkor lens update

[kiev4a]

Recently I posted that I had picked up a 35-70 AF Nikkor lens. It arrived last Friday. In like new condition. Only one problem. Autofocus didn't work and just about needed a pipe wrench to make the zoom work. Emailed the seller--a pawn shop in Kansas--and he said he would refund my money although he said he had lited the lens as manual focus. Checked his ad and there was some fine print that said "Lens Type: manual" I pointed out to him that when you show a photo of an autofocus lens and say "everything works properly" most people are gonna assume that includes the autofocus. If you have an autofocus lens that doesn't autofocus, it should be stated plainly. Anyway, I'm supposed to get my money back but I will be out shipping charges.

[PeterW]

Hi Wayne,

Anyway, I'm supposed to get my money back but I will be out shipping charges.

This sort of thing really makes me cross, to put it mildly! We are all human, and any seller can make a mistake, but to me, that bit that so many sellers put about not refunding postage is a get out, pure and simple. The seller is banking on a dis-satisfied buyer cutting his losses and not wanting to fork out on return postage.

If sellers had confidence in what they are selling, and were careful, honest and open about describing items, they would do as I do when I sell any of my own private goods on ebay. My returns policy clearly states that if the item is found to be seriously mis-described in any way I will refund the money plus ALL postage if the item is returned to me properly packed.

I also pack carefully and accept all responsibility for claiming for loss or damage during transit. Why should the buyer have to do this? So far, in three years, I have had 100% positive feedback, one undelivered item for which I successfully claimed against the Post Office, and no returns.

Under UK consumer laws the onus for accurate description and/ or photographs or drawings, proper working of the goods for a reasonable time bearing in mind the price, and safe undamaged transit to the buyer, is on the seller. This is all contained in the Trade Descriptions Act, the Sale of Goods Act, and the Fitness for Purpose Act. Transgressors ARE pursued by the Trading Standards Authority. These people have wide-ranging powers and penalties can be severe, including for serious offences forced shut-down of the business. The acts apply to new AND secondhand goods sold by way of trade. It is an offence to sell goods returned and repaired under warranty as 'new'.

In the case of new goods, this onus is on the seller NOT the manufacturer. If the seller thinks the manufacturer is responsible for any shortcomings he, in turn, has to claim.

When these acts were first introduced some traders said they were too one-sided, and predicted many business closures. Well, they didn't close. Traders learned to live with them, and buying from a trade seller in the UK is much safer.

All sales from my business website on the internet are governed by these acts, and I treat any private sales in the same way even though private sales, unfortunately, do not come under the acts. I wish they did. If they did, and if similar acts were in force in other countries perhaps buying on ebay would be much less of a lottery!

BTW, have a look on the right hand side of any UK ebay selling page and you will often see 'Registered as a Private Seller', which usually means they use a private bank account for receiving PayPal payments, and not a business bank account, which would be tantamount to making them a trader. Have a look at the amount of feedback in the time they have been selling, and come to your own conclusions.

I read recently in the financial pages of a UK newspaper that the Inland Revenue is starting to take an interest in ebay sellers with very high feedback scores. They, of course, are looking for income tax, but it's strange how, when the IR gets its teeth into something other government departments start to get interested. Telepathy perhaps?

IMHO as your lens is well known to be auto-focus, the seller, if he was a trader, and if he was in the UK, might have wriggled through the Trade Desciprions Act but may have breached the Fitness for Purpose Act.

OK. Relax. Rant over. I feel better for that!

[kiev4a]

Another thing about Ebay today is that it has jacked up its cut to the point where a lot of sellers are inflating shipping charges to make up for the increases. That's why I normally do as much buying ot trading as possible on the forums, totally avoiding Ebay.

[PeterW]

Hi Wayne,

I'm likely to be in a minority here, and I don't know what fees ebay US charges, but I don't regard ebay UK's fees as exhorbitant.

They are based on an insertion fee which includes a picture, opening bid and final selling price. There is a reserved price fee, but I always sell with no reserve. Generally I find the fees work out less than a classified advert in a specialist magazine, and ebay gets more results because it's world-wide.

They also compare favourably with fees charged by public auctioneers which are usually 12.5% of the hammer price, and you also have to deliver goods to the auction rooms or pay a high collection fee. Also, auction houses aren't keen on accepting iytems with a collective estimated selling price of less than 20GBP (about $40).

I also use PayPal which charges just under 10% handling fee, which for the security, convenience and instant payment I don't think is over the top. There's no fee for transferring amounts of 50 GBP or more to my bank account. Unless you are accepting thousands a month it works out cheaper than accepting credit and debit cards direct through a Merchant Bank account. UK business bank charges I DO regard as exhorbitant even though charges on business accounts are tax allowable.

On my business site I use a shopping basket which is provided by PayPal and directly linked to PayPal via a secure line from my ISP server. Apart from paying for the personal certificate of security, which is a once-only payment to my ISP, this shopping basket is free, including the software.

All these fees include UK Value Added Tax of 17.5%, but as I am a 'Registered Person' for VAT I can claim that back on my business site, and on my business site I sell only reprint books which are zero rated for VAT, so every quarter the Inland Revenue usually pay me money .

On the whole I regard internet trading, private and business, as reasonably low cost compared with other ways.

PeterW