See the discovery that left Vinted fan horrified when she bought an item – but people say the seller is not in the wrong
A VINTED buyer's attempt to complain about an alleged grim discovery in her £20 flared trousers has sensationally backfired.
The anonymous online shopper had forked out £20 for low-rise faux leather bottoms - but was in for the shock of her lifetime after allegedly noticing a gross detail around the crotch area.
Although the purchase had taken place months ago - which is past the five-day return and refund policy - the seller said they hadn't worn the trousers up until now.
After noticing the grim discovery, which has since left people horrified, the fashionista dropped the seller a message, wondering how the two should move forward.
''I know I bought these a while ago but have only worn them just now since - have tried them on and everything ages ago and they were fine.
read more on fashion
''But have noticed there's really bad period stains inside of the trousers,'' wrote the buyer, noting it couldn't have been hers as at the time of wearing the trousers she wasn't on her period.
''Not really sure what to do as feel a bit uncomfortable about it, having blood-stained clothes.
That’s fresh blood, no way that came from the seller
Social media user
''Is there anything that can be done?''
According to the Vinted fan, the seller ignored her message - so the buyer then decided to leave a bad review, which led to a negative review on her page ''as revenge'' as well.
The seller then dropped a reply to the horrified buyer, stating how they didn't owe them ''a fast reply'' and that the stains were not hers, as she, too, had never worn these trousers before.
''I equally haven't done anything wrong - once a sale is completed on Vinted you cannot try and get money back almost three months later.
''Leaving a review about blood stains is also a lot more damaging to my shop than yours - please imagine how this feels for someone who has never even worn the trousers, so there's not one possibility that those could be mine.
''Makes me look incredibly dirty and irresponsible.''
The conversation went back and forth, ending with the buyer claiming that the seller had ''failed to notice the blood'' - which, in their eyes, was ''worse than a bad review''.
However, much to the Vinted fan's surprise, the post backfired, as many thought the seller hadn't done anything wrong.
''Okay the trousers are gross but like 3 months after the sale? I’m on the seller's side here,'' wrote one person.
New Vinted rules to be aware of
IF you fancy clearing out your wardrobe and getting rid of your old stuff on Vinted, you’ll need to consider the new rules that recently came into play.
If people are selling personal items for less than they paid new (which is generally the case for second-hand sales), there is no impact on tax.
However, since January 1, digital platforms, including eBay, Airbnb, Etsy, Amazon and Vinted, must share seller information with HMRC as part of a crackdown.
You're unlikely to be affected if you only sell a handful of second-hand items online each year - generally, only business sellers trading for profit might need to pay tax.
A tax-free allowance of £1,000 has been in place since 2017 for business sellers trading for profit - the only time that an individual personal item might be taxable is if it sells for more than £6,000 and there is a profit from the sale.
However, firms now have to pass on your data to HMRC if you sell 30 or more items a year or earn over £1,700.
It is part of a wider tax crackdown to help ensure that those who boost their income via side hustles pay up what they owe.
While your data won't be shared with HMRC if you earn between £1,000 and £1,700, you'll still need to pay tax as normal.
Someone else agreed, adding: ''Obviously selling blood stained clothes is gross but if the buyer clicked ‘everything is okay’ without bothering to check the item then that’s her problem!''
There were also a few eagle-eyed social media users who pointed out to another detail which made them feel a bit suspicious about the claims.
''Kinda scary how many women on here aren’t realising that if the blood stains were there are 3 months, they’d be brown - not red,'' pointed out one Instagram user.
READ MORE SUN STORIES
''That’s fresh blood, no way that came from the seller,'' a fourth chimed in.
''I can’t believe the buyer sent this in acting like it wasn’t her stains. that’s peak embarrassing,'' someone else thought.