The short version
- Two UK-based sellers have initiated legal proceedings after Vinted restricted access to thousands of pounds in sales revenue due to unresolved identity verification issues.
- Affected users describe a cycle of automated rejections and unhelpful support responses, with one seller noting that funds were released only after filing a court claim.
- Vinted attributes the delays to document mismatches or incomplete submissions, while maintaining that the vast majority of transactions proceed without requiring manual intervention.
A growing number of professional sellers on Vinted are finding their earnings inaccessible due to persistent difficulties with the platform’s identity verification process. The issue has escalated beyond customer service complaints into formal legal action, as merchants seek to recover funds that have been held in digital wallets for weeks or even months. These cases highlight a friction point between the rapid expansion of second-hand commerce and the regulatory compliance mechanisms designed to monitor high-volume transactions.
Mali Osmelak, who began selling used gymwear on the platform in 2024, transitioned to a professional seller status this year after demand for her goods increased significantly. Within weeks of upgrading her account, she had generated nearly £6,000 in sales. However, when she attempted to withdraw these funds, her account was restricted. Vinted informed her that she needed to complete a verification process to comply with legal and regulatory requirements. Despite having established a limited company with professional accounting assistance, Osmelak found herself unable to clear the hurdle.
Osmelak identified what she believed to be an error regarding her name on the platform and flagged it for correction. According to her account, this did not resolve the issue, and she became stuck in a loop of automated responses from Vinted’s support system. She also reached out to Mangopay, the payment processor handling seller wallets at the time, but was directed back to Vinted. After eight weeks without access to her money, Osmelak filed a small claims court case against both companies, incurring £455 in legal fees.
The filing of the lawsuit appears to have triggered a resolution for Osmelak. She reports that three days after initiating the claim, her account was verified and she could withdraw her funds. Nevertheless, she continued with the legal action to recover her court costs, interest, and other expenses. In June, she obtained a default judgment ordering Vinted and Mangopay to pay £1,207.50 because neither entity responded to the claim. As of now, she has not received this payment, and both companies have applied to have the judgment set aside, with a hearing scheduled for December.
Vinted stated that Osmelak’s initial verification failed because her documents did not match the name on her account. The company noted that they subsequently helped her update the information, leading to successful verification. Vinted emphasized that 98% of transactions are completed smoothly without support intervention and that verification checks are necessary for legal compliance. The company declined to comment further on the ongoing litigation.
Another seller, Azri Mukthar, faces similar challenges but has been unable to secure a quick resolution. Mukthar, who operates as a limited company, reported attempting to withdraw nearly £2,500 in earnings for over a year. He stated that he submitted all requested documentation and received initial approval from Vinted before listing his products. However, when he tried to access the money, his verification status remained pending.
Mukthar described a frustrating experience with Vinted’s AI assistant and support team, claiming that documents were repeatedly rejected without clear explanation. He noted that a certificate from Companies House was declined fifteen times despite being submitted correctly. The lack of a transparent system for resolving these discrepancies has led him to cease selling on the platform. Mukthar indicated he intends to pursue legal action to recover his withheld funds.
Mangopay declined to comment on Mukthar’s case or Osmelak’s, citing professional secrecy and data protection obligations that prevent them from discussing individual client matters or specific transactions. The broader pattern of these disputes suggests that while Vinted remains a popular marketplace with 17 million UK users, its automated compliance systems may struggle to handle the nuances of legitimate business operations. Sellers are left navigating opaque verification processes that can freeze their income indefinitely.
These cases underscore the risks for independent merchants relying on digital marketplaces for revenue. When automated systems flag accounts for review, the absence of human oversight or clear escalation paths can result in significant financial strain. As more users report similar issues following media coverage, pressure may mount on Vinted to improve its support infrastructure and verification clarity. Until then, sellers like Osmelak and Mukthar are forced to choose between abandoning their businesses or engaging in costly legal battles to access their own money.
The situation remains unresolved for many affected users. While Vinted maintains that its processes are necessary for regulatory compliance, the experiences of these sellers suggest a disconnect between policy intent and practical execution. The upcoming court hearing regarding Osmelak’s judgment could set a precedent for how such disputes are handled in the future. For now, the platform continues to operate without charging listing fees, but the hidden costs of verification failures may deter professional sellers from participating.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- BBC News↗I took Vinted to court to get my money back
