hobbyshop22ltd - eBay trader

[big jim]

9 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

I can't find any ebay member hobbyshop22ltd listed now or any items for sale from someone of that name.  I was hoping to have a browse of the feedback for a laugh.

 

Has ebay booted him off or is their search for a member function useless?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/str/hobbyshop2022?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=ahonop9wqos&sssrc=3418065&ssuid=TJORlFVXTTy&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

 

all listings removed but still visible as a user which is now hobbyshop2022

Edited June 6, 2023 by big jim

[Enterprisingwestern]

10 hours ago, John M Upton said:

I can't find any ebay member hobbyshop22ltd listed now or any items for sale from someone of that name.  I was hoping to have a browse of the feedback for a laugh.

 

Has ebay booted him off or is their search for a member function useless?

 

He's had a visit.;

 

 

Mike.

[Jonboy]

14 hours ago, Fishyjohn said:

I am confident that the eBay Money Back Guarantee will cover all losses incurred by 'buyers' here [my estimate well over 1000 items at say £30 average].  

 

These are a few questions arising from information in the public domain.

 

The Business Seller Information quoted in the eBay listings has Hobby Shop 22 Ltd [an entity] and a VAT number as GB 434307026. On checking the Gov.UK site this number is registered to Adam Cann [an individual].  So one piece of information is not consistent with the other.

eBay both could and should have carried out a proper check themselves.

 

Companies House Services has 2 entries for Adam David Cann as Director.

1)  CANNS MODELS LTD (12195781)

2)  HOBBY SHOP 22 LTD (14590684)

 

In each case the said individual is listed as having only 1 appointment, there should be a tie up and there is not.

In both cases the Companies and Directorships are listed as active

 

Canns Models is listed as having filed accounts only once [for a Dormant Company] in August 2021. Notice was given in August 2022 for Compulsory Strike-Off but this was suspended the following month. No further entries have been made.

 

Hobby Shop 22 is listed as Incorporated January 2023.  First accounts made up to 31 January 2024 are due by 13 October 2024.

 

I am not sure of the exact legal trading style adopted in each case but it may well be that he has traded generally as a Sole Trader which is what appears to be the case on eBay [except for the Business Name].

 

 

The single appointment thing is nothing unusual at companies house, even adding or removing a middle name or it’s initial can break the link….always remember that companies house remit is simply to record the data they are given, unless someone actively flags something to them.
They don’t have any obligations to check accuracy.

[Sjcm]

It's all a bit odd really as he's not really scamming the buyers but ebay itself. Presumably selling normally and then emptying or closing his bank account at a certain point? so really upsetting the big boys with more money and time to come after him.  Is it worth the grief for a guesstimate amount of 6grand stolen in a month?

[andyman7]

This doesn't really come across as an organised heist, more someone who is living in a fantasy world/out of their depth. An analysis of positive vs negative feedback suggests that low value items such as paint/glue and cushions have been delivered but new higher value items sold by auction are not achieving sufficient prices to recover costs. The latter is a daft approach because if an item is available retail at £x from multiple suppliers, the only takers at auction will bid below that price. Note this is not the same as those auctions that achieve higher-than-retail prices for obscure items that can still be bought new from small suppliers - we are talking mainstream newly released product from suppliers such as Accurascale.
It all reminds me of a certain small manufacturer who promised the earth and crashed and burned a few years back.

[Black 5 Bear]

24 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

This doesn't really come across as an organised heist, more someone who is living in a fantasy world/out of their depth. An analysis of positive vs negative feedback suggests that low value items such as paint/glue and cushions have been delivered but new higher value items sold by auction are not achieving sufficient prices to recover costs. The latter is a daft approach because if an item is available retail at £x from multiple suppliers, the only takers at auction will bid below that price. Note this is not the same as those auctions that achieve higher-than-retail prices for obscure items that can still be bought new from small suppliers - we are talking mainstream newly released product from suppliers such as Accurascale.
It all reminds me of a certain small manufacturer who promised the earth and crashed and burned a few years back.

"This doesn't really come across as an organised heist, more someone who is living in a fantasy world"

Sorry, but his actions are plain and simple fraudulent. Advertising goods, taking the money with no intention of fulfilling the sale is dishonest however you dress it up. 

According to Trading Standards Devon and Cornwall, Cann has pulled this scam on quite a few occasions.

As for the reviews on eBay, I'd be very suspicious of a trader who amassed in excess of 2800 positive reviews, when he'd only been trading for a period of 3 months.

[spamcan61]

1 hour ago, andyman7 said:

 An analysis of positive vs negative feedback suggests that low value items such as paint/glue and cushions have been delivered but new higher value items sold by auction are not achieving sufficient prices to recover costs.  

I cba to go and analyse the sales but I suspect the low value items are used to generate positive feedback and lull punters into a false sense of security, then wham bam the big ticket items don't turn up.

[Fishyjohn]

6 hours ago, Jonboy said:

 

The single appointment thing is nothing unusual at companies house, even adding or removing a middle name or it’s initial can break the link….always remember that companies house remit is simply to record the data they are given, unless someone actively flags something to them.
They don’t have any obligations to check accuracy.

But presumably the individual has a duty to do just that?

 

32 minutes ago, Black 5 Bear said:

......

As for the reviews on eBay, I'd be very suspicious of a trader who amassed in excess of 2800 positive reviews, when he'd only been trading for a period of 3 months.

The account has feedback going back around 1 year now. Presumably a different eBay ID was used on the account initially?

[maico]

19 hours ago, John M Upton said:

I can't find any ebay member hobbyshop22ltd listed now or any items for sale from someone of that name.  I was hoping to have a browse of the feedback for a laugh.

 

Has ebay booted him off or is their search for a member function useless?

 

You can use the advanced search tab and click items sold and this comes up. The business has imploded looking at the recent feedback.

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&_fss=1&_saslop=1&_sasl=hobbyshop22ltd

[maico]

On 02/06/2023 at 23:09, GWR-fan said:

 

In my case it was Australia/UK power adaptors.  Basically told by both parties, not interested as not covered by buyer protection.  PayPal stated as the item was purchased through eBay then I must deal with eBay,  who refused to act.

 

You are covered for non-delivery. You can also do a credit card chargeback. Your card company does this against Paypal if that is who you used.

[andyman7]

4 hours ago, Black 5 Bear said:

"This doesn't really come across as an organised heist, more someone who is living in a fantasy world"

Sorry, but his actions are plain and simple fraudulent. Advertising goods, taking the money with no intention of fulfilling the sale is dishonest however you dress it up. 

According to Trading Standards Devon and Cornwall, Cann has pulled this scam on quite a few occasions.

As for the reviews on eBay, I'd be very suspicious of a trader who amassed in excess of 2800 positive reviews, when he'd only been trading for a period of 3 months.

I'm not defending the guy, I'm just saying that as heists go it's a pretty pathetic one. No actual customer will be out of pocket as ebay will cover all customer non-deliveries; but I suspect that the amounts involved mean that they will go after him for any amounts that they have already paid out to him - and they are big and ugly enough to deploy resources that will disrupt his life (debt collectors; CCJs etc.). 

Now if I were to decide on a life of criminal enterprise, with all the risks to my liberty and ability to to business, frankly I wouldn't mess around with model railways as there are far more lucrative categories to mine. So it's dishonest, yes, but it's also rather pathetic and that's the point I was trying to make. 

Edited June 7, 2023 by andyman7

[Black 5 Bear]

13 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

I'm not defending the guy, I'm just saying that as heists go it's a pretty pathetic one. No actual customer will be out of pocket as ebay will cover all customer non-deliveries; but I suspect that the amounts involved mean that they will go after him for any amounts that they have already paid out to him - and they are big and ugly enough to deploy resources that will disrupt his life (debt collectors; CCJs etc.). 

Now if I were to decide on a life of criminal enterprise, with all the risks to my liberty and ability to to business, frankly I wouldn't mess around with model railways as there are far more lucrative categories to mine. So it's dishonest, yes, but it's also rather pathetic and that's the point I was trying to make. 

What he is doing whether pathetic or not falls within the territory of the Fraud Act - Fraud by Misrepresentation.

It is entirely immaterial whether the victim is a large conglomerate or a private individual, it is still an offence Involving dishonestly.

Just like shoplifting is wrongly described as a "Victimless Crime" it isn't as the costs are passed on to the consumer. You can bet your life that this is passed on to PayPal and eBay sellers.

[andyman7]

46 minutes ago, Black 5 Bear said:

What he is doing whether pathetic or not falls within the territory of the Fraud Act - Fraud by Misrepresentation.

It is entirely immaterial whether the victim is a large conglomerate or a private individual, it is still an offence Involving dishonestly.

Just like shoplifting is wrongly described as a "Victimless Crime" it isn't as the costs are passed on to the consumer. You can bet your life that this is passed on to PayPal and eBay sellers.

True, but apart from agreeing with you I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Ebay's business model will factor in things such as fraud into their 'cost of doing business'. Unless the human race undergoes a radical reprogramming that's just life., there will always be some bad apples Or is the suggestion that Ebay's due diligence should have picked up his past form? That may be true although we don't know what restrictions may have been put on his account - it may be that in fact the funds for undelivered goods were largely held back and losses by ebay have been mitigated. We just don't know.

Beyond that I will reiterate the point fraud is wrong, a Criminal Offence, illegal under the law of the land, very naughty etc. But within those parameters perpetrators can still be pathetic.

It is not victimless but thanks to ebay guaranteeing delivery 'or your money back' the outcome is less directly tragic for would-be buyers than, for example, buyers on Facebook Marketplace, which in no way absolves the seller for carrying on like this.

[LMSfan72]

2 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

 Ebay's business model will factor in things such as fraud into their 'cost of doing business'.

 

which I expect means it's in the seller fees for all sellers, at a very small %, if you continue that chain of thought

[andyman7]

Yes, we all effectively pay a little bit extra for the peace of mind, it's like insurance. And the security of buyers knowing that they are protected means that overall sale prices achieved are likely a little higher than they might be. However unpalatable, there's a reason why that business model works.

[John M Upton]

Just seen a report elsewhere on Mr Cann the rapscallion. 

 

Someone bought a model rail item from him trading as Hobbyshop2022, they received an empty box containing a note which contained the address of Cann's solicitor and a formal note to inform the buyer he would be pursuing him for the rest of the cost of the item.

 

Because the empty package was delivered by tracked courier, ebay considers the transaction successfully concluded!

[Bucoops]

2 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

Just seen a report elsewhere on Mr Cann the rapscallion. 

 

Someone bought a model rail item from him trading as Hobbyshop2022, they received an empty box containing a note which contained the address of Cann's solicitor and a formal note to inform the buyer he would be pursuing him for the rest of the cost of the item.

 

Because the empty package was delivered by tracked courier, ebay considers the transaction successfully concluded!

 

Wow.

 

As for ebay - an "item not as described" claim should work.

[jjb1970]

You'll probably get your money back, but you have the hassle and stress of making a claim and worrying about it, the time out of pocket between paying and (hopefully) receiving your money back, and it just leaves a bad taste. If you are going to be the victim of a fraud then clearly it's better to lose out to a low value scam for which you're most likely to get your money back rather than something serious but it's still wrong.

[meatloaf]

3 hours ago, John M Upton said:

Just seen a report elsewhere on Mr Cann the rapscallion. 

 

Someone bought a model rail item from him trading as Hobbyshop2022, they received an empty box containing a note which contained the address of Cann's solicitor and a formal note to inform the buyer he would be pursuing him for the rest of the cost of the item.

 

Because the empty package was delivered by tracked courier, ebay considers the transaction successfully concluded!

Its worse than that. 

 

The buyer said the seller thinks hes owed £650 from the buyer and now has his address to take him to court. Seems really strange.

[spamcan61]

30 minutes ago, meatloaf said:

Its worse than that. 

 

The buyer said the seller thinks hes owed £650 from the buyer and now has his address to take him to court. Seems really strange.

This does sound rather weird, but don't most delivery companies record the weight of the parcel? At least it should be possible to prove the box was light = empty.

[meatloaf]

2 minutes ago, spamcan61 said:

This does sound rather weird, but don't most delivery companies record the weight of the parcel? At least it should be possible to prove the box was light = empty.

Depends if hes used a click and drop type service you have to input the wieght yourself.

[Sjcm]

Sounds like a desperate attempt to deter people from pursuing him to me. Surely if he did take you to court a witness or letter from one of the organisations  aware of his activities would persuade any judge who was likely telling the truth.

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by Sjcm

[jjb1970]

The small claims process is ideal for stuff like this, it's cheap and doesn't need lawyers to get involved. 

[spamcan61]

13 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

The small claims process is ideal for stuff like this, it's cheap and doesn't need lawyers to get involved. 

Unfortunately, if I understand this correctly, it's the seller that's already 'going legal' in this case despite the fact it seems it's the buyer that's been short changed.

[jjb1970]

6 minutes ago, spamcan61 said:

Unfortunately, if I understand this correctly, it's the seller that's already 'going legal' in this case despite the fact it seems it's the buyer that's been short changed.

 

Bonkers, but I guess their are unscrupulous low life jerks out there. Also dangerous, as making a fraudulent legal claim is very naughty and so it could backfire badly. I'm guessing he's taking a chance that mention of a solicitors letter will frighten the purchaser. Although the threatening letter itself would seem to give all the evidence you'd need to have it dismissed and turn it around onto the seller. It reminds me of the old adage that an act was worse than being wrong, it was stupid.