eBay Money Back Guarantee excludes Global Shipping Program fees?

[spleen905]

Does the eBay Money Back Guarantee exclude shipping fees collected by the Global Shipping Program for an item that is significantly not as described? I can't find any documentation on the eBay website regarding this.

I recently received an item that was significantly not as described and reached out to the seller. They refunded me the portion of the transaction that they received (~$23 USD) however the remaining amount that was collected through the Global Shipping Program was uncover-able through them (~$15). I then reached out to eBay resolution centre and was informed that they only refund shipping fees that they collect through the Global Shipping Program if the item is damaged during shipment.

So essentially eBay's money back guarantee excludes international shipping fees for items that are significantly not as described. (which can often be more than the "purchase price")

This is disappointing since buyers used to have full protection for items that were counterfeit, broken, etc. and now are responsible for shipping charges.

Is this going to change anytime soon?

[reid4311]

If you, let's say, bought a cd that arrived snapped in half here's what happens I believe. If you were foolish enough to use a G.S.P. seller there would be 'an investigation' to see if the damage occurred before or after P.B. got their grubby mitts on it.

Are the red flags going up yet? Do you think that they would admit that a damaged disc had been forwarded to you? Easier to blame Canada Post. There would be no way to discover whether it was broken before or after. I don't care what they say!

Anyhow, you send it back to the seller at your expense and it goes like this: You get back your initial cost for the disc and the sellers postage to Kentucky, NOT the P.B. cut.

In other words if you bought a cd for $5.00 and paid $18.00 for postage the seller gets his cut of the price plus $3.00 to post it to the center. You'd get back your $5.00 plus only the $3.00 that the seller was given. The rest.................is gone! 

This info I got from buyers who have sadly already experienced this.

[afantiques]

The post above is almost totally incorrect.

If the proper procedure is followed for an item damaged in transit you will get a 100% refund and not have to send the damaged item anywhere.

Problems occour when the buyer tries to work things out with the seller, as we are encouraged to do in non GSP cases. This is fatal to GSP claims. The seller is in no position to help in any way, and anything they do will muddy the waters.

The only correct procedure that always works is a Paypal claim for damage in transit making the item not as described.

It is just bad system design that the GSP requirements differ from the non GSP best practice, and of course, unless you read and understand the very long conditions of use, and understand them, you will get no guidance on the correct procedure.

However, do it right and you will get your full refund.

[reid4311]

The buyer stated that he bought his item from a seller using G.S.P.

He contacted the seller who refunded his cost for whatever it was he bought and the amount the seller was given for shipping only.

When he did indeed contact the resolution center and asked about the balance he was told that he'd only get back the shipping fee collected if it was damaged during shipment.

Had he gone straight to the resolution center his refund would have been the same. He'd get back his original cost plus what the seller got for postage. If it was damaged then how would it be proved whether it was damaged before or after P-B had it.

He says 'not as described' which means it may not have been a damage issue. 

[pjcdn2005]

As AF said, If the buyer had originally opened a dispute and ebay found that the not as described portion was the seller's fault, the seller would be required to refund the item cost and the domestic shipping portion. Ebay or PB would refund the remainder. regardless if the problem was damage caused in shipping. Unfortunately, neither seller or buyers or some customer service reps are aware of that. If I were the OP I would keep insisting that ebay reimburse me the remainder owing.

If the buyer wanted to return the item because they didn't like it, not because it wasn't as described, it is possible that they wouldn't receive all fees back.

[00nevermind00]

Spleen, I agree with PJ. You should keep bugging eBay until you get the rest of your payment refunded.

This system is completely counterintuitive because the steps to follow for GSP items not as described are the exact opposite of what should be done for non-GSP items. It is unreasonable to expect buyers to read through that entire legal mumbo jumbo Terms & Conditions page. It's bad enough for most Canadians but try getting through that thing if you're, say, a Russian or an Italian with a lack of fluency in the English language.

I wonder how many buyers got burned by this and simply took the loss rather than make a fuss. And how many of them swore of the GSP and/or eBay forever.

[afantiques]

The buyer stated that he bought his item from a seller using G.S.P.

He contacted the seller who refunded his cost for whatever it was he bought and the amount the seller was given for shipping only.

This was the initial mistake. Unless it wasx a seller fault problem (wrong item, for example) this is the wrong thing to do and triggered the rest of the problems.

When he did indeed contact the resolution center and asked about the balance he was told that he'd only get back the shipping fee collected if it was damaged during shipment.

This is correct.

Had he gone straight to the resolution center his refund would have been the same. He'd get back his original cost plus what the seller got for postage. If it was damaged then how would it be proved whether it was damaged before or after P-B had it.

This is not correct.

The underlying assumption is that PB do not forward damaged items. To save complications, any item that arrives damaged is assumed to have been damaged while PB was responsible foir the transit. No proof of where the item was damaged is needed. They make the sensible decision that time spent wrangling over responsibility costs money, and wastes more money than they'd save by not arguing the toss over every case.

It is a fundamental principle in business that if it costs more to prevent something than it would cost if it happened, don't waste the prevention money. This is not a principle understood by many individuals who will spend hundreds to prevent a loss of tens.

He says 'not as described' which means it may not have been a damage issue. 

Indeed, it may have been a case of seller fault, and all he got was all he was due under GSP terms and conditions.

[afantiques]

The buyer stated that he bought his item from a seller using G.S.P.

He contacted the seller who refunded his cost for whatever it was he bought and the amount the seller was given for shipping only.

This was the initial mistake. Unless it wasx a seller fault problem (wrong item, for example) this is the wrong thing to do and triggered the rest of the problems.

When he did indeed contact the resolution center and asked about the balance he was told that he'd only get back the shipping fee collected if it was damaged during shipment.

This is correct.

Had he gone straight to the resolution center his refund would have been the same. He'd get back his original cost plus what the seller got for postage. If it was damaged then how would it be proved whether it was damaged before or after P-B had it.

This is not correct.

The underlying assumption is that PB do not forward damaged items. To save complications, any item that arrives damaged is assumed to have been damaged while PB was responsible foir the transit. No proof of where the item was damaged is needed. They make the sensible decision that time spent wrangling over responsibility costs money, and wastes more money than they'd save by not arguing the toss over every case.

It is a fundamental principle in business that if it costs more to prevent something than it would cost if it happened, don't waste the prevention money. This is not a principle understood by many individuals who will spend hundreds to prevent a loss of tens.

He says 'not as described' which means it may not have been a damage issue. 

Indeed, it may have been a case of seller fault, and all he got was all he was due under GSP terms and conditions.