Removing 'InTrade' status due to forced Ping obligations.

You can't remove In Trade status once it's turned on.

And of course you are legally obligated to have it showing if you are an in-trade seller. 

If that has changed, and no longer selling in-trade, your only option left is to start another private account. 

If you intend to do that, and leave your original in-trade account open you have to let Trade Me know you will be running 2 accounts. 

If you have a think about it, it's sensible to not allow traders to remove their "in-trade" notification. A buyer could buy something from you, thinking they have all the legal protection under CGA, FTA, buying from an in-trade seller gives them. Then you turn the logo off and they find that no longer applies. 

Well Trade Me have created a situation where I can no longer comply with their new terms and I am sure a lot of other small traders are in the same position.

Totally agree with you henleyworks. Its a one sided agreement with absolutley no advantage to having an in trade account. In fact having an in trade acct is a complete disadvantage. I personally have decided to give up selling on TM, after 21 years, as I am retired any way and am only selling personal stuff thse days. Sad end to what was once a kiwi institution - although there is very little kiwi left in it.

Trade Me doesn't seem to enforce half the rules they have as it is - whether that be duplicate listings, products listed in incorrect categories, sellers 'located in NZ' but drop shipping, and so on. So, you're probably fine accepting Ping and then shipping when you can. Obviously, make any shipping delays clear to customers on the listing page.

If an account is NO LONGER operating professionally that account ought to be allowed to change its in-trade status. If you can't change it then you are essentially forced to LIE. How does that serve anyone? Further, if you only have one account because you want to take advantage of your accumulated feedback, as one would be entitled to do, then when you should you be falsely forced to present as in-trade, giving buyers the false impression they have extra protection, when they do not?

Robster, on the other hand, using feedback accumulated while In Trade does not reflect possible feedback when trading as a personal seller when obligations and laws apply differently. In a scenario of a problem where the buyer goes back to the seller who is showing as In Trade who then claims they are Not In Trade, therefore the laws don't apply. That would be false representation as the buyer could have chosen to buy from an In Trade member for the better protection the law offers vs private sales.

The same thing could cause problems with the IRD who have a team looking on Trademe for members that are In Trade but not declaring income, and members that are not marked as In Trade, but are. Arguing with the IRD that such and such a sale was on your In Trade account, but is actually a personal item so you don't need to pay tax on it's sale could be a difficult process.

Best to keep In Trade and personal accounts completely separate.

Why do people suspend common sense when they enter the TradeMe paradigm?
Gary, if you want to find hypothetical issues you will find them in anything for anything. 
No one forced us to start our feedback from ZERO when we became in-trade so that basically destroys any argument for not allowing people to carry their credibility aka feedback through.
But look, WGAF, because it's just hurting both parties, the site and the seller, by starting again from ZERO but that's never stopped them in the past. 

Kia Ora Robster,

I come across a few Members who have both an In-Trade and a Casual account who cross reference the 2 in their listings so Members can pick up the feedback on both. - Cheers.

I'm sure it can be done but it seems we are looking for work-arounds in many places because works not being done. When I started it was forbidden to have two accounts. I belong to another organization which is similar insomuch as for each decision that comes out it's made for the organization and not the members and I think I'm just a bit over that nonsense. 

It was originally forbidden to have 2 accounts because there was no need for it.  When the Government overhauled the Consumer Guarantees Act in 2013/2014 it became necessary to identify if you were an in-trade, or casual seller. Trade Me then made the in-trade logo available. They were required to do this by law. As part of this change they had to allow members to have two accounts so they could split their in-trade sales from their private sales. Pre 2013 items sold via auction were not subject to the CGA so there was no legal need to identify yourself as being in-trade or not on here. 

Overall, a lot of these things we are discussing are out of Trade Me's hands. So it's not really decisions they have made for themselves. They are obligated to do them by legislation. 

"They are obligated to do them by legislation."

But they don't enforce it. I have reported several businesses selling here clearly as part of their day to day business, but avoiding the 'In Trade' status or their CGA obligations and Trade Me does nothing. These have tended to be bulk sellers, so I guess as long as the seller is shifting boxes and Trade Me get their cut, they don't want to disrupt it. Mind you, Trade Me have been 'under the pump' for the last 15 years or so. Maybe they are getting roundtuit with one of their record breaking updates..

Beats me....

Yes, that is because policing and enforcing it is largely the responsibility of the Commerce Commission. If you aren't getting action from Trade Me you can consider filing a report with comcom instead. No doubt a random small trader on here is pretty low on their radar in the grand scheme, but I have had success going directly to them in the past if you find Trade Me are dragging the chain. ;)