eBay

pierrelebel · ‎09-23-2014

There's a report that eBay Customer Service Reps are telling sellers they must accept
returns, counter to eBay's Fall Seller Update announcement.

http://www.ecommercebytes.com/cab/abn/y14/m09/i23/s03

pjcdn2005 · ‎09-23-2014

From the article...

"It has come to my attention that eBay CSRs are now telling sellers on a regular basis that if we have a return policy stated on our listings, no matter what it says, we have to accept returns for any reason. So if a buyer tells you they don't like the color because it clashes with their eyes or that they found it elsewhere cheaper, they can return the item to the seller whether the seller agrees or not."

Many of Ina's articles are based on information taken from posts on the .com Discussion Boards and I suspect that this one is as well. There really isn't any concrete information to back it up. I could have written the same thing on a discussion board but that doesn't make it true and/or tell the whole story.

Even if the info wasn't taken from a discussion board but instead was in an email sent to Ina...there is still no way to know if the information is accurate.

I realize that it is possible that some CS reps did tell some sellers that. The information they gave out may or may not have been accurate.

It's also possible that some sellers were told that but that the CSR's were misunderstood or misquoted. The reps may have said that if a seller has a return policy that states returns are only accepted if the item is not as described...ebay will not stand by that statement. If a seller accepts returns, they are supposed to accept them for any reason. Saying that returns are only accepted if an item is nad is equivalent to saying that they don't accept returns. Anyway..that's the way that I interpret the ebay policy on accepting returns.

Some U.S.sellers who really do not want to accept returns unless they are forced to accept them have that statement in their return policy just so that they can qualify for the TRSplus 20% discount but I am fairly sure that isn't sanctioned by ebay.

To be honest, I don't think that it is right for Ina would post something like that as 'fact' when it appears as there really isn't any info to back it up.

pierrelebel · ‎09-23-2014

"I don't think that it is right for Ina would post something like that as 'fact' when it appears as there really isn't any info to back it up."

I agree with you.

Ina provides a lot of good information, often well in advance of eBay making an announcement. However, at times, her newsletter simply repeats what eBay members were complaining about.

mr.elmwood · ‎09-23-2014

I do not believe anything Ina says. Ina reports third hand rumour as a fact hand delivered from Donahoe.

.
.
.

holdmygold2 · ‎09-23-2014

My respect for this Ina just hit the dregs. I'll never take her seriously again.

I can tell you first hand that this is not true.

In fact, my experience has been the opposite of what she reports.

Every time I've tried to return an item to a seller during the past few months and the seller has fought the return, I was denied the right to return.

In each case I then appealed the decision and it was overturned, but not easy.

pierrelebel · ‎09-23-2014

" I was denied the right to return.'.... 'I then appealed the decision and it was overturned,"

If I understand correctly, as a Canadian buyer you were in fact able to return for refund, despite the seller refusing to accept your return originally.

pierrelebel · ‎09-23-2014

What eBay sellers are saying:

http://www.ecommercebytes.com/C/blog/blog.pl?/pl/2014/9/1411432802.html

holdmygold2 · ‎09-23-2014

P.L wrote: " I was denied the right to return.'.... 'I then appealed the decision and it was overturned," If I understand correctly, as a Canadian buyer you were in fact able to return for refund, despite the seller refusing to accept your return originally.

No.

In each case I received apologies from eBay and they took care of the refunds.

These were clearly Not as Described Cases.

I supplied photos and clearly explained how the damage went way beyond the photos.

One case especially annoyed me because that seller got away with selling garbage.

So many of the posts here are from the seller's side, but there is a lot more going on that what sellers see and thus report.

pierrelebel · ‎09-23-2014

Why did you write "No"?

Your post shows that you were able to return and get a refund, as it should be (despite your claim being rejected at first).

Which part deserves a "No"? I do not get it.

holdmygold2 · ‎09-23-2014

@pierrelebel wrote:
Why did you write "No"?

Your post shows that you were able to return and get a refund, as it should be (despite your claim being rejected at first).

Which part deserves a "No"? I do not get it.

Once Again. .............NO!!!!!!

That is not what I said.

Please read my post again.

There was no return. The returns were denied.

pierrelebel · ‎09-23-2014

O)K - So you got a full refund and did not have to return the goods. Is that correct?

holdmygold2 · ‎09-23-2014

That's correct.

This happened more than once and all very recently.

I didn't have to pay return shipping so that was good............

BUT........... this is the trend I'm experiencing now and it's the exact opposite of Ina's report,

and it's very scary for buyers.

Most buyers wouldn't appeal as I did.

I could so easily been stuck with trash and IMO I just scraped by and don't expect that to happen every time.

I now back every expensive purchase by credit card.

rose-dee · ‎09-23-2014

@holdmygold2 wrote:
My respect for this Ina just hit the dregs. I'll never take her seriously again.

I can tell you first hand that this is not true.
In fact, my experience has been the opposite of what she reports.

While it may be true that this particular report is no more than hearsay, we can't entirely blame Ina for publishing it. What the article shines a light on, yet again, is the apparently total disconnect between eBay policy and those who are supposed to give advice and administer those policies.

Since when did any of us start expecting eBay's CSRs to be knowledgeable and consistent? I'd be more surprised if there weren't conflicting reports (such as yours).

The real problem is that eBay's CS section is no more than a legion of minimally-trained, probably underpaid drones, many of whom have a barely passable command of English, and most of whom simply sound as if they are parroting what is in front of them on policy sheets. I have yet to speak to one who appeared to properly understand the issue, let alone offer an intelligent solution. Reasonable and fair policy determinations across the board in such circumstances are bound to be unpredictable and inconsistent.

holdmygold2 · ‎09-23-2014

@rose-dee wrote:

The real problem is that eBay's CS section is no more than a legion of minimally-trained, probably underpaid drones, many of whom have a barely passable command of English,...............

I absolutely agree with that statement.

However, in my cases the people making the decisions weren't your average eBay CSRs.

These cases were escalated and therefore the decisions were made by employees with a certain amount of authority.

pjcdn2005 · ‎09-24-2014

While it may be true that this particular report is no more than hearsay, we can't entirely blame Ina for publishing it. What the article shines a light on, yet again, is the apparently total disconnect between eBay policy and those who are supposed to give advice and administer those policies.

Sorry but I disagree. The only thing that the article said is that one ebayer said that other ebayers said that CS said.....

"It has come to my attention....." Does that mean that the writer read on a message board that CS told this to 1 person....a dozen people....?

There are no facts and there is no light shed on anything because we don't know if any of the information is accurate.

Of course I realize that CS does give inaccurate information at times but based on the story, neither Ina nor the writer know if CS really did give out this information or what the circumstances were. If the person giving out this information had written the letter in the first person and explained what they had asked about and what the answer was, then we would know exactly what happened in one case. I think that it is irresponsible of Ina to use that title and even to post the article because it has no facts but it still has the ability to make some people think that yes...sellers are being told that now they have to accept all returns.

old.crows.nest · ‎09-24-2014

@holdmygold2 wrote:
That's correct.

This happened more than once and all very recently.

I didn't have to pay return shipping so that was good............

BUT........... this is the trend I'm experiencing now and it's the exact opposite of Ina's report,

and it's very scary for buyers.

Most buyers wouldn't appeal as I did.

I could so easily been stuck with trash and IMO I just scraped by and don't expect that to happen every time.

I now back every expensive purchase by credit card.

Not sure but could it be that your experience fell under the Money Back Guarantee mentioned in the report?

You stated that you filed SNAD claims? Correct? Most likely ebay denied your claim because damage was mentioned in Item Specifics and /or Seller's (Condition) Note. As a Seller I depend on these fields because as most of us know we cannot depend on Buyers actually reading the description. I have been lead to believe that by using these tools plus the title on top of the description I can have an expectation of winning a SNAD case. For your Sellers to have won they must have also followed this protocol. Did you actually win the appeal or were you granted a courtesy refund. Seems to me if you won an appeal you would have had to follow the (Seller's) steps required for a refund and had to return the item. Now you have the item and you have the money.

Do these changes mean I have to start offering returns? No, you still have the choice of whether or not to offer returns through your returns policy. If you've chosen not to offer returns and a buyer requests a return because they changed their mind, you can simply decline the request. Please note, however, that your buyer may still be eligible for the eBay Money Back Guarantee if they've requested a return because they believe the item they purchased is not as described in your listing.

imageelf

reallynicestamps · ‎09-24-2014

Please note, however, that your buyer may still be eligible for the eBay Money Back Guarantee if they've requested a return because they believe the item they purchased is not as described in your listing.

I think this is the part that scares sellers.

Who funds that Money Back Guarantee?

If it is a courtesy refund by eBay out of their own pocket (or Paypal's), sellers can be comfortable with that. The buyer and the seller may have a difference of opinion but neither is financially hurt.

If the money is then forced from the seller, without the return of the goods, that is a very different matter.

old.crows.nest · ‎09-24-2014

@reallynicestamps wrote:
Please note, however, that your buyer may still be eligible for the eBay Money Back Guarantee if they've requested a return because they believe the item they purchased is not as described in your listing.

I think this is the part that scares sellers.
Who funds that Money Back Guarantee?
If it is a courtesy refund by eBay out of their own pocket (or Paypal's), sellers can be comfortable with that. The buyer and the seller may have a difference of opinion but neither is financially hurt.
If the money is then forced from the seller, without the return of the goods, that is a very different matter.

I agree. The Seller should always get the item back. I also think, historically, there have been Buyers who have abused the SNAG Claim. I applaud ebay for trying to right this wrong. That said I also believe that Sellers are responsible for the safe delivery of items. In cases where a Seller has failed to ship the item with due care and it arrives damaged that should still be a SNAD Claim? Has that changed? Are Sellers no longer responsible for Shipping damage? Or has ebay also realized that some Buyers will deliberately damage items in order to get a refund?

imageelf

holdmygold2 · ‎09-24-2014

You are missing the point.

I was unlucky to have a several of these in a short period of time but that's very unusual. Returns are rare.

These items were significantly not as described and eBay found in favour of the sellers.

In all of these cases the sellers escalated the cases and argued that the items were as described and eBay bought it and denied the returns.

Those decisions came back in no time at all............ a few hours type of thing.

I didn't want the trash and keeping it is of no benefit to me.

The sellers were welcome to have it back if they wanted it and I was prepared to pay hefty shipping fees to make that happen.

The point is that eBay does not automatically find in favour of buyers.

I had to fight for my refunds.

This type of problem is at the heart of the decision to have sellers pay return shipping but they're not making it easy for buyers.

I am only one buyer and maybe it's not a trend but something tells me it might be.

reallynicestamps · ‎09-24-2014

In cases where a Seller has failed to ship the item with due care and it arrives damaged that should still be a SNAD Claim? Has that changed? Are Sellers no longer responsible for Shipping damage?

The seller is responsible for shipping damage for two reasons. First she packed the item. Poor packaging is the most common reason for damage in transit.

And by poor packaging I mean the ability to withstand a two foot drop (to the next conveyor belt in the terminal) and having a 50 lb parcel land on top of it (again, the next item on the same conveyor belt).*

The other reason is that the seller subcontracts shipping to a courier or the postal system. The subcontractor is responsible to its customer (the seller) but the seller is responsible to her customer (the buyer).

So any insurance payment goes to the seller, who reimburses the buyer.

Actually, normally the seller would reimburse the buyer and then go after the insurance, but you get the point.

Or has ebay also realized that some Buyers will deliberately damage items in order to get a refund?

While there are crazies out there, I suspect that this is a very very unusual happening. If the refund were refused, the buyer would have paid for a functional and saleable item that he then made unusable and unsaleable.

*That's the standard a Canada Post officer gave to an eBay seminar some years ago here in Ottawa.