21 DAY HOLD FINANCIAL SERVICE OMBUDSMAN WANTS TO HEAR FROM YOU

[hmmar-spier]

Having lodged a complaint against Pay Pal and Ebay in regards to illegally freezing funds and also referring the matter to the privacy commisioner.  The Financial Services Ombudsman also wants to hear about accounts where funds have been placed under the 21 day hold. Their office is anticipating an across board deluge of complaints and they wish to be advised of individual cases as believe this is a breach of law.

[tall_bearded01]

To test the water, I recently started using an old account to sell.  The account had over 130 transactions with a 100% positive feedback rating and an eBay compliance rating of “Above Average”.

As soon as I listed the items, I got on line (Live Help) and posed the simple question ‘will access to funds from sales on this account be limited?  The answer, as it hasn’t been used for some time, yes.

Pointed out to them that the policy to limit access was restricted to a specific category of SELLER, namely those sellers’, where, on account of their past poor compliance history, or lack of a sales history, they (eBay) could reasonably determine them as “HIGH RISK”; and that I, with an established sales history which a eBay determined as being “Above Average” could not possibly be categorised as “High Risk”.  As such, should they limit my access to funds in connection with this account they will be in breach of their own policy, resulting in a complaint to the relevant regulatory body.

They then started to dig an even bigger hole for themselves.  Got the usual waffle about how the policy was designed to improve buyer confidence.  In any event I could get my money released earlier (than the 21 days) if I proved delivery, to which I asked, what they actually mean by PROOF OF DELIVERY.  That is, the policy states, if I used the eBay postage service (labels), that production of the label is sufficient get the monies releases.  Therefore does that not mean proof of postage is proof of delivery for the purposes of the policy?  The answer – well no because, if you use a postage service other than the eBay one,the funds will not be released until tracking confirms it was delivered.

This is when I hit them with both barrels.

So what you are saying is that you intend to limit access to the funds in this account because I pose an unacceptable risk, even though you have already agreed that you have assessed my performance as “Above Average”.  Furthermore, you appear to be saying that you (eBay) are of the view that the definition of critical words (such as Delivery) for the purposes of the policy are fluid – that is, instead of assigning them a consistent meaning for the purposes of the policy, you assign them whatever meaning affords you the best outcome given any specific circumstance, and if the circumstances change, you give them a different meaning which affords you the best outcome given the change in circumstances.  Finally, it appears quite likely that the policy contains at least one element of third line forcing – imposing a time penalty on sellers who choose to use a carrier service other than the eBay Postal service.  Therefore if access the funds in this account are limited, I now have sufficient evidence on which a file complaints with the FOS, SA Consumer Affairs and the AAAC.

At this point I was asked to hold on whilst the conversation was transferred to a supervisor, where the whole process was repeated and, when it became clear I wasn’t  going to budge, they asked me to confirm my telephone number and the link was disconnected at their end.

Outcome.  Never received a call, and though I’ve already sold over $300 worth of goods on that account in the last week alone, none of the funds have been frozen.

[clarry100]

Seems there are many aspects of this HOLD policy that are shady at best.

I'm hoping that all the reporting to the FOS (of which we are one) will get them to revoke this stupid policy.

They are clearly holding funds as loong as possible to gain interest on the short term money market.

[2106greencat]

Keep at it everyone......

bump

[sjvilla79]

This is a joke. I'm meant to do what exactly while I wait for three weeks to get my money? I've sent the items 48 hours after auctions ended with tracking numbers. They will have the items in days. So what is the purpose of keeping my money from me again? I've sold almost $1000 of goods this past fornight. eBay has taken roughly $100 in fees. Now I supposed to wait weeks for my money? No thanks. Will consider selling elsewhere for my next items. Feel like I'm being shafted. Been a member here 10 years almost. How am I a risk? 100% feedback, never had an issue ever! Thanks for looking after me and the thousands like me, eBay! Not!

[tall_bearded01]

I think it goes far deeper than that.

What needs to be pointed out to the ombudsman is that this appears to be more than just the flawed application of a policy which is reasonably required to protect eBay and buyers from sellers with a doubtful track record - “High Risk Seller”.  Instead this policy appears to be linked with the rating of performance by deficit reporting, coupled with the eBay Money Back Guarantee, with all three, when combined, being designed to force sellers to adopt the eBay selling model, namely, the seller assumes all risk associated with delivery by carrier, sellers will post with one business day of payment, and the seller will allow for change of mind returns.  That is, they are not three separate policies, but the same policy in three parts.

Take for instance “item not received claims”.  To avoid a deficit, the Guarantee requires the seller give in to the buyer’s demands BEFORE they (the buyer) ask eBay to intervene.  The same goes for returns. 

Now before the deficit system came into existence, it really didn’t matter if the buyer was unhappy with the outcome, because, more often than not, the only sanction that eBay could impose was lowering the ranking at which listings would appear in search results, and/or limited the number of listing.  But, because those results already appeared to be being manipulated to give priority to specific sellers irrespective of their performance, this was pretty much like being flogged with a wet noodle.  Furthermore listing restrictions are counter-productive because they limited listing revenue.  Therefore a better solution was required.  Enter PayPal funding limitations.

Now when you get enough deficits, not only will they affect where the item is ranked in searches, but they result in you being assessed as an “unreliable” (High Risk) seller whose PayPal account can be limited.  We are already see evidence of this with sellers who have near too if not 100% positive feedback, but whose PayPal account is being limited on the basis they have accumulated too many deficits, and we all know how easy they are to get, and the more often than not the ridiculous reasons why they are given.

The benefit to eBay are self-evident.

 If the buyer wants to return something, even when it is clearly established it is change of mind return, the seller best simply accept the return, because if they don’t, not only will they get a deficit, but they may also be required to pay return postage.  That is, if the seller accepts return, no deficit arises, and he buyer pays returns postage.  On the other hand if the seller refuses to allow the change of mind return, and the buy asks eBay to intervene, eBay may well find it is not as described in which case not only is a deficit recorded but the seller pays return postage. 

The same goes for items not received.  The Guarantee is written in such a way that, if postage is proved, eBay pays the claim with no right of recovery against the seller.  However, the only way the seller can assert a none recovery right, is to refuse the buyer request, which means even if they can prove actual deliver let alone postage, you still incur a deficit.

That is the three policies are in themselves mutually supportive, with each designed to force sellers to forgo their statutory rights,  with eBay incurring none of the costs usually associated with them inducing the seller to contract out of them, and once we create a clear factual body of evidence that this is actually occurring, then that is when the relevant regulatory bodies will be left with no option but to step in

[digital*ghost]

---

@tall_bearded01 wrote:

I think it goes far deeper than that.

---

If you don't mind 🙂 I'm a little curious to know your thoughts on the following statements made by an eBay rep in response to a member inquiry, this more specifically relates to items not as described and DSR / defect ratings, and not the money hold as such. (posted by cq_tech in another thread - hope you don't mind me re-posting  ).

"Our defect rate measures how often a buyer has a problem with a transaction. Most of the time, we're unable to verify the claims of the buyer (the quality of the item, what condition the item was when the buyer received it or when it was returned to the seller, etc.). Since we can't verify the claims, we will want to err on the side of the buyer."

To me, that's like an open admission that they're not in a position to be making decisions about these things, so they don't actually make a decision at all, just deem sellers guilty unless proven innocent. 

[i-love-my-sheep]

---

@tall_bearded01 wrote:

To test the water, I recently started using an old account to sell.  The account had over 130 transactions with a 100% positive feedback rating and an eBay compliance rating of “Above Average”.

As soon as I listed the items, I got on line (Live Help) and posed the simple question ‘will access to funds from sales on this account be limited?  The answer, as it hasn’t been used for some time, yes.

Pointed out to them that the policy to limit access was restricted to a specific category of SELLER, namely those sellers’, where, on account of their past poor compliance history, or lack of a sales history, they (eBay) could reasonably determine them as “HIGH RISK”; and that I, with an established sales history which a eBay determined as being “Above Average” could not possibly be categorised as “High Risk”.  As such, should they limit my access to funds in connection with this account they will be in breach of their own policy, resulting in a complaint to the relevant regulatory body.

They then started to dig an even bigger hole for themselves.  Got the usual waffle about how the policy was designed to improve buyer confidence.  In any event I could get my money released earlier (than the 21 days) if I proved delivery, to which I asked, what they actually mean by PROOF OF DELIVERY.  That is, the policy states, if I used the eBay postage service (labels), that production of the label is sufficient get the monies releases.  Therefore does that not mean proof of postage is proof of delivery for the purposes of the policy?  The answer – well no because, if you use a postage service other than the eBay one,the funds will not be released until tracking confirms it was delivered.

This is when I hit them with both barrels.

So what you are saying is that you intend to limit access to the funds in this account because I pose an unacceptable risk, even though you have already agreed that you have assessed my performance as “Above Average”.  Furthermore, you appear to be saying that you (eBay) are of the view that the definition of critical words (such as Delivery) for the purposes of the policy are fluid – that is, instead of assigning them a consistent meaning for the purposes of the policy, you assign them whatever meaning affords you the best outcome given any specific circumstance, and if the circumstances change, you give them a different meaning which affords you the best outcome given the change in circumstances.  Finally, it appears quite likely that the policy contains at least one element of third line forcing – imposing a time penalty on sellers who choose to use a carrier service other than the eBay Postal service.  Therefore if access the funds in this account are limited, I now have sufficient evidence on which a file complaints with the FOS, SA Consumer Affairs and the AAAC.

At this point I was asked to hold on whilst the conversation was transferred to a supervisor, where the whole process was repeated and, when it became clear I wasn’t  going to budge, they asked me to confirm my telephone number and the link was disconnected at their end.

Outcome.  Never received a call, and though I’ve already sold over $300 worth of goods on that account in the last week alone, none of the funds have been frozen.

---

That is one of the issues. Even when an item was marked as delivered from the tracking number, they still weren't releasing the funds until 21 days. It didn't matter how many emails/calls you made requesting them to check the tracking number for themselves, they still refused to release it. That was why my mate lodged a complaint with the FOS because even with proof of delivery, both with tracking number and positive feedback from the buyer, they still refused to release the funds early.

When he spoke to eBay about the fact the buyer had left positive feedback, they said that meant nothing as it could be fake feedback.....as in feedback manipulation. Give me a break......

[nodramuzz-at-planet-plants]

To whom did you complain? To eBay or the Ombudsman? I've just found some of my recent sales funds 'on hold' 😞

[nodramuzz-at-planet-plants]

I guess we will all have to add some more postage cost to cover the cost of adding tracking info if we post items like seeds etc as 'letters' or other items, like light weight clothing, as 'letters with items' in A4 envelopes ..

As a seller who endevours to send all items with the cheapest possible postage cost to Buyers, I'm on a well & truly uphill battle! While ebay eats even a percentage of the postage costs! Add more to the cost of an item to cover the postage .. yep, that creates a spiral of costs for everyone .. except eBay!

Do it eBay's way or not at all it seems ... it's expected that every Seller offers free postage, start your auction at .99c, sell at a price they send you as a pop up, have a printer & plenty of ink to print labels (an added cost for the ink alone), use their satchels, post with 'express post'  etc etc ..

Don't they know that some people live in Regional areas where 'express' makes NO difference to transit time, not EVERYONE can afford a printer or extra ink & labels, or has immediate funds to pay for eBay satchels in advance etc etc?

How many Sellers in the 'non business' genre .. the one's that were the original 'backbone' of eBay's beginnings .. are going to migrate elsewhere??

[tall_bearded01]

What you have to do is look at is what eBay wants, and on this point I don’t think there’s any controversy.  They have lectured seller’s long and hard as to what they, eBay, believe is the best model to sell goods on eBay.  They want sellers to offer change of mind returns and they want sellers to accept the risk inherent with sending goods by carrier.  However, most maller and midrange sellers have not embraced “the eBay way”.

However, there is a way that eBay can induce sellers to do what they want, namely, provide them with proper incentives to do it their way.  Unfortunately as this involves conferring a benefit to buyers which they are not legally obliged to do (accept change of mind returns) and contract out of a their deemed delivery rights, this would come a significant cost to eBay, a cost they are simply not prepared to bear.

So how do you get the same outcome without paying the price?

First you create a system whereby you can discriminate against/punish sellers who refuse to toe the eBay line.  This is the function of the deficit system.

Next you set up a process whereby though it is eBay who underwrites the buyers risk, with the seller’s liability being limited where a right of recovery actually exists, it appears to do the opposite.  This this why the Guarantee is worded the way it is.

Then you need to find some way lock up at least a portion of seller’s funds, so that if a right to recover exists you can recover without the need to take the seller to court.  This is the function of the deficits coupled with the guarantee

Then you need an in house dispute resolution process which assumes that in all cases, a right to recovery exists unless has absolute proof to the contrary.  Tis is how the Guarantee is currently being applied.

Then you, as much as possible, steer dissatisfied sellers right away from alternative dispute resolution bodies such as the Ombudsman and towards the more tradition forms of litigation - the small claims and common laws courts.  Again back to the guarantee..

So now look at the response you cited in light of the above.  That is the ability to place limitations on an existing sellers PayPal account is wholly dependent then them having accrued sufficient deficits translates into -  “Our defect rate measures how often a buyer has a problem with a transaction. Most of the time, we're unable to verify the claims of the buyer (the quality of the item, what condition the item was when the buyer received it or when it was returned to the seller, etc.). Since we can't verify the claims, we will want to err on the side of the buyer."accrued is accept any critic of the seller by a buyer, no matter how flippant, irrational or self-saving on face value.”