Hello Canadian eBayers,
This week, on the heels of the 2014 Fall Seller Update announcement, Rodney, Ryanne and I will be joined by Sonu, from the Post Transaction team out of the San Jose headquarters. Please go ahead and start posting your questions and comments, we will start answering at 1 pm Eastern.
See you then!
@cumos55 wrote:
My understanding of returns...
If a seller stipulates no returns....and ...a buyer asks for a return...
Seller has an option, either accept or refuse the return..... and buyer gets refunded.
--- Refunded immediately if there is no return required .... as indicated by the seller
--- Refunded only after the item has been received, as a return, by the seller... and only after acceptance of a return by the seller.
The seller has control over the return process....
Two questions
(1) Is this interpretation correct?
(2) The second question/comment relates to a seller's control of returns.....
If a seller stipulates no returns.... Does that put the seller in full control of the return process...... allowing for returns only in certain situations..
and in so doing minimizes the cost of return postage..
If what I have said is correct... should then all Canadian sellers follow a no return policy, and accept returns only under certain conditions.... as defined by the seller....
Hi cumos55,
You have it right, for the most part.
If a seller has a no returns policy and the buyer asks for a return due to remorse, the seller can decline.
However if the buyer wants to return due to the item being not as described, then the seller is obliged to work things out with the buyer, up to and including accepting the return, within the eBay Money Back Guarantee timeframe.
@gctks wrote:
Thank you for the response but it does not answer our question. What process does ebay go through to determine that an item is not as described? As far as we can tell, a buyer simply has to open a "Item Not As Described" case and Ebay makes the assumption that they have a valid case. Is that how it works? Please answer, yes or no. Evasive answers are very disappointing.
The answer to your question is no, that is not how it works.
@pjcdn2005 wrote:
First....I am amazed that all of the detail are not already worked out before the announcement. Not working out the exact details ahead of time only causes confusion and speculation on what is going to happen. I realize that we will not be in the hfr program however that program does say that the seller will not have to pay more for return postage than was paid for incoming postage. That should be the same for any returns that we have to accept. If I charge someone in Russia $6.99 for postage, I shouldn't have to pay $25 for return shipping.
This policy will launch later in the year. We just gave you a heads up in the seller Update so you knew it was coming. I promise you all the details will be revealed well ahead of the actual launch. As I stated earlier, we are working to ensure that the rules of the program are fair for everyone.
pjcdn2005 wrote:Second....I believe it was Rodney's comment that ebay was catching up to ecommerce as far as paying for return shipping. The big difference here is that those particular sites sell their own merchandise and they are the ones that are deciding whether or not the item is really not as described. Here, it is often a bot that decides or a rep that really knows nothing about the product or the situation. Also, those companies are often working with a much larger profit margin than many of the sellers here.
Regardless of all of this, to the buyer, these things don't really matter. That's why we ought to make the experience of buying on eBay as easy as it is on competitor sites.
@pjcdn2005 wrote:
Third.... One of the reps mentioned that sellers would be protected from 'bad' buyers as shown in the spring seller update. I don't seem to remember that part of the spring update. The problem that I forsee is that once buyers know their shipping will be paid, they are of course going to say that an item is not as described. If I fight it and lose (which doesn't mean that I was wrong), I use up 1 of my unresolved cases. Since .3% is 1.72 cases for me, I believe that I would only be allowed one more case like that. Obviously, that is going to make me hesitate to question ANY claim that someone makes.
We are never too open on how we measure a buyer or a seller's performance, since not only are these things confidential, but revealing too much might give people the tools to circumvent our rules. We are confident the target metrics put in place for us to detect bad buyers will prove to be effective in safeguarding the marketplace.
@pierrelebel wrote:
"Buyer cancellations will be available across all formats (Auctions and BIN) "
So it is OK for a buyer who feels he has paid too much at auction to simply say: "Cancel this transaction" if done within an hour of closing time. No liability or responsibility to that buyer.
It leaves to seller with an unsold item, having to waste time to relist and no guarantee that the same selling price will be realized a second time around since the high bidder is out of the equation.
And you really think that is fair to sellers?
This isn't any different than buyers who don't pay for the items they win. As stated earlier, we are going to hold buyers accountable for cancelled transactions just the same as we are holding them accountable for unpaid items, and restrict or suspend repeat offenders.
This concludes this week's Board Hour. Thanks everyone for your participation, look out for us on the 2014 Fall Seller Update thread where we will do our best to monitor and answer questions. Alternatively, if you feel we missed anything here today or have a burning issue that needs attention now and one that cannot be resolved by Customer Support, please reach me via email.
Cheers!
