Be aware, odd refunding situation can cause a defect.

[ricarmic]

Here is the situation that caused a defect:

Buyer uses guest ID purchases item.

Buyer receives item, has an issue with it, sends a message to seller from a different eBay id (their actual ebay id).

Seller agrees with issue, decides against forcing buyer through return process (buyer is in Japan and language is likely to be a barrier) and simply fully refunds via PAYPAL*.

Because the message advising of the issue was from a different ID than the purchasing ID for some reason the "bots" flagged the refund (which I did directly in PAYPAL so it does get noticed on the ebay side too) as an out of stock defect.

Seller is of course me, I called it in and the polite and very helpful CSR figured out how it happened and zapped the defect for me.

So the things to do if you ever find yourself in this situation are to:

-get the buyer to resend a message from the original purchasing account (they can do this from the guest account still)

-get the buyer to send a formal return request which one can just fully refund from (which also has to be from the purchasing account)

*I knew and agreed with the issue. Not all collectors would have had the complaint but there was not enough value to getting it sent back. The return price would have been more than the item value and I would have just put it in my next  junk boxlot anyway because there is no sense in trying to relist it and have the same thing happen again.

[pjcdn2005]

I’ve heard before that they will issue an OOS defect whenever a full refund is done through PP although at one time they didn’t seem to be doing it if the item had been shipped.  How could it be oos if the buyer had received it? 

I wonder if if they had messaged you from the purchasing account and you did a PP refund rather than have them open a return, if you would have still received an OOS defect? And, if you did get an oos,  would cs remove it if you phoned and they saw the message?  Or, is this a way for  eBay to ‘force’ all returns through the system so that all snad refunds are counted in your service metrics?

[ricarmic]

I am sure that I've done a full refund before with no OOS defect.

This would be the first time it was to a different ID though.

This for sure was done by the BOTS.....

It took the CSR a fair while to figure out how it happened.

(Note this was a non tracked item)

[momcqueen]

I believe the bots look for evidence of communication from the seller to the buyer when deciding if the refund was for out-of-stock or not. And I don’t think Customer Service Reps are trained to know the triggers or allowed to divulge them in case it leads to defect-avoidance.

[momcqueen]

(I mean: buyer to seller.)

[ricarmic]

Couple of updates because some folks like to know what happened...

The fellow actually sent the item back on his own dime, even though he immediately had a refund and I said I would appreciate it being returned but understood if he didn't return it. I received it a couple days ago!!! (This is why it is nice selling the the stamps category).

Whatever my helpful CSR did didn't get rid of the defect it is still there after the 20th when it refreshed. At this point I don't have the energy to call back in only for this, I'll either just leave it or bring it up when I next call in again....

[tryubik-useonlyasdirected]

Call again if you can muster, I'm convinced "fatigue" is a strategy.

I'm in a similar "we'll take care of it but it will take a few minutes" situation then... a couple days and it's still not resolved.

As Canadians we can legally record our phone conversations, this can be like a screengrab when a CSR doesn't follow through.

Though, a CSR recently told me any defect removals can take up to 2 weeks to show from our record.

[recped]

---

@momcqueen wrote:
I believe the bots look for evidence of communication from the seller to the buyer when deciding if the refund was for out-of-stock or not. And I don’t think Customer Service Reps are trained to know the triggers or allowed to divulge them in case it leads to defect-avoidance.

---

No 'bots required, the basic rule is that if you refund more than 80% without a corresponding claim in the resolution centre then it's considered an out of stock situation (especially if it's a 100% refund).

eBay does this because if not sellers who were out of stock or refused to ship would simply refund instead of cancelling the transaction and revealing their out of stock or refusal reality.

If you can show communication supporting the fact that it was NOT a seller initiated cancellation then after the fact you may be able to have the defect reversed.

It's not a formally published policy because if it was sellers would just refund 79% and use send money for the rest. There are still sellers who use Send Money for the entire amount in an attempt to stay below the radar.

Every time eBay tightens the screws they do it because of seller abuse of the previous rules.

[ricarmic]

I did call in today about the return policy violations (see other thread), so I mentioned this again.

This CSR wasn't sure why the other "zap" didn't work so she zapped it again.

It is my understanding that:

If one does a direct from paypal complete refund after a buyer sends a message from the buying ID one does NOT get a defect.

If one provides a direct from paypal complete refund to a different ID than the buying id then one DOES get a defect.

If one provides a direct from paypal complete refund to an ID that has not sent a message then one DOES get a defect.

Having said all this, to avoid all the time it takes in the future I'm going to ask the buyer to send a return request so I can just fully refund to it. Hopefully this is a rare enough event that it is some time before it happens again.