Ebay sales and protocol

[Lensflare]

I have a bit of a quandry. I sold a lens on ebay just after Xmas. I delivered it in person to his house (god, it was hot! He runs the central heating so that it is much hotter than ours) The guy had a good look over it and tried it on his body, because I wasn't sure if it would be fully functional on whichever amateur body he had (one without a bottom battery compartment) He was cooing all over it and there wasn't a mark on it. I had sent it to Nikon for a full service and clean before putting it up for sale. He took some ictures with it and was very happy with it before handing over the cash. I got him to write a receipt for me, just to say he had received the lens. I wrote him one to say I had received his money.

This is what he wrote:
Received from "my name" one Nikon 500mm f4 AF1 lens, serial number 200*** in great, used condition. Signed "him".

He even remarked at the time that it was in superb condition, especially for its age and was over the moon with the pictures he took with it. He was in touch a month or so ago telling me how good the pictures were he was getting with it.

Now, 3 months after buying it, he has phoned and told me there are some "white spots" appearing on one of the elements and is getting shirty and demanding his money back.

So, where do I stand and what do people think of the situation. Remember, this is a 20 year old lens, but in perfect condition when he took delivery. I am being harsh if I refuse to take it back?

My own thoughts are, had he contacted me say, 3 weeks later with the same problem, then maybe I should do something,but not this long afterwards when I have no knowledge of how he has being using it or looking after it.


If you bought a car or motorbike off ebay, were happy with it and 3 months later the engine threw a valve, would you be able to go back to the seller and ask for your money back?

I don't do much on ebay, the odd thing occassionally (buying compasses mostly - I collect some interesting compasses ) and this has made me want to use it even less.

So come on folks. Let's hear your thoughts on the situation.

 

[TCR4x4]

Tell him to **** off.

He saw it, he tested it, he signed for it.. He then a month later again atested how good it was...
Demading money back after 3 Months is taking the smelly stuff. I imagine he is bored with it, or has realised he cant afford to keep it.

He cant open an ebay or payal case, so just tell him politely (or not so if you feel like it) that you are very sorry, but wont be taking the lens back, or offering any finacial assistance.

 

[markw82]

if he has been intouch saying its great then later has a problem, and as you say you dont know how its being used then imho its sold as seen

 

[brianwar]

Tell the buyer to do one.

Complaints must be registered with eBay within 45 days. You're well outwith that so don't need to worry about eBay entertaining the guys complaint and 3 months is too long by far for this to be your problem so morally I'd say you don't need to worry that you're not 'doing the right thing' either.

 

[Musicman]

I delivered it in person to his house (god, it was hot! He runs the central heating so that it is much hotter than ours)

If the white spots are fungus, I would be wondering whether this might be a contributory factor, especially if the house were also above average levels of humidity. Fungus loves both.

3 months does seem to be pushing it IMHO.

 

[fracster]

Tell him to **** off.

He saw it, he tested it, he signed for it.. He then a month later again atested how good it was...
Demading money back after 3 Months is taking the smelly stuff. I imagine he is bored with it, or has realised he cant afford to keep it.

He cant open an ebay or payal case, so just tell him politely (or not so if you feel like it) that you are very sorry, but wont be taking the lens back, or offering any finacial assistance.

Correctomundo...........

 

[milster]

After 3 month? No chance!

 

[gramps]

Be polite, you are sorry that he is unhappy with the lens but with this problem appearing after 3 months and in the absence of it being sold with any warranty you cannot assist other than to suggest a possible repairer to look at the lens.
You will rightly have no comeback from eBay over this matter.

 

[kanephotos]

I agree with the above, 3 months a long time to want a refund on an eBay sale.

Suspect he's trying to pull one over on you.

 

[Lensflare]

Thanks for your support folks. I rang him and he says he has put all his gear on ebay, including the 500 f4...sounds like he was after a quick cash-in from that then.

 

[mrgas]

as others have said .....

tell him to go screw himself, he's taking the proverbial .

 

[Tigger.ufo]

........mmmmmm and I would be tempted to see how he describes it on ebay!

Heather

 

[pooley]

If it's the one I think it is, cheers it was on my wish list!

If you're a fan of irony check out the location!

Oh, and you were right to refuse a refund.

 

[Bondy]

Once he had left positive feedback ebay would have deemed the sale complete and not got involved.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Did you sell the lens as a private individual, or was it one that was used as/sold as part of your business? It's a moot point in his case now, but the law is different depending on which it was......

 

[Lensflare]

It was as a private individual Flash - it was one I had bought when trading as a sole trader. I was working the Grand Prix, World Superbike and Endurance Wolrd Championship circuit in those days, MCN, Superbike and manufacturer teams/sponsors as well as feature stories. When I got really established I became a Limited Company and that was when I went to digital and upgraded my kit to the new AFS stuff. That old lens had been written down long ago. After about 10 years it was well catered for as far as the tax man was concerned with no residual value.

 

[gad-westy]

There are some very funny people out there and most of them seem to live on ebay!

 

[Flash In The Pan]

It was as a private individual Flash - it was one I had bought when trading as a sole trader. I was working the Grand Prix, World Superbike and Endurance Wolrd Championship circuit in those days, MCN, Superbike and manufacturer teams/sponsors as well as feature stories. When I got really established I became a Limited Company and that was when I went to digital and upgraded my kit to the new AFS stuff. That old lens had been written down long ago. After about 10 years it was well catered for as far as the tax man was concerned with no residual value.

Regardless of the value, if it was a business tool you can't legally turn round and sell it as a "private sale". It's not a tax matter, if you sell a business item to a private individual the SOGA applies......

 

[simonblue]

Regardless of the value, if it was a business tool you can't legally turn round and sell it as a "private sale". It's not a tax matter, if you sell a business item to a private individual the SOGA applies......

But if the item was not sold as a business item ?

Even if you do run a business,you can still sell stuff as a private item,if its been no longer been used as a business item.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

But if the item was not sold as a business item ?

Even if you do run a business,you can still sell stuff as a private item,if its been no longer been used as a business item.

If you're a professional photographer and you're selling a professional-grade lens then you're going to have a tough time persuading anyone it is a 'private sale, especially if it was originally bought for business use and has been claimed as a business asset. I'd imagine (although I'm no accountant, although I'd imagine one will be along soon) that VAT should still have been charged on the sale too, if the op is VAT registered, again regardless of whether its value had been written down to virtually nothing or not.

Put it this way, if you went to a car dealer and he told you that the car he was selling wasn't covered by the SOGA as it was his personal car, would you believe him?

 

[Lensflare]

Regardless of the value, if it was a business tool you can't legally turn round and sell it as a "private sale". It's not a tax matter, if you sell a business item to a private individual the SOGA applies......

So the Sale Of Goods Act doesn't apply then, because it was mine, not the companies - it was bought by me before the company existed and was never transferred to the company or business. In fact the reverse is ture. I bought it off the business (not company - sole trader partnership in those days) once it had been written down. I did pay VAT on it - negligible, because it was only given an RV of £500 (the accountant OKd it).

The current stuff - that's a different matter.

 

[simonblue]

If you're a professional photographer and you're selling a professional-grade lens then you're going to have a tough time persuading anyone it is a 'private sale, especially if it was originally bought for business use and has been claimed as a business asset. I'd imagine (although I'm no accountant, although I'd imagine one will be along soon) that VAT should still have been charged on the sale too, if the op is VAT registered, again regardless of whether its value had been written down to virtually nothing or not.

Put it this way, if you went to a car dealer and he told you that the car he was selling wasn't covered by the SOGA as it was his personal car, would you believe him?

I know what you mean about a car saleman,but his business is to sell cars,where as a photographer job is not selling photo gear.

It is a hard one but i would think,even if been claimed as a business asset,but now had been retired from that used,you should been able to sell as a personal item

 

[Flash In The Pan]

So the Sale Of Goods Act doesn't apply then, because it was mine, not the companies - it was bought by me before the company existed and was never transferred to the company or business. In fact the reverse is ture. I bought it off the business (not company - sole trader partnership in those days) once it had been written down. I did pay VAT on it - negligible, because it was only given an RV of £500 (the accountant OKd it).

The current stuff - that's a different matter.

Regardless of that you are still a professional photographer selling photographic equipment and as such you can't be a private seller.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I know what you mean about a car saleman,but his business is to sell cars,where as a photographer job is not selling photo gear.

It is a hard one but i would think,even if been claimed as a business asset,but now had been retired from that used,you should been able to sell as a personal item

In that case could any business write their assets down to next to nothing, sell them to a partner/shareholder for a nominal sum and that person then resell them for their true value, as a "private seller"?

 

[Lensflare]

Regardless of that you are still a professional photographer selling photographic equipment and as such you can't be a private seller.

Of course I can. I am not a professional photographer unless I am taking pictures for which I am being paid and using equipment that is PART OF MY BUSINESS EQUIPMENT. Any kit, such as the family camera and lenses, are PRIVATE. This was one, sold to ME by the business, VAT paid and business accounted for it.

Once it has been sold and VAT paid on the sale it is taken out of the system.

 

[TCR4x4]

Once he had left positive feedback ebay would have deemed the sale complete and not got involved.

Completely not true. You have 45 days regardless of any feedback left.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Of course I can. I am not a professional photographer unless I am taking pictures for which I am being paid and using equipment that is PART OF MY BUSINESS EQUIPMENT. Any kit, such as the family camera and lenses, are PRIVATE. This was one, sold to ME by the business, VAT paid and business accounted for it.

Once it has been sold and VAT paid on the sale it is taken out of the system.

So, you can just sell the gear to yourself for a nominal amount and then resell it for its true worth? Interesting...

I'd still question whether, as a professional photographer, you can be a private seller when selling the types of equipment you use in a professional capacity.

 

[stokes]

He's not happy with you. Lol... Lovely looking lens though

 

[Lensflare]

In that case could any business write their assets down to next to nothing, sell them to a partner/shareholder for a nominal sum and that person then resell them for their true value, as a "private seller"?

That nominal sum has ot be arrived at legitimately. You cannot go and buy a £5000 lens this year and say it is only worth £500 next year and sell it to yourself. You can sell it to yourself at market value.

Over the course of 10 years that lens had been written down at 25% for the first year and 20% each year after that. There is always some residual value even after it has been fully written down (100% write down doesn't make it worthless), but having written it down to tax 100% over 5 years and giving it a small resdiual value each year after that, then selling it to yourself for £500 is perfectly reasonable.

You can do the same with a car. For instance(it isn't the companies, it ismine but it shows the principle perfectly) my Merc I bought for £6000 6 years ago. It had done 887,000 miles (it had been a taxi). I have done about 375,000 in it all told (that's right, it has done 1,261,000 miles or it might even be up to 1,266,000 now) anyway, it doesn't matter. Each year I can write down some of the value in the car to tax offset. 20% each year is normal, so after 5 years it is written down completely, in that it has lost all its original value to tax - but the car is still worth something even though all the original purchase price has been written off. My car is probably worth £750, maybe, certainly for spares if you broke it you would get that. So I could sell the car to myself and it would be perfectly legitimate (only it ismy car to start with so I can't!).

Companies bought expensive sportscruisers, Sunseeker and the like. Kept them for 2 years and then sold them to a Director for less than half the original cost - this is the kind of tax dodge that the crusties are kicking off about. It is perfectly legitimate, there is the provision in the tax system to do it, so why not? It isn't the company director who takes advantage of the system that is at fault, it is the system. So yes,go buy that D4 you wanted on the company, keep it on the books for 2 years (you can write off capital assets up to £50,000 in the first year now!) and sell it to yourself for half its value (or less). Perfectly legal.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I meant writing down the value legitimately, not through any illegal activity, but thanks for expanding on
the minutiae though

I'm still not convinced that as a professional photographer you can sell photographic equipment as a private individual, the examples you give of your Merc and the boat aren't quite the same thing, unless you are also a car dealer and the guy with the boat sells/rents or whatever, those for a living.

 

[StewartR]

This is a messy one.

Whether or not the Sale Of Goods Act applies depends on whether you were 'acting in the course of business' when selling the lens. I am *not* an expert but I would be inclined towards the view that you *were* acting in the course of business. As a professional photographer, you can't really operate without acquiring the necessary equipment to take photographs and then disposing of it when it has reached the end of its commercial life. Buying and selling equipment may not be the main thing you do, but it is an essential activity of your business.

The fact that the lens had been fully depreciated as a business asset is irrelevant, and this is an area where I am perhaps more of an expert. As a business you can sell an asset to yourself as a private individual, *but* it must be at a fair market value - which will probably be more than its book value, if it's an old lens - and you must charge VAT on the sale if you're registered. If as a private individual you then sell the lens at a profit, then you should declare the income on your tax return. But if you buy it from the business and then immediately resell it privately it looks like a dodge to avoid SOGA and may be disallowed if challenged.

If I were you I'd try to get some competent legal advice as to whether or not you were 'acting in the course of business'.

 

[simon44]

Tell him to **** off.

Jeez talk about swing the lead.

Edit: I don't know how to do a plus one smiley
On the ap

 

[Lensflare]

This is a messy one.

Whether or not the Sale Of Goods Act applies depends on whether you were 'acting in the course of business' when selling the lens. I am *not* an expert but I would be inclined towards the view that you *were* acting in the course of business. As a professional photographer, you can't really operate without acquiring the necessary equipment to take photographs and then disposing of it when it has reached the end of its commercial life. Buying and selling equipment may not be the main thing you do, but it is an essential activity of your business.

The fact that the lens had been fully depreciated as a business asset is irrelevant, and this is an area where I am perhaps more of an expert. As a business you can sell an asset to yourself as a private individual, *but* it must be at a fair market value - which will probably be more than its book value, if it's an old lens - and you must charge VAT on the sale if you're registered. If as a private individual you then sell the lens at a profit, then you should declare the income on your tax return. But if you buy it from the business and then immediately resell it privately it looks like a dodge to avoid SOGA and may be disallowed if challenged.

If I were you I'd try to get some competent legal advice as to whether or not you were 'acting in the course of business'.

I did get professional advice, my accountant, who is clued up as to the legalities of the situation.

I bought the lens of the sole trader business, paid VAT on the purchase, which was transferred to HM Customs onmy return, in the proper manner. I replaced the lens with newer kit for the business, so that old lens was written down over 5 years, then for a further 5 years, then sold to me as an individual. I had it privately for 10 years before selling it. I don't see the problem.

Had I written it down for 5 years, sold it to "me" and then immediately sold it on - maybe you're fears would be realised. Not in the time scale of this htough. I know I am in the clear from the tax man and the legality of what I did over selling a business asset to myself was perfectly correct.

Once the lens is taken out of th ebusiness it is no longer subject to the business rules. Otherwise every camera in the house would be subject to your professional situation. Many directors do use the system as a dodge and as a way of getting expensive "toys" for personal use at knock down prices - it has to go through the correct motions.

The boat thing:- there were plenty of company directors buying and selling boats as a bit of a sideline, using the company as a smoke screen to buy the thing at full market price plus VAT. Claim the VAT back, then seliing it to the individual after writinng it down 50%. The company would buy it for "corporate entertaining" run it for 12 months then sell it - the individual gets the boat at half price, the business has a big tax loss to offset and the individual sold the boat - in those days there were waiting lists (there still are for some of the big sports yachts) and people would pay a premium to not have to wait for a boat to be built, so the 50% purchase price was hiked to nearer 80% of th enew price - nice bit of sideline when you aretalking about £250,000 plus each time. I could happily make do with one of those a year at 30%. No CGT either as the money was then ploughed back into the next boat, or waterside property. Itis one of the loopholes this Gvt has tried to close. These blatent sales were being done on very expensive boats 1 or 2 years old, not a 20 year old lens that was long ago rendered obsolete.

 

[MWHCVT]

Trying desperately to remember my SOGA training, now I seem to remember that as a business if the sale of a item is not your sole or primary source of income the the sale of goods act doesn't apply, so in this case I very much doubt that it would be applicable

But it would be a good idea speak to maybe your local chamber of commerce

Matt
MWHCVT

 

[Lensflare]

Trying desperately to remember my SOGA training, now I seem to remember that as a business if the sale of a item is not your sole or primary source of income the the sale of goods act doesn't apply, so in this case I very much doubt that it would be applicable

But it would be a good idea speak to maybe your local chamber of commerce

Matt
MWHCVT

NO - why draw attention to it from the authorities? I have complied with the necessary legislation at the time. The day after I blought from the company it ceased to be a company asset, I am at liberty as an individual to do with it as I please, including selling it on. I didn't, I kept it a further 10 years and used to photograph occassionally, for personal prjects, not in the course of business, I didn't need to, i had a new one for the business.

My concerns were not about the legality of what I had done to acquire the lens and then dispose of it. They were purely over how I should handle the private sale. That has been done and I took the advice offered early in the replies - he has no comeback after 3 months. End of.

Even if I were a trader and offered a 3 month warrenty - he was outside of it, just, so legally a trader could tell him to walk too.

 

[StewartR]

I did get professional advice, my accountant, who is clued up as to the legalities of the situation.

Sorry for assuming otherwise.

I replaced the lens with newer kit for the business, so that old lens was written down over 5 years, then for a further 5 years, then sold to me as an individual. I had it privately for 10 years before selling it. I don't see the problem.

I agree, this is absolutely clean. Given these facts, there could be no suggestion that it is anything other than a private sale.

 

[AJQS]

Simon you've done nothing wrong, in fact you've gone above and beyond what a lot of people would do. The buyer appears to be a typical blame culture numpty whocannot possibly accept that something has developed a fault on his watch, so he's going to try and blame you. From the moment he handed you the cash the lens was his and any new problem developing after is his problem, not yours.

 

[Lensflare]

Thanks everyone - and Alan, at the end. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't being a Delboy or Arfur

Lets close it now. It has ru its course and I think we have all learned something from the experience. Thanks again for your support. I do my best to be honest and the lens was pristine at hand over (even fully serviced and cleaned at Nikon before going on sale).