Veste

Not upheld: payment processing delays and cash flow disruption complaint against eBay Commerce UK Ltd

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6262350 of 2026-05-13T00:00:00+00:00. payment processing delays and cash flow disruption complaint against eBay Commerce UK Ltd. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6262350
Decision date2026-05-13T00:00:00+00:00
FirmeBay Commerce UK Ltd
Productpayment services / marketplace payment processing
Claim typepayment processing delays and cash flow disruption
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone. The complaint was not upheld.

Summary

A, a limited company selling on an eBay marketplace, complained that Commerce was holding money from sales and causing cash flow disruption. After A moved premises, the marketplace implemented a three-day hold on payments pending delivery confirmation due to detected unusual selling activity. A complained to Commerce, which said it was not applying holds and was paying out funds correctly. The ombudsman found that Commerce was indeed paying out funds automatically when available in the marketplace balance, and that the delays were caused by the marketplace's delivery verification process, not Commerce's actions. Since the marketplace is not a regulated entity, the ombudsman could not assess whether its actions were fair or proportionate. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that Commerce, as the regulated entity, was only responsible for moving money from the marketplace balance to A's bank account in accordance with agreed terms. Since the delays were caused by the marketplace's delivery verification process (not Commerce applying holds), and Commerce was automatically paying out funds when they became available in the marketplace balance, Commerce had not breached its obligations. The ombudsman could not assess the marketplace's actions as it is not a regulated entity within the FOS's jurisdiction.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
eBay Commerce UK Ltd, all decisions7624%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website