Selling account restricted permanently

[jpamboris]

Hi all,

My selling privileges were restricted yesterday because of the new ebay ratings. My DSR was very good but i had several cancelled transactions because of an item that i ran out of stock.

I know that i should not have something listed that i did not have avaialble however this was only for a short period (7 days). Most of the buyers were happy to wait for this dvd but there were some that wanted it cancelled and refunded. Now i feel like i should not have communicated to these buyers as i would not be in the position i am in right now. But yes, i advised all these buyers that i ran out of this title and i would have it within 7 days but i am happy to refund it if required.

I have never used the ebay inventory manager tool as i have my own system that i pay a subscription for to manage my stock levels and ordering.

I contacted Ebay customer service yesterday and was advised from their call centre in the Phillipines that this decision was final and irreversable. I argued that i was a loyal ebay customer for 10 plus years. Had paid all my fees (approx $500.00 per month) on time without delay, had feedback of >99% and my DSR's were of a high standard. I also mentioned that my rating changed on 20/08/14 and that i had 20 days to try and fix this before my account was suspended. Their response to this was "we understand but the decision is final". I then asked to be transferred to comeone who was based in Australia and who had the authority to do something about this. The response was that they support the Australian opertations and there was no one else i could contact.

I have sent an email via Ebay last night in the hope that it would get escalated somewhere but the call centre i spoke with.

Has anyone else been in this position and if so who did you contact and what was the outome?

Help and assistance needed please?

Regards

John (In2 DVD)

[donnashuggy]

If eBay are fair dinkum then the sellers I mentioned would not be around based on buyer disatisfaction and selling items not in stock.

Makes a good current affair story. I think time has come that this sort of thing is highlighted in the media.

[englishrosegardens]

---

@am*3 wrote:

Apart from the fact you shouldn't list stock you don't have. What harm did the OP's buyers suffer?Seller contacted them and gave them a choice. Some requested and received a refund, others were OK with waiting until the DVD was back in stock. 

Same punishment for OP -a permanent ban - as other sellers would get, who might have fleeced/scammed several buyers out of $1000's.

---

What harm did the buyers suffer?  How do we know how many hours of research the buyers did before they decided who to purchase from?  How many wanted the item to give as a present by a certain date?  How many only went ahead with the sale because it was too much bother to do all their buying research over again?

Are you saying it's okay to advertise that you post within one business day of receiving payment but not post for a week or two?  When he listed the 100 he knew there was a good chance he'd sell a lot more than he had in stock and that they wouldn't get posted within a day.  What if he hadn't been able to get more stock, for whatever reason?  False advertising has severe penalties from the ACCC in the 'real world' and shouldn't be allowed here either.

No, not everyone gets that he did the wrong thing.  The OP certainly doesn't get that he did the wrong thing!  He still maintains his honesty and integrity, even though he was a serial offender and regularly listed stock he didn't have.

If I bought something when there were 50 showing in stock and the seller informed me they'd run out, I'd ask for my money back simply because I knew they hadn't been honest when they did the listing.  If I can't trust them to be honest about one thing, how can I trust them in anything else.

Whether I agree with the punishment is irrelevant.  The fact is all sellers have had plenty of warning about defects and they should conduct their business in a way that minimises them as much as possible.  If we want to flout the rules we have to be prepared to accept the penalty.  We can't complain about the severity of the penalty if we had a chance to avoid it but chose not to.  Short selling is always a risky business, whether it be on the stock market or on ebay.  

Ebay shouldn't have to spend hours sifting through a seller's history to see who can be an exception to the rule.

[thecatspjs]

If you go to the media donna be sure to mention the free post push by ebay that has many sellers misrepresenting that post is included in cost of goods and is not free.

[mbselections00]

I am really hoping the petition takes off because taking that to the media would help I'm sure. Don't know whether you watch ACA, but they have helped several people reach positive outcomes with petitions for change recently

[donnashuggy]

Even if the OP is a serial offender and I don't know, why aren't eBay applying the rules to those I mentioned?

[englishrosegardens]

Yes, it's speculation, but it's based on my experience as a buyer and a seller. You can bet that a lot of them were just being polite.

[englishrosegardens]

Taking it to the media will give ebay sellers a bad name, especially those who support other sellers who've done the wrong thing.

Basically, a petition to do away with the defect system is saying that sellers think they shouldn't have to be responsible for their actions - not a good advertisement for the site.

[englishrosegardens]

How do we know that ebay aren't applying the rules to the big sellers? It's all based on percentages so the more transactions you have, the more defects you're allowed - and these are high-volume sellers.

[donnashuggy]

It's clear they haven't, the first think they do is restrict your ability to list new items, if you take a look at Dick Smith for example, they have created fresh listings today.

[motherbear2003]

For anyone contemplating listing stock they don't physically have, my understanding is you can do so as long as you make it very clear that the item is currently out of stock, and will be available within a maximum of 21 days after payment is received.

I haven't read all the posts however surely he should have taken the listings down if he was repeatedly out of stock; he would have known how high his defect rating was if he bothered to look and read up on the defect policy.

Whilst I do sympathise with his plight:( it was avoidable, imo.