Ebay purchase - am I being unreasonable?

daniel_b

So I want to take part in some TT's next year, and won an auction for a Scott helmet on ebay:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Scott-Tts-Aero-Time-Trial-Helmet-/390664357440?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEWNX%3AIT&nma=true&si=uaqTBhEgPeLMiZj5EELl7PCgf5c%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc
For those who can't be bothered to go to ebay, this is the only pic that was in the ad:


I asked the chap about the mark that is visible on the picture, and he just said that it was from some tape he had used to secure the visor, and it would easily come off with some cleaning agent.

So it arrived, and yes there is sticky on the side, and all around the top of the helmet, but what he did not mention was that the Scott wording and logo on the front is partly missing as it has been pulled off when the tape has been removed.


I appreciate it is a tool and is designed to do a task, but I always try and keep my kit in top condition, and had the picture shown this, or had it been mentioned I would have adjusted my bid down, or simply not bid at all.

So should I just suck it up and either use it or sell it, or should I try and get something out of the seller?
I just feel a bit dissapointed and misled really, and it isn't what I was expecting from a helmet that had only been used for 50 miles.
If I were selling an item with damage, I always picture it, mention it, and say along the lines of 'aesthetic damage does nto affect it's purpose' etc, and then people can make up their own minds.

I was considering either asking for a refund of a certain amount, or a full refund for item and postage, and I take the hit for sending it back.

rolf_f

Very lazy advert. I'd expect some comeback - except that if the logo on the front came off due to visor tape, would the same not happen if you had a brand new one? In which case, would you buy a different brand or accept that the lettering would come off any of these lids.

And, if it comes off that easily, would you object to the helmet with no markings on the front?

You can potentially get the seller (or make the seller) pay for the return postage if it is not significantly as described. Arguably tricky here as the seller never described it at all apart from manufacturers blurb but you asked him about the condition and he should obviously have volunteered it.

davis

I'd ask for a full refund and send it back; it's clearly deliberately failing to point out the chuffing obvious, otherwise the photo wouldn't have been taken from that angle.

Seems to fall within eBay's conditions to my eyes.

Also, second-hand helmets? Eeeewwwwwwwwwww.

greg66_tri_v2.0

I would be straight onto the seller looking to return it for a full refund. And if that didn't return immediate favourable results, I'd be onto eBay and getting the payment reversed. That's a wilfully misleading ad and response to you question. eBay supposedly usually sides with sellers, so I wouldn't hesitate to kick up a fuss.

DonDaddyD

That would bug the living daylights out of me. I'd have to have a refund, assuming I could be assed. Probably live with the disgruntlement until I could afford another helmet.

gog100

Tell him that you are rejecting the helmet on the grounds of a mis-leading listing - that the 'damage' is material and you would not have bought it had you been aware.

Colinthecop

Or just get some tipex and replace the S and the C.

Sorted.

veronese68

Not good enough. He's deliberately been misleading and avoided the issue, if not quite an out an out lie. Contact him see what he says and give him a chance to resolve the issue, tell him you're rejecting it if he doesn't deal with it in a way that you are happy with. Make sure all the contact goes through Ebay so they have a record if you need to escalate.

daniel_b

Thanks gents,

I e-mailed him on Friday to say I wasn't happy - no reply.

Have just sent him 2 more messages via e-mail stating I want a refund, and the reasons why - have said I would much rather sort it out between us without getting ebay involved.
Hopefully he will see sense.

The interior is very clean, really it is in good nick, just the outside, or front specifically that is fairly well rogered.

Tbh I would not use a stick on visor, I would either buy a helmet that had an integrated visor, or just stick with visor style glasses if that makes sense.

It's a £200 helmet, so I thought I was getting a good deal.......

It's been a while since I have had a duffer on ebay, the last 2 have come back with full refunds, so hopefully this one will want to hold onto his good seller reputation.

anewman

Follow eBay procedure for item not as described. http://ocsnext.ebay.co.uk/ocs/sr?popula ... escription

Definitely not being unreasonable, given the picture used to sell, and failure to mention when asked. Had this been made clear the winning bid would have been far lower.

First.Aspect

In prallel, and in case the highly unlikely happens and you don't get anywhere with eBay, why not contact Scott and see if they will send you some new labels? Or better still, get some labels that spell "Daniel".

Wheelspinner

Ad does seem a bit sneaky, I agree, but am I missing something here? Seller said he had a visor taped on, which apparently didn't sound unusual to you since you proceeded to buy it anyway.

Does the helmet come with a visor? If yes, why is tape required to fix it in place - is that part of the manufacturer's recommendation?

IMO, if visor-taping is "normal" ( I have no idea if it is or not) then I'd not be fussed about this at all, because clearly the first time *you* taped one on and pulled it off the lettering is going to come away anyway. Or is that not the case?

daniel_b

First Aspect wrote:

In prallel, and in case the highly unlikely happens and you don't get anywhere with eBay, why not contact Scott and see if they will send you some new labels? Or better still, get some labels that spell "Daniel".

That may be worth a go, hadn't occurred to me.

I sent the seller 3 messages last night detailing what I was asking, and the third message was simply to tattach the picture of the front of the helmet, and of course so it is 'logged' within the ebay messaging system.

Wheelspinner wrote:

Ad does seem a bit sneaky, I agree, but am I missing something here? Seller said he had a visor taped on, which apparently didn't sound unusual to you since you proceeded to buy it anyway.

Does the helmet come with a visor? If yes, why is tape required to fix it in place - is that part of the manufacturer's recommendation?

IMO, if visor-taping is "normal" ( I have no idea if it is or not) then I'd not be fussed about this at all, because clearly the first time *you* taped one on and pulled it off the lettering is going to come away anyway. Or is that not the case?

Indeed, but I answered this in my last post:

Daniel B wrote:

Tbh I would not use a stick on visor, I would either buy a helmet that had an integrated visor, or just stick with visor style glasses if that makes sense.

Like you I do not know much about these style of helmets, so wrongly assumed there would be a bit of sticky residue around either side, and I would be able to clean it off with some suitable cleaning agent.
I have a feeling that may well knacker the surface if I did that anyway.

rolf_f

Wheelspinner wrote:

IMO, if visor-taping is "normal" ( I have no idea if it is or not) then I'd not be fussed about this at all, because clearly the first time *you* taped one on and pulled it off the lettering is going to come away anyway. Or is that not the case?

Do you find the lettering comes off your bike frame when you remove heli tape? Would you not expect a manufacturer to make sure that their own logo/advertising won't pull off and get tatty the first time you use the product? Or maybe just locate it that bit higher so that it isn't in the area where you might tape a visor on? I think you have very low expectations....

As for the sticky residue - I'd hope Scott could advise as to what to use to clean that off.

wgwarburton

Hi,
Going against the flow here: Unless it was advertised as "as new" or "perfect condition"then I think your expectations are too high.
If you want kit in perfect condition then buy it new. If you are buying used, then used is what you should expect. From what you say the helmet is fine apart from the sticker? No damage, wear or scratches? If so, and you paid less than the new price then you have a good deal.

Cheers,
W.

rolf_f

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi,
Going against the flow here: Unless it was advertised as "as new" or "perfect condition"then I think your expectations are too high.
If you want kit in perfect condition then buy it new. If you are buying used, then used is what you should expect. From what you say the helmet is fine apart from the sticker? No damage, wear or scratches? If so, and you paid less than the new price then you have a good deal.

Cheers,
W.

No. If the seller had been honest and showed the obvious damage to the finish then it would have probably made less money in the auction. And the description was just the manufacturers. No comment on condition at all. And the OP asked about a mark on the lid the seller neglected to mention that anything else was remiss.
Not everyone is careless with their kit and I've bought used stuff in mint condition. If I sold my Ribble, it would be barely distinguishable from nearly new despite having 15,000 miles in every weather under it. Used doesn't necessarily mean tatty.

Expectations too high? My expectations as a purchaser would be that the seller made sure that anything off putting was shown in the pictures (because if I was selling I wouldn't want arguments later on and I'd expect the seller to want to avoid that) and, if that was expecting too much, I'd at least expect that the seller would go to the trouble of writing in the advert 'decals on front damaged' - it takes all of three seconds to write so that's surely not much to expect is it?

croptonboy

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi,
Going against the flow here: Unless it was advertised as "as new" or "perfect condition"then I think your expectations are too high.
If you want kit in perfect condition then buy it new. If you are buying used, then used is what you should expect. From what you say the helmet is fine apart from the sticker? No damage, wear or scratches? If so, and you paid less than the new price then you have a good deal.

Cheers,
W.

How difficult would it have been to post a picture of the front with the sticker partially missing though? I'd guess that a picture of the front of the helmet was deliberately missed off the listing.

DrLex

Rolf F wrote:

No. If the seller had been honest[...]

Absolutely; need "like" or "+1" button. With eBay's attitude on complaints, sellers that pull this stuff end up being out of pocket.

wgwarburton

Rolf F wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi,
Going against the flow here: Unless it was advertised as "as new" or "perfect condition"then I think your expectations are too high.
If you want kit in perfect condition then buy it new. If you are buying used, then used is what you should expect. From what you say the helmet is fine apart from the sticker? No damage, wear or scratches? If so, and you paid less than the new price then you have a good deal.

Cheers,
W.

No. If the seller had been honest and showed the obvious damage to the finish then it would have probably made less money in the auction. And the description was just the manufacturers. No comment on condition at all. And the OP asked about a mark on the lid the seller neglected to mention that anything else was remiss.
Not everyone is careless with their kit and I've bought used stuff in mint condition. If I sold my Ribble, it would be barely distinguishable from nearly new despite having 15,000 miles in every weather under it. Used doesn't necessarily mean tatty.

Expectations too high? My expectations as a purchaser would be that the seller made sure that anything off putting was shown in the pictures (because if I was selling I wouldn't want arguments later on and I'd expect the seller to want to avoid that) and, if that was expecting too much, I'd at least expect that the seller would go to the trouble of writing in the advert 'decals on front damaged' - it takes all of three seconds to write so that's surely not much to expect is it?

I don't think the seller was dishonest. He didn't say it was perfect, he said it was used.

I agree that it would have been wise to make the cosmetic damage clearer in order to avoid this sort of hassle but if the OP has paid under seventy quid for a £200 helmet then I'd count that a good deal.
If what was wanted was as new then he could have bought new, looked for one described as such or made sure that the pictures showed everything.
I do think it is unreasonable to expect a used item described as such to be mint. Sometimes they are and that's great, but in my view that's a bonus not a given.
Caveat Emptor and all that.

Cheers,
W.

spasypaddy

my opinion is its a mis sell, however at the price you've bought it at i'd probably just suck it up and peel the rest of the labelling off. it will be smoother through the air without it on there anyway...

croptonboy

Would you have paid >£70 for the helmet knowing the stickers were missing on the front?

I don't think it was dishonest as such, but certainly a bit sly on the sellers part

slowbike

spasypaddy wrote:

my opinion is its a mis sell, however at the price you've bought it at i'd probably just suck it up and peel the rest of the labelling off. it will be smoother through the air without it on there anyway...

I agree with this ...

The seller has clearly NOT given a good description of the item and not mentioned the damaged decals - but the decals don't affect the performance of the lid.

rolf_f

Slowbike wrote:

spasypaddy wrote:

my opinion is its a mis sell, however at the price you've bought it at i'd probably just suck it up and peel the rest of the labelling off. it will be smoother through the air without it on there anyway...

I agree with this ...

The seller has clearly NOT given a good description of the item and not mentioned the damaged decals - but the decals don't affect the performance of the lid.

And it might look better without them anyway.

slowbike

Rolf F wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

spasypaddy wrote:

my opinion is its a mis sell, however at the price you've bought it at i'd probably just suck it up and peel the rest of the labelling off. it will be smoother through the air without it on there anyway...

I agree with this ...

The seller has clearly NOT given a good description of the item and not mentioned the damaged decals - but the decals don't affect the performance of the lid.

And it might look better without them anyway.

It'd save him getting called the wrong name for a start ...

indyp

I wouldn't feck about with e-mails and politeness, if he's not answered within a day or two I'd open up a case straight away. The fault/damage/wear should have been in the description. You'll have no problem getting your payment refunded including return postage. I've had to go the same route a few times, although you have to wait a bit longer for the postage to be refunded.

slowsider

Rolf F wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi,
Going against the flow here: Unless it was advertised as "as new" or "perfect condition"then I think your expectations are too high.
If you want kit in perfect condition then buy it new. If you are buying used, then used is what you should expect. From what you say the helmet is fine apart from the sticker? No damage, wear or scratches? If so, and you paid less than the new price then you have a good deal.

Cheers,
W.

No. If the seller had been honest and showed the obvious damage to the finish then it would have probably made less money in the auction. And the description was just the manufacturers. No comment on condition at all. And the OP asked about a mark on the lid the seller neglected to mention that anything else was remiss.
Not everyone is careless with their kit and I've bought used stuff in mint condition. If I sold my Ribble, it would be barely distinguishable from nearly new despite having 15,000 miles in every weather under it. Used doesn't necessarily mean tatty.

Expectations too high? My expectations as a purchaser would be that the seller made sure that anything off putting was shown in the pictures (because if I was selling I wouldn't want arguments later on and I'd expect the seller to want to avoid that) and, if that was expecting too much, I'd at least expect that the seller would go to the trouble of writing in the advert 'decals on front damaged' - it takes all of three seconds to write so that's surely not much to expect is it?

Imho, the relevant bit in your post I have highlighted. Anyone but an eBay virgin would know something was amiss with an apparent bargain that the seller hadn't made any comment about, especially in the absence of other pics. If I wanted to know if there was anything wrong with it, I would have asked. The OP asked about a mark, if he had phrased the question a bit more broadly (what caused the mark, are there any other defects not shown?) he might have got the info he wanted.

jedster

"I don't think the seller was dishonest"

Oh, I do. He didn't lie but he knowingly deceived by omission. He intentionally avoided three opportunities to describe the cosmetic damage (1. a frontal photo - you get what? 4 in the listing price, why wasn't there one? 2. in the description. 3. when asked about a mark - if a buyer asks you about a tiny mark then you know they are going to care about the bigger mark on the front, if you dont mention it, you are asking to give them a refund).

I agree with the others - open a case

rolf_f

slowsider wrote:

Imho, the relevant bit in your post I have highlighted. Anyone but an eBay virgin would know something was amiss with an apparent bargain that the seller hadn't made any comment about, especially in the absence of other pics. If I wanted to know if there was anything wrong with it, I would have asked. The OP asked about a mark, if he had phrased the question a bit more broadly (what caused the mark, are there any other defects not shown?) he might have got the info he wanted.

You're being very kind to the seller! If it had been a car, photographed on one side only with a bit of a scratch visible, and a potential purchaser asked about it, would you really not think that the potential purchaser wouldn't be interested in the stove in door on the other side?

You'd have to be very stupid or wilfully thoughtless or plain crooked not to assume that someone being fussy about a small mark isn't going to be fussy about lots of big marks. Yes, legally the seller has answered the question truthfully but he knew damn well that if that person bought the item, they wouldn't be happy with it. Just like he knew damn well that not showing the front of the helmet would result in a higher sale price.

Ultimately though, if the lid is hard to get and still cheap at the price, it might be worth hanging on to. But if I wanted to return it, I'd certainly expect the seller to pay the return postage as well and give a full refund. Ebay would probably agree.

daniel_b

Thanks for all the replies and support - in the main- appreciate other people have differing views.

I sent 3 very polite e-mails including a picture (Not that he would need it) asking for a refund, and I feel generously offering to pay to send it back.

Zero reply, which is just lazy in my eyes, so I have decided to raise a case, and he can pay the return postage too.

Have been shopping for some 12+ years on ebay, and never had anything like this happen.

Have had 3 issues really over time, one model car was missing a part - £10 refunded by seller.
Santini jersey sent to me was covered in black marks from the hems which would not washout - full amount refunded and told to keep the jersey even though I offered to send it back.
One Mavic jersey had a big pull plumb on the front - I paid to send it back, but had a full refund for the item and outgoing postage.

Never had to raise a case before, will see what they come back with, and will update accordingly if anyone is interested?

veronese68

Yes, please update. Curious to see what EBay does about it.

Mr Sharky

Hmmm, bit underhanded by the seller, but then you got yourself a bargain that isn't materially affected by the cosmetic mark... I'd contact eBay and say that you'll accept a partial refund (and keep the item) as clearly he wouldn't have got such a price if buyers had known of the damage. That way you can scrape the rest of the lettering off, and still have your bargain at an even lower price.