Home Shady Lane

Retailers, Manufacturers, ePay, AudiogoN, Paypal or whatever. Buying and selling advice.

SME 20 serial 205

84.65.140.155

Ebay Fraud SME Model 20 serial no. 205

On November 13, 2004, I bid on and won an item described as an SME model 20/2 on the Ebay auction site (item no 5730457775) http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=5730457775&ssPageName=STRK:MEWN:IT.
It was advertised and described as ‘SME Model 20 Turntable Brand New’, ‘SME Model 20/2’ and had pictures referring to the new model. The seller, ‘kirsteths’ had 86 positive feedbacks, which is a considerable number and suggests a trustworthy seller. I immediately emailed payment of the full sum (£2,548.00) via Paypal. The turntable was sold with no arm.

As the term ‘Brand New’ had been used in the auction, it was reasonable to assume that the seller was an official agent of SME, or acting on behalf of one. SME’s are rare and very expensive turntables, and a Brand New one comes with full warranties. In a phone call later, the seller, Mr. John Potter, explained he had opened the box to remove an arm that was on the turntable. This did concern me, as ‘Brand New’ means box unopened. The seller showed considerable expertise on the subject of SME’s, and indeed said he owned the top ‘SME Model 30’ which retails I believe at over £10,000.

The turntable arrived on November 24th. I immediately saw that the box was not new and did not look like an original SME box. On opening it, it was clear from a cursory examination that the turntable was not Brand New. In fact it was a discontinued model, the original SME 20 Mk 1. The serial number of the SME was no. 205.

I was shocked to say the least, and was unable to reconcile what the seller had said with the contents of the box. In particular, anyone with the slightest knowledge of SME’s would, on opening this old box (to remove the arm), have noticed that the packaging was incorrect, there were no tools, and most telling of all the serial number right next to the model number on the top of the turntable said ‘SME 20’ not ‘SME 20/2’ as had been described. Other very obvious discrepancies would never have been overlooked either.

It was clear that the seller had misdescribed the turntable. I phoned SME and they confirmed that the serial number of the turntable in question corresponded to a MK1 model built in October 1992.

I immediately emailed the seller suggesting the turntable be returned and the money refunded. I then called him, and he said he had not examined the turntable beyond removing the arm, and had to consult his accountant and lawyer before refunding the money. I was surprised, and said I would be posting negative feedback on Ebay with immediate effect, should he not actually refund the sum involved. In the event, later that evening he emailed saying he was organising a refund.

He also denied knowledge of the discrepancy between what he had advertised and what arrived, but to turntable specialists this is frankly about as credible as a car salesman saying he was selling a Brand New Mercedes 280S and delivering a 1992 Mercedes 200, and then saying he hadn’t noticed the difference. In fact a few days later I discovered that the main bearing of the SME had leaked, (in all likelyhood some time ago) and this fact, together with a correct description of the turntable, would have meant that a) I would never have bid on the turntable in question, and b) if presented with the correct description the maximum I would have been prepared to bid is less than £ not the £2,548 I paid.

The cost of SME upgrading an old Model 20 to a 20/2 is £1207 plus Vat, but SME only allow the original buyer to do so, and there would be repair costs involved. On top of this the unit in question would be well out of guarantee, and would in any case never have the value of a Brand New SME 20/2.

Mr. Potter said he would ring in the morning with details of refund arrangements, or email.

However two days later I had still not heard from him. I had tried phoning his house and mobile several times, to be told various contradictory reasons about why he had failed to call me. By the 27th, it was clear he was trying to avoid speaking to me. I also realized that he had not provided his full name and address. I telephoned the house, and asked someone who described themselves as the lodger for this information, which the lodger gave me. I continued to call, hoping to speak to Mr. Potter, but was always told he was out.

At this point I began to believe Mr. Potter was in fact simply trying to lead me on, and I emailed him saying I would contact the police of his local town (Barnoldswick) and begin court proceedings to recover the funds.

I also telephoned a second hand dealer (Dynamics) with who was advertising a second hand SME on his lists, to get an estimate of how much the turntable might be worth. On explaining that the main bearing has evidence of leakage, he said it wasn’t worth buying, but when pressed on this said he might offer £200 if it was in good working order. He said it would need to be sent back to SME and could well cost £1000 to repair should the main bearing be damaged.

Ironically, some days later I managed to discover that the turntable in question was the one that Dynamics was advertising. It had been sold by the shop as second hand (with an SME 5 arm) on November 3rd.

After several emails I eventually gave Mr. Potter a deadline of 6.00 pm 1st December 2004 to agree a return and refund, and stated I would inform UK Standards (who can procecute traders for miscescription of goods) and the police in his local town of Barnoldswick, Lancashire, should he fail to agree. I emailed further with legal information showing what obligations UK traders are under, and advised him urgently to get legal advice. I also suggested he get legal advice for his daughter, as she turned out to be the actual ebay account holder and there was the possibility that Trading Standards could end up taking her to court because of that. At 7.00pm he sent an email stating he would drive down with the funds and pick up the turntable. I agreed via email, and asked him to give me a date. After several further unanswered emails over the coming days, it became clear Mr. Potter was not serious in his intention. I then further reseached the issue and found that having paid via Visa, the credit card company would refund me and then claim directly through Mr. Potter’s bank. To do so, I needed to return the turntable. I informed Mr. Potter, who emailed me saying he would refund the money once the turntable arrived. I sent the turntable back via Businesspost on December 13th, 2004 (consignment no. 1107 569 151). The turntable arrived the next day, and was signed for by Mr. Potter. I sent him a couple of emails asking him to acknowledge reciept, and to inform me whether he intended to refund the money. I got not further replies from him, though I emailed several times. Finally I gave him a deadline of Tuesday 21st December to reply as to what arrangement for a refund he was making. The deadline past with no reply, and on the 22nd I posted negative feedback on ebay, saying that fraud proceedings had been initiated against him. At this point he was no longer receiving email as his mail box was returning emails due to overcapacity. However, he then posted negative feedback against me, saying I had threatened his family and messed him about from start to finish.

I have now sent the complete file to Visa, and will be copying it to the Barnoldswick Police and to Trading Standards. The seller (Kirsteth) did not give an address, but with research it turned out to be 17 Cecil Street Barnoldswick BB18 5EX.




This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Signature Sound   [ Signature Sound Lounge ]


Topic - SME 20 serial 205 - ebarker2 12:12:37 12/23/04 (1)


You can not post to an archived thread.