Cold shower
Trade Me buyer’s dispute ordeal after being told to ‘ask a man’
A Trade Me spat has brought out the worst side of a seller — but also raised two broader issues about the way the site does business. Specifically, difficulty in viewing negative ratings, and arguably unnecessary hurdles to establishing a professional seller’s identity.
Auckland woman Lee Harris wasn’t happy after buying a foldable camping shower on Trade Me. It wouldn’t fold.
When she raised the fact it wouldn’t fold with the seller, she got the useless — and not to mention sexist — response: “Is it possible for you to ask somebody else — better a man as sometimes ladies are not so skilled at such things.”
Harris took her case to the Disputes Tribunal (the District Court agency that will adjudicate a small claim for a fee as low as $45).
Tribunal referee Clayton Luke ruled the $90.81 shower was not fit for purpose, and that under the Consumer Guarantees Act, Harris was entitled to a refund. Harris was also awarded $70 for her time and inconvenience.
While the sums involved were small, Harris — who works as a legal executive — approached the Herald because she thought it raised questions Trade Me needed to answer.
One was why it was difficult to see the seller’s negative ratings — as with any high-volume seller.
Harris complained that ratings only go for 20 pages then fall off Trade Me’s systems.
Even with 20 pages, it’s a lot to wade through. She asks why the site can’t offer the option to filter customer feedback to display negative reviews (or neutral or positive) first.
Trade Me spokeswoman Millie Silvester told the Herald, “We don’t have any current plans to filter ratings, we prefer members to focus on the most recent trades rather than only looking for the bad ones.”
Buyers could still see ratings for a seller’s last 1000 trades (the camp tent seller had sold more than 65,000 items). A second issue is the difficulty Harris had establishing the seller’s identity for her Disputes Tribunal filing — even though he was a highvolume seller of new goods (in a redacted copy of the referees decision supplied to the Herald, the seller is identified only as “Owen”).
Harris would like it made easier for a buyer to establish if a New Zealand company was selling a new good and, if it is local, the legal name of the company.
Harris was also required to sign a statutory declaration at a local courthouse, in front of a registrar, before Trade Me would release the seller’s name.
Harris had no problem signing a declaration saying she would only use the seller’s identity for the purposes of her Disputes Tribunal claim.
But she queried the intent behind the requirement for it to be signed at a court house, given the Oaths and Declarations Act (1957) only calls for a notary public or JP.
The Disputes Tribunal referee Clayton Luke also highlighted Trade Me’s courthouse requirement, saying, “It is in the public interest that consumers have the means to bring claims to the Tribunal with as little administrative cost and difficulty as possible.
“This is an important part of access to justice.”
It was against the intent of the law for necessary obstacles to be placed in the way of legitimate requests for information for the purposes of initiating proceedings, Luke wrote in his determination.
Asked why Trade Me had added the courthouse requirement, Silvester said, “We do this to deter vexatious members from accessing other members personal information.”
She added, “There is some flex with this though if a member cannot access a courthouse with ease.”