I bought a used electric cargo bike on eBay for £3,300 but, when it arrived, I discovered a cut in the frame. I put the frame number into the national BikeRegister database, which confirmed it had been stolen.
The seller did not reply when I contacted them, so I phoned the police and the bike was seized. I was given crime reference and property log numbers.
As I had paid by bank transfer, I contacted my bank, First Direct, to try to get a refund. It asked for evidence that the bike had been seized, which I provided.
I also reported the matter to eBay but because I paid the seller directly via bank transfer rather than through the site, it has no responsibility.
I have now heard back from the bank and it has rejected my claim because it is an e-bike. I do not see why this makes a difference. It is still fraud.
Is there anything else I can do? The reason why my claim was rejected is confusing. I am now without a bike and £3,300. I saved up for a year to buy this bike and am gutted. Can you help?
FL, London
This is a sorry tale but you did the right thing handing the bike to the police. If other readers find themselves in this position, they should do the same, making sure to get the crime reference and property log numbers needed to make a refund claim.
The seller urged you to pay via bank transfer rather than through eBay, so they could avoid paying several hundred pounds in fees, which you sympathised with. But this was a ruse and by going “off-platform”, you lost any protection offered to site users.
Your bank provided appropriate fraud warnings during the transaction but you still went ahead.
However, First Direct’s rationale for refusing the claim was confusing, so I asked it to revisit the decision. After doing so, it found a mistake had been made, and this case did meet the criteria of an authorised push payment (APP) scam, and that you had been given the wrong information.
First Direct says: “Protecting customers from fraud is really important to us, and we are sorry FL was the victim of a scam. After reviewing this case, we have provided a full refund of £3,300.”
It adds: “As this case highlights, fraudsters are devious criminals who use a range of techniques to steal money from people. We want to remind all customers to exercise caution when purchasing goods on online marketplaces and to never carry out purchases outside recognised payment platforms. Customers can also protect themselves further by paying attention to fraud warnings when making payments, and reading up on common scams and techniques used by scammers.”
Many banks, including First Direct, are signed up to the contingent reimbursement model code for APP scams. Under this code, banks have to take a number of steps to protect customers and reimburse those who aren’t to blame when affected by a scam.
In this case, your full refund is a goodwill gesture because First Direct made an error handling your case. It is not based on the ins and outs of the scam.
If you take a risk like this, you are not always going to get your money back from a bank.
We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at [email protected] or write to Consumer Champions, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number. Submission and publication of all letters is subject to our terms and conditions.
Share
Print
