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]

---

@englishrosegardens wrote:
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.

---

There is nothing wrong with letting the media know when eBay won't listen to logical reasons as to why it is unfair.

[dylan11235813]

---

@englishrosegardens wrote:
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.

---

It gives ebay a bad name and definately wouldn't be good especially with the big sundays and all.

I couldn't care less if a seller got banned for doing the wrong thing. I just don't think a one week delay is that big of a deal especially when I have had to send two seperate orders out one week apart to customers (because they didn't get the first one) and they have arrived at the same time. 

The defect system is flawed going by everything I have read and experienced with it. My defects are down lower but just the other day someone opened an item not received case after 4 days (thats with a one day handling time listing). It turns out the item arrived the next day, case closed, defect.

[englishrosegardens]

---

@donnashuggy wrote:

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.

---

Have you proof that Dick Smith or the others have more than the allowed number of defects?

Buyers have to take some responsibility for their actions and I think anyone who buys from DS or others with similar feedback can't really blame anyone but themselves if they end up with problems.  It's the less obvious rule-breakers that need to be dealt with, which is exactly what ebay are doing.  I'm not saying DS should get away with anything, but their negs should be enough to ring alarm bells for most people.

[thecatspjs]

---

@donnashuggy wrote:

 Because they are protected, plain and simple, different rules if your name happens to be Dick Smith, they did have an inventory management problem, I doubt that would work as an excuse for the average seller.

---

I imagine the corporate contract between eBay and Dick Smith looks very different to the (very one sided) user agreement that individuals and small business sign off on.

I imagine to attract store names with a high level of the recognition, terms may include significantly lower FVF, perhaps even capped, and maybe commitments made by eBay in terms of product placement in search results and promotions.  Pure speculation of course.

[digital*ghost]

Re: the seller with 96.3% FB...

5% of defects is the maximum eBay allow for a seller to have, that being 5% of total transactions - they clearly haven't reached that yet on the FB received.

If we assume that they are receiving the average amount of FB return (say 75% give or take of buyers leave FB), then it would be a ball-park estimate to say that they have around 7000 transactions a month - take off say 1000 of that to account for transactions with multiple item purchases counting as 1 transaction  (they'd still receive more than 1 FB in the 1 / 6 / 12 month tally, but it still only counts as one transaction).

So, for a seller with 6000 transactions a month, 5% defects is 300, or 900 for the 3-month evaluation period. One transaction may receive many defects, but it still only counts once towards the percentage, so as a very rough estimate (since there's likely to be non-visible defects accrued) that seller is currently running at around 2/3 or so of the maximum amount of defects allowed. We also don't know the reason they are choosing to cancel transactions when they can't supply an item, or indeed if they are cancelling those transactions at all, so it definitely is not a given that they have more than 5% total defects, but at the same time they are one of the sellers eBay wooed here (you can tell by the fact that they have their logo in the search results - only the "special" few get that privilege), so it's also not a far stretch to imagine part of the incentive package is greater leeway in some areas. 

[donnashuggy]

I would still buy from them if I wanted something they had at a good price, there is always paypal to fall back on.

Their negs for the last month alone are enough defects to impact their account. I am only annoyed at the obvious bias that eBay has in looking after the big guys, and yes I have spoken directly to eBay staff about them to be told of their inventory problems. Can you see the unfairness? They would have their account flagged for sure - without a doubt.

I've been trading for a long time, about 12 years, this is the first time I have ever been restricted, I have a fair idea of what is right and wrong and ebay have this one wrong.

[donnashuggy]

---

@thecatspjs wrote:

---

@donnashuggy wrote:

 Because they are protected, plain and simple, different rules if your name happens to be Dick Smith, they did have an inventory management problem, I doubt that would work as an excuse for the average seller.

---

I imagine the corporate contract between eBay and Dick Smith looks very different to the (very one sided) user agreement that individuals and small business sign off on.

I imagine to attract store names with a high level of the recognition, terms may include significantly lower FVF, perhaps even capped, and maybe commitments made by eBay in terms of product placement in search results and promotions.  Pure speculation of course.

---

They have dedicated staff here in Sydney to get these guys on board and look after them. I've met these staff and told them that these big sellers need training.

[dylan11235813]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

Re: the seller with 96.3% FB...

5% of defects is the maximum eBay allow for a seller to have, that being 5% of total transactions - they clearly haven't reached that yet on the FB received.

If we assume that they are receiving the average amount of FB return (say 75% give or take of buyers leave FB), then it would be a ball-park estimate to say that they have around 7000 transactions a month - take off say 1000 of that to account for transactions with multiple item purchases counting as 1 transaction  (they'd still receive more than 1 FB in the 1 / 6 / 12 month tally, but it still only counts as one transaction).

So, for a seller with 6000 transactions a month, 5% defects is 300, or 900 for the 3-month evaluation period. One transaction may receive many defects, but it still only counts once towards the percentage, so as a very rough estimate (since there's likely to be non-visible defects accrued) that seller is currently running at around 2/3 or so of the maximum amount of defects allowed. We also don't know the reason they are choosing to cancel transactions when they can't supply an item, or indeed if they are cancelling those transactions at all, so it definitely is not a given that they have more than 5% total defects, but at the same time they are one of the sellers eBay wooed here (you can tell by the fact that they have their logo in the search results - only the "special" few get that privilege), so it's also not a far stretch to imagine part of the incentive package is greater leeway in some areas. 

---

so whats the total?

[punch*drunk]

The fact that ebay protects the big sellers doesnt justify other sellers doing the wrong thing. Its a totally separate issue and its always gone on, look at that machinery company with the magically disappearing neg feedback.

I do find it a bit concerning that the OP doesnt seem to acknowledge that this sanction has been caused by a deliberate violation of listing policy. The kind of problem that turns buyers away from ebay and loses all sellers customers. I dont agree with the punishment as I mentioned earlier I'd prefer to see a restriction on listing quantities, but if getting a permanent ban hasnt made it sink it, what will?

[thecatspjs]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

Re: the seller with 96.3% FB...

5% of defects is the maximum eBay allow for a seller to have, that being 5% of total transactions - they clearly haven't reached that yet on the FB received.

---

But some defects have more sting than others (for some)

The cut and paste from site map as posted on a similar thread means that regardless of your overall defect count and seller status that you are skating on thin ice very quickly if you have relatively few paypal cases found in a buyers favour.

Cases closed without seller resolution

To meet our minimum standards, you can only have 2 transactions (or 0.3% of transactions) resulting in cases closed without seller resolution over the most recent evaluation period. The percentage requirement applies after the account has exceeded the maximum number of occurrences.

[thecatspjs]

But some defects have more sting than others (for some)

The cut and paste from site map as posted on a similar thread means that regardless of your overall defect count and seller status that you are skating on thin ice very quickly if you have relatively few paypal cases found in a buyers favour.

[thecatspjs]

Cases closed without seller resolution

To meet our minimum standards, you can only have 2 transactions (or 0.3% of transactions) resulting in cases closed without seller resolution over the most recent evaluation period. The percentage requirement applies after the account has exceeded the maximum number of occurrences.