HANDLING FEES: Am I the jerk? Excessive to charge $10 handling to mail a damaged item in used box?

[momcqueen]

I've made my personal thoughts on handling fees clear over the years so I will preface my question by stating that bias up-front. 

I bought something from a Canadian seller as a result of the Buy Canadian promotion and they charged me a $10 handling fee to ship me something in a clearly used box with clearly used packaging materials which protected an item with undisclosed damage. Do I have any right to feel as if I have been bamboozled? 

The item cost $50 Cad and I paid $23.16 in postage. The actual cost of postage was $13.13 CAD. And, like I said, there was no expense to consider for packing material. And I was sent an item that was bent and beat up. 

On the other hand, a week later, I bought the exact same item from another Canadian seller who charged $54 Cad for the item in question and $15.97 postage but the postage they paid was $13.79 Cad. Same type of used box and used packing material. Handling fee of $2.18 and the item was in mint condition. Perfect. 

Of course I realize seller B charged me $4 more for the same item than Seller A did. Seller B sent me a better item, however, and only charged $2.18 for handling. Both utilized previously-used shipping containers and packaging material. 

Is a $10-handling fee on a damaged $50 item shipped in a used cardboard box 'excessive' by anyone else's standards? Or is it just me? I have not yet spoken to the seller about it, and I have not left feedback. 

I want honest opinions on whether my feelings are unreasonable in this respect, please and thank you.

[tobyshitzu]

I dont know how you can't understand there is no gain in charging the same total amount regardless of how its distributed between item and shipping.   That some sellers want to put the entire amount in the time, others want to use exact calculated shipping, and others want to have "handling' for each to choose.  Hence there is a "handling" field, ebay raised the usa domestic caps so high in some categories that handling could far exceed $10 and still be under them, and ebay stopped counting buyer feedback over S&H for anything.

The S in SNAD is "significantly".   No idea what the nature of the damage is, but since the focus here is about postage being less then the S&H Im guessing not much.  If it was SNAD, its that regardless of the S&H wich should have nothing to do with that.

[momcqueen]

"What difference would that make to anyone invovled? 50$+free shippping, $40+$10 shipping, $30+$20 shipping. SAME THING fro alll invovled"

The problem is that's it's not, though. The latter elicits a different expectation from the buyer than the former. Selling successfully is about adequately managing buyer expectations. Right or wrong, it's all about managing expectations. And providing items as described.

[momcqueen]

As to that: "The S in SNAD is "significantly". No idea what the nature of the damage is, but since the focus here is about postage being less then the S&H Im guessing not much. If it was SNAD, its that regardless of the S&H wich should have nothing to do with that."

A damaged package is no longer 'new' and If I can't gift it to an adult without being humiliated in doing so, it's Significantly Not As Described.

My point is that the handling fee was excessive because it DID NOT get used in protecting my package in shipment as a handling fee is designed to do.

[momcqueen]

I opened the Return request as SNAD because that's how it arrived. The seller has not accepted that request yet, all they've done is offer me $10 to disappear quietly. I'm not certain as to the reason I should find that offer satisfactory. I'm inclined to send the item back, like I asked, or let eBay decide what to do about it.

[sylviebee]

Handling fees do matter and a lot of buyers (myself included) find them very abrasive.

No matter how you want to use logic and explain that it's only the total that counts, you can't ignore the fact that buyer perception counts for a lot, and "handling fees" rub a lot of buyers the wrong way.  It's not about the logic that the total is the same.

Moreover, usually handling fees are reserved for International buyers.   I am someone who buys a lot from the States and it always irritates me when sellers ship to the US for free or at cost, while Canadians get no break on the cost of shipping plus a hefty handling fee.

That said:  I too am a little confused why this particular transaction has been made all about handling fees when it's really about an INDed.

I get way to many SNADed items to fuss over them.

If it's NADed it gets returned and if the seller wants to do a partial refund I expect at least 50%.

A year or so down the road those items with more damage than expected are nothing but a PITA.

[momcqueen]

Right. It arrived damaged, that's what made the excessive handling fee -- which is supposed to be used only to ensure an item is packed with special care according to eBay -- all the more of an insult. Maybe it became foremost about the handling fee because of the way I initially worded it in the headline. Starting with the insult instead of the injury.

[momcqueen]

If my order had arrived new and sealed, packaged inside a box wrapped within another box and in undamaged, perfect shape, I'd have thought to myself, "Now that's a mighty fine job done packaging!" There would be no thread, no SNAD return request, and no issues. I would not have stopped to wonder at the price I paid for postage, it's value would have been self-evident. The handling fee would never have been raised. Because my item would have been clearly well-handled. But it wasn't, and this is what has happened.

[momcqueen]

Instead, I got an item with undisclosed damaged in a box that came from the dump for all I know.

I'm no used-box snob, either. I'll re-use boxes or packaging material if they are still demonstrated to be structurally-sound. But I will usually turn them inside-out to hide the messy exterior and reinforce all the joints and seals with additional glue and tape to ensure all stays where it should in transport. Again, it goes back to value for handling if a seller is charging that handling fee, they have to demonstrate service for it.

[tobyshitzu]

Because it was really about the supposed handling fee "Even the damage I could probably cope with if I was not already offended about the handling fee".  So if it was the same total amount with free shipping, no issue.  If it was same amount +$10 + exact postage, no issue  If it was all exactly the same as it was, with no postage on the box, no issue.  If someone wants to sell with no handling thats up to them, not up to them to buy from someone else and try and dictate how they think it should be done after the fact

[pjcdn2005]

---

@mjwl2006 wrote:
If my order had arrived new and sealed, packaged inside a box wrapped within another box and in undamaged, perfect shape, I'd have thought to myself, "Now that's a mighty fine job done packaging!" There would be no thread, no SNAD return request, and no issues. I would not have stopped to wonder at the price I paid for postage, it's value would have been self-evident. The handling fee would never have been raised. Because my item would have been clearly well-handled. But it wasn't, and this is what has happened.

---

Perhaps I missed it but did you say that the item was damaged in shipping?  

[ricarmic]

I think this is an excellent example to share with us.

It never ceases to amaze me that some sellers seem to think that the transaction is seller based and only seem to look at it from the financial perspective.

Unfortunately that perspective means they totally forget that the key to a successful transaction is a happy buyer in the end.

A seriously profitable item can turn out to be a loss in effort and/or money if the buyer is not happy with the transaction.

It doesn't really matter what the facts are. It matters how the facts are interpreted from the buyers perspective and sometimes how they feel about the transaction.

Annoying things like handling charges amp up the potential for long drawn out "fixes" because they become a tipping point, migrating a buyer that may have let something slide, to an unhappy buyer because the pre-annoyance is inflated by the other issue(s).

Of course we all know there are problem buyers out there too but they are inevitable, and we have ways like blocking etc, to help protect ourselves.

My personal view is that this situation is an excellent example of how we have to think as sellers about how buyers interpret the things we do as sellers with things like handling charges type fees, things we write in our descriptions, how we ship etc. 

Saving 5 minutes of shipping time, which ends up costing $$$ and hours of effort to fix when a buyer complains, doesn't save anything in the end. Probably in this example the tipping point was the handling charge (mjw may not agree but it looks like that to me)

I know that when I buy something and the seller really is disappointing in some way, I'm probably more compassionate than a normal buyer because I know what poor ratings etc cause to sellers, but there is also a point where one has to stand up for oneself as a buyer.

I know that the stuff I sell myself is generally high risk in terms of issues and isn't normally the cheapest if one looks at the price, but I do a number of things that in my eyes balance that out from the buyers perspective. 50% of my sales are to repeat buyers, many of whom know they can find similar stuff cheaper elsewhere but not as consistent, packed as well, stamped as well, or stood by as well as my stuff.

Interestingly the partial refund offer looks to just be making it worse, because given the situation it is almost an embarrassingly small amount, coincidentally equal to the "tipping point" handling charge amount which only makes things worse!

As a note, in my view, when one hits these situations it is best to put the "power" in the buyer's hands. What I do in these situations is let the buyer decide the amount of the partial refund. That lets the buyer be an active participant in the decision making process and I think it helps a lot to lessen their frustration level, which usually translates to less problems resolving the issue. Normally the buyers are quite reasonable. If they aren't I take my lumps and block them from further purchases. (I do not remember the last time I blocked a buyer for an unreasonable partial refund situation).

The aspect whether or not the seller is selling at a loss is really moot because once there became a problem they began losing in terms of their time/money anyway. Making the resolution as quick and painless and positive as possible really should be the seller's goal.

Doesn't look like it is in this case, I'm interested to see how it works out in the end. 

[jt-libra]

---

@ricarmic wrote:

I know that when I buy something and the seller really is disappointing in some way, I'm probably more compassionate than a normal buyer because I know what poor ratings etc cause to sellers, but there is also a point where one has to stand up for oneself as a buyer.

---

I totally agree with this statement.  As sellers, I believe we are far more lenient than other buyers towards sellers with whom we have unsatisfactory transactions.  We tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, even when they are not deserving of it.  I don 't feel right about trashing their DSR's and yet there have been a couple of occasions when I had every right to.  I think this is what is keeping mj from filing the SNAD dispute which I think she should do.  She politely requested a return and the seller has been stalling.  Once done, she should then put him on her blocked list to avoid any revenge purchase.  That's the kind of distrust, unfortunately, that comes with years of bad experiences, not just personally but collectively as a selling group.

[momcqueen]

"...did you say that the item was damaged in shipping?"

I can't be certain. The shipping container was previously used but not visible destroyed on arrival. It was not the victim, for example, of having been run over by the mail truck that I could see. It looked like a previously-used box.

The seller has asked me a second time if her proposed $10 refund is adequate. I don't know what to tell her. I don't feel like it is. I need to put some thought into the proper way to voice my disappointment with this.

It feel like if I accept a $10-refund, it's going to look like this was about only the handling fee all along, which it was not. But then if I say, no, it's as if I'm being difficult.

I agree with the posters above that I think many buyers would have skipped all this extra back-and-forth effort, left a knee-jerk pile of flaming feedback in their wake, and never come back.

[momcqueen]

"Saving 5 minutes of shipping time, which ends up costing $$$ and hours of effort to fix when a buyer complains, doesn't save anything in the end. Probably in this example the tipping point was the handling charge (mjw may not agree but it looks like that to me)"

I do agree. It was the tipping point. One issue (the undisclosed damage) or the other (the handling fee) and I could have coped with it, and moved on without making a big fuss. But it was the insult of a too-high handling charge to NOT properly handle an item that arrived damaged (whether it always was or become that way in transit, I don't know) were the factors working in tandem that pushed me over the edge with this. I don't enjoy creating conflict, you must trust me on that. I like everything peaceful, and for people to be happy and feel valued. 

[momcqueen]

---

@toby**bleep**zu wrote:

Because it was really about the supposed handling fee "Even the damage I could probably cope with if I was not already offended about the handling fee".  So if it was the same total amount with free shipping, no issue.  If it was same amount +$10 + exact postage, no issue  If it was all exactly the same as it was, with no postage on the box, no issue.  If someone wants to sell with no handling thats up to them, not up to them to buy from someone else and try and dictate how they think it should be done after the fact

---

Except that according to eBay policy on Handling Fees, handling fees are to be used for HANDLING costs and shipping is supposed to represent actual postage cost. It's not just me spouting that, it's in the eBay policy. 

[momcqueen]

As to the seller, they are not new to ebay or to selling. They are Canada Top-Rated and sell sophisticated and pricey toys geared more for adults (but not *that* kind of adult toy) that vary in price from about $50 to $1000. Their feedback as a seller for DSRs for Item as Described is very good at 5.0 but for Shipping and Handling is 4.7. The comments left for Feedback as a Seller have all been positive and along the lines of 'good' or 'great' or 'everything went smoothy' so I don't want anyone thinking I'm trying either to vilify or bully them. Maybe my problem with poor order handling and/or item with undisclosed damage was an anomaly but the irritation from other buyers about handling charges is obviously not. It's entirely possible that this is their first time in dealing with an item that arrived damaged or was sent that way, I don't know. It may explain how they're a bit clumsy in their efforts to resolve it. 

[rose-dee]

---

@toby**bleep**zu wrote:

Because it was really about the supposed handling fee "Even the damage I could probably cope with if I was not already offended about the handling fee".  So if it was the same total amount with free shipping, no issue.  If it was same amount +$10 + exact postage, no issue  If it was all exactly the same as it was, with no postage on the box, no issue.  If someone wants to sell with no handling thats up to them, not up to them to buy from someone else and try and dictate how they think it should be done after the fact

---

The problem with this analysis is that the handling fee is not perceived by buyers (nor should it be thought of by sellers) as a neutral charge.  If the seller tacks on a handling fee that represents 20% of the item's value, the buyer is justified in expecting outstanding care in the packing and/or the materials used.  

In this I agree entirely with what 'ricarmic' has said.  

Presumably the reason the seller didn't add the extra $10 to the item cost was to lure buyers who might only be looking at the price of the item itself and paying no attention to the S&H charges or to the total.  Or relying on buyer psychology to have the low-priced item snapped up, then make all the profit on the handling end (as the seller has already admitted -- or at least claims to be the case).  Not every buyer searches by total price.  

The fact that the OP accepted the total price doesn't mean it was wise of the seller to tack on a handling fee that would be an irritant to a buyer and excessive under eBay policy.  Nor does it mean the buyer shouldn't expect optimum service for that fee.  

This isn't far off what some sellers were doing 10 or 12 years ago on eBay selling low priced items where the shipping would turn out to be outrageous (this was before S&H had to be shown in listings and before FVFs on shipping).  The OP's seller would have been far smarter to roll everything into the item price and offer free shipping.  He/she likely would have sold it faster, and made a much happier buyer. 

As a buyer I'm usually very understanding and forgiving of sellers' challenges on eBay, but the way I see it, this seller created unnecessary challenges for her/himself, apparently out of greed and a lack of regard for their customers' satisfaction. 

Personally I'd reject a $10 partial refund offer.  A paltry $10 would put me back where I should have been in the first place, i.e. no handling fee!  I'd point out to the seller that a 20% handling charge is against eBay's policies, and if that means the seller gives the item away at cost, well, perhaps they should have listed it at a higher price to begin with.  The seller's margin is not the buyer's fault. 

I'd look at it this way: I've paid you $50 plus $13.16 in shipping, plus a $10.00 handling (a total of $73.16) to get a damaged item.  I might have overlooked the damage were it not for the insult of the $10 handling fee that represented no value whatsoever.  I'd estimate what the item might sell for on eBay in its damaged state and use that to calculate the discount.  So, a minimum partial refund would be the handling cost ($10) plus, let's say 20% of the item value ($10), or $20.00 in total.  If I were the seller and wanted the buyer's business back, I'd probably suggest half of the total paid by the buyer, or about $35.00.   

I'll repeat what I said earlier: this is either a very stupid or very short-sighted seller.  

[tobyshitzu]

Nothing is or ever was to say buyers are entitled to any "handling fee" back after the fact.  Or to determine what it should be other then leaving feedback, which now doesn't count for anything.  

[rose-dee]

---

@toby**bleep**zu wrote:

Nothing is or ever was to say buyers are entitled to any "handling fee" back after the fact.  Or to determine what it should be other then leaving feedback, which now doesn't count for anything.  

---

It's not a question of entitlement.  It's a question of buyer satisfaction and seller treatment of buyers -- and possibly also in the OP's seller's case (if you want to look at it strictly from the seller's point of view) of avoiding a SNAD and the extra trouble and expense that will entail.  It might also behoove the seller to remember that the OP could report the seller for charging an excessive handling fee, which is against eBay policy.  

Obviously we differ in our view of what constitutes buyer satisfaction.  As a seller I would never charge a $10 handling fee, but if I did, I'd be sure to give good value for that fee, and if I didn't provide good value, I'd be ashamed not to refund the buyer's $10 plus a reasonable discount for the buyer's trouble and disappointment, plus a discount for any damage.  Just good customer relations.  

Actually, I agree with 'ricarmic'  that I'd likely leave it to the buyer to suggest what they felt was reasonable compensation for a disappointing transaction.  It's not about the seller.  Nor is it about eBay policy or FB.  It's about reasonable decency to our customers and whether we should expect the same treatment when we're buyers. 

[tobyshitzu]

" As a seller I would never charge a $10 handling fee,"

you can do what you want, not for you to dictate to anyone else.  Ebay raised their own USA shipping caps so high one could have $10 or more handlign and still be under them in many categories (even using cp to ship to usa, let alnoe usps)