Radioguy - banned trader

[Mr Bone]

Originally Posted by Rev Jules

I cant condone what Sean might have done or in this case didn't do?, I have had three Radios off of him, and at that time under Coolcats expertise, fitted them. never had any trouble with Sean well that's just me.

What I understand is when Jeff decided to go to pastures new, the distribution of any thing from Sean was passed over to someone else, cant remember off hand who that is perhaps he could shed some light as too what is going on.

What springs to mind is CAVEAT EMPTOR? bit late I know.

Rev

When I bought a Navall for my VW off Sean, Tony Fry was handling the payment transaction. This was after Jeff moved on.
Sean's websites appear to have been closed down now.

[coolcat]

Originally Posted by Mr Bone

When I bought a Navall for my VW off Sean, Tony Fry was handling the payment transaction. This was after Jeff moved on.
Sean's websites appear to have been closed down now.

As far as I remember the chap who handled sending the units out after I stopped is called Rob.
Don't think he is a member of the forum and have never spoken to him personally.
I will check back through my UPS details as I did send all the left over stuff to Rob a year back when I finished. If so, I might be able to find some contact details and message him to see if he is still speaking to Sean.

Tony Fry I haven't spoken to for a while but I will give him a shout and see if he has heard anything from Sean at all.

As I said before, If I do manage to contact Sean I will endevour to find out what is going on and hopefully get him to start some line of communication up for those with issues with refunds, missing items etc.

A very sad state of affairs for all those with issues and I only hope that Sean can be contacted and that he does sort out all the mess for the customers who are out of pocket!

[topman]

Originally Posted by mss

Most people haven't and automatically, but incorrectly, assume that they will be covered.

The contract to supply is between the supplier (jointly with the credit provider) and the purchaser. This is the whole basis of Section 75 protection. If that joint obligation did not exist, there would be no protection.

Here you go.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/ne...oppers-beware/

Life itself is a convoluted story!

It is not just Paypl but a whole host of payment processing middle companies. The merchant decides whether to use one, not the purchaser.

Cheers i hadn't realised that it was so complex and vague!

[Dallas]

Originally Posted by mss

Yes and no.

The section 75 protection only really applies if the payment relationship is a direct one between the purchaser and the car provider. If the supplier uses a payment processing company, which is often the case with smaller merchants, then it's a grey area and the protection often does not apply.

Originally Posted by mss

Most people haven't and automatically, but incorrectly, assume that they will be covered.

The contract to supply is between the supplier (jointly with the credit provider) and the purchaser. This is the whole basis of Section 75 protection. If that joint obligation did not exist, there would be no protection.

Here you go.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/ne...oppers-beware/

Life itself is a convoluted story!

It is not just Paypl but a whole host of payment processing middle companies. The merchant decides whether to use one, not the purchaser.

Loophole... rubbish the term may, or may not is all scare tactics.

I would advise anyone who wants to raise a section 75 or chargeback claim with their card provider do so ASAP, even if you have paid via PayPal using your credit card.

If you have added your credit card to your PayPal account and you pay for goods or services via PayPal, and you select your credit card as payment, you should still have your CC protection.

I have done the very same on two occasions (section 75 and chargeback), and have successfully won both claims will full refunds given. PayPal themselves will even advise you to claim using your credit card, that was the first piece of advice I received when I spoke to a PayPal customer complaints adviser.

Its a very straightforward process to claim using the power of your credit card, just one phone call will start the process (some also offer online support). You can send your correspondence by post or email, just give your card provider a call.

Obviously credit and debit card providers do have different T&C's, so its always best to give them a call first to know where you stand.

[MSS]

Originally Posted by Dallas

Loophole... rubbish the term may, or may not is all scare tactics.

I would advise anyone who wants to raise a section 75 or chargeback claim with their card provider do so ASAP, even if you have paid via PayPal using your credit card.

If you have added your credit card to your PayPal account and you pay for goods or services via PayPal, and you select your credit card as payment, you should still have your CC protection.

I have done the very same on two occasions (section 75 and chargeback), and have successfully won both claims will full refunds given. PayPal themselves will even advise you to claim using your credit card, that was the first piece of advice I received when I spoke to a PayPal customer complaints adviser.

Its a very straightforward process to claim using the power of your credit card, just one phone call will start the process (some also offer online support). You can send your correspondence by post or email, just give your card provider a call.

Obviously credit and debit card providers do have different T&C's, so its always best to give them a call first to know where you stand.

The issue here is not one of process, which as you say is relatively straightforward, but decisions in the process.

Also, it is worth noting that chargeback is totally different to section 75 protection.

If you do an internet search, claims have been successfully rejected for the reasons mentioned.

Why do you believe that any of the parties involved would wish to apply "scare tactics"?

[bl52krz]

I am not sure if I am correct, but wasn’t Sean based in Canada? Can you still use your card if the person supplying goods is out of the jurisdiction of this country. Just wondering.

[tantallon]

Originally Posted by bl52krz

I am not sure if I am correct, but wasn’t Sean based in Canada? Can you still use your card if the person supplying goods is out of the jurisdiction of this country. Just wondering.

Yes you can use your card in most countries .The protection to the buyer is worldwide.Lets not beat about the bush on this one .He,s had the money .He knows who he should refund or supply the goods to .He hasn't .So Its theft .He is a thief .Thieves don't return stolen goods or money .It could and should never have happened.The constitution of the "Club" should have a vetting system in place before anyone is classed as being a trader.Accounts,Public liability insurance ,A traders insurance policy for driving vehicles whilst in their care etc etc etc .Other than that the terminology of trader is being misused .A lot of traders are not actually traders in the context of law but are individuals earning a few quid on the side .The "Club " should ensure that this never happens again .This "club"is not alone in operating in this manner .It is only a matter of time before someone's pride and joy is involved in an accident for example whilst being driven or in the custody of a so called trader without sufficient insurance or liability insurance .As a footnote unless someone has access to either a lot of money or access to a good lawyer to fight their case the people who were robbed will have to forget their hard earned cash

[another_clean_sheet]

Originally Posted by tantallon

Yes you can use your card in most countries .The protection to the buyer is worldwide.Lets not beat about the bush on this one .He,s had the money .He knows who he should refund or supply the goods to .He hasn't .So Its theft .He is a thief .Thieves don't return stolen goods or money .It could and should never have happened.The constitution of the "Club" should have a vetting system in place before anyone is classed as being a trader.Accounts,Public liability insurance ,A traders insurance policy for driving vehicles whilst in their care etc etc etc .Other than that the terminology of trader is being misused .A lot of traders are not actually traders in the context of law but are individuals earning a few quid on the side .The "Club " should ensure that this never happens again .This "club"is not alone in operating in this manner .It is only a matter of time before someone's pride and joy is involved in an accident for example whilst being driven or in the custody of a so called trader without sufficient insurance or liability insurance .As a footnote unless someone has access to either a lot of money or access to a good lawyer to fight their case the people who were robbed will have to forget their hard earned cash

I do not think that a vetting system would have picked up this situation when Sean first became a Trader

[tantallon]

Originally Posted by another_clean_sheet

I do not think that a vetting system would have picked up this situation when Sean first became a Trader

Exactly .That is why the term Trader is incorrect .Unless he is a registered business he is as stated someone making a few quid on the side .Read his posts about being registered in the U.K as a bona fide business .People are under the false impression that being listed as a trader on a forum means that they are being endorsed as a trusted supplier .Another question I feel that I should put to the membership .Is why a fellow paid up member who at the time was unemployed .Could not afford to repair their car due to their situation have to upgrade to trader status to sell parts from their car on a one off basis.I don't class that person as being a trader .I highlighted a "trader " who was selling Chinese copy parts as genuine UK sourced MG Rover parts .I was told it would be investigated .I have yet to hear the results of their findings .

[MSS]

I don't believe that any vetting system will pick up what is in a person's head or heart. Nor will registration, liability insurance etc. A lot of people are conned by owners of registered companies and never see a penny of of their loss.

Taking risks such as this is a fact of life. People should learn from their experiences and move on.

My risk mitigation is never to deal with anyone who presents him/herself as being their for mine and others' good.

On a positive note, the majority of people - traders and otherwise - are good and honest. The important thing to recognize is that in life when something appears too good to be true, it will sooner or later probably turn out to be so.