I think I'm done eBay

[belindabargainhunter]

So I received an item today a pair of shoes that was ment to be new in the box however it did say worn once which I took for trying on inside, otherwise how is it new.
I received it in the mail mud at least I hope it mud on the soles, soles worn down and inside of the shoes u can see foot prints.
I emailed the seller only to get all captain responses telling me it said worn once. I explained yes but then how are they new in the box.
Anyways after just rude I don't give two hoots answers and I decided stuff it my money's gone its not worth the return but this seller is getting a negative. Something I have only done once maybe twice.
Well what do I learn power sellers can't receive neg for 7 days after purchase. What the what makes a power seller any different to other sellers. So because this person is a power seller they can be rude, send clearly not as described items. Not happy eBay

[belindabargainhunter]

Yeh I the photos up later on a lap top I might stop using the phone. I guess my biggest thing is why different rules for different people. Seven days is not a long time but why do power sellers get this.
I'm not sure if I will bother with PayPal or not but the replies given did get my back up.
Oh and crikey how do u see what I have bought

[digital*ghost]

---

@belindabargainhunter wrote:
I guess my biggest thing is why different rules for different people. Seven days is not a long time but why do power sellers get this.
I'm not sure if I will bother with PayPal or not but the replies given did get my back up.
Oh and crikey how do u see what I have bought

---

It's a pretty minor protection for sellers in the grand scheme of things, and was introduced before the limits for reaching PS status were as low as they are now.

The thinking behind it probably encompassed a range of things - Power Sellers were obviously established sellers, and those that sold consistently at a certain volume, and it was probably more likely they would be willing to try to work with the buyer to resolve any issues (on the presumption that they are - or at least operate as - a professional business). It also helps prevent malicious feedback - those that buy just to neg etc, and perhaps PS'ers were more likely to be the targets of such things. 

It probably wouldn't matter too much if the rule was brought in across the board - I know I wouldn't have a problem with it being in place for all sellers.

BTW, anyone can conduct an advanced search on a user Id to see recent purchase history - it doesn't matter if the FB is private, that only means they can't look at FB on your profile.

[*crikey*mate*]

*puts hardhat on*

I've been thinking about this for a while now, and when I looked at the pics last night, it didn't seem obvious to me that the shoes weren't in "as new" condition.

I'm torn here, I think that sellers like that should be reported to Trust and Safety, but I'm hesitant to get someone into trouble too.

That listing contravenes at least 2 listing policies.

Search manipulation and can't remember the otherone fraudulent listing practises?

OK, the fact they were kids shoes, "worn once" (to be fair the seller didn't say, worn once for 18 hours to a day at the carnival in the middle of the bush on a rainy day) byt listed as new in box coupled with the feedback would have had me reaching for either the question button or the back button, but then, I'm not everybody.

I think we all have to remember that whilst we have to be over 18 to use eBay and have a legal capacity to do so, there are many people who just aren't aware of the tricks people will use to get business etc, of the tactics or the ethics of some people.

I'm not sure how to word that any more tactfully and it's my birthday today (Yay me) and I am not in the mood for a public flogging, so I will refrain from being politically oincorrect - so just read between the lines, can yas?)

Anyway the point is, shopping for stuff just isn't meant to be hard - it's a pair of sneakers for a kid! And lots of people are kind of trusting..

I just think when the practises of sellers come to our attention such as that, that maybe we as just decent people have a duty to report them and try and make this a as safe a place as possible for all people using this site - not just the really experienced or hardened users.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@belindabargainhunter wrote:
Yeh I the photos up later on a lap top I might stop using the phone. I guess my biggest thing is why different rules for different people. Seven days is not a long time but why do power sellers get this.
I'm not sure if I will bother with PayPal or not but the replies given did get my back up.
Oh and crikey how do u see what I have bought

---

Belinda, I can only see the last 30 days, your purchase history for the last 30 days shows up in advanced search when you search "as a bidder" (put your userID in the search term) and select (I think) completed listings.

belinda, I don't know what the shoes are like, but can they be washed? That might help to make them worth a little bit of money to you, otherwise, I think by returning them, you would still get about $17 in your pocket (even though you have to pay return post) and it's better in your pocket that a fraudulent, scamming, con artist.

At the very least, I think that the seller needs to be brought to the attention of eBay so that eBay can "guide the seller" and teach them correct listing practises.

[medaman1234]

Just do what I did, wait for 7 days and then give the negative feedback.

My item was basically the same situation. though it wasn't expensive, the description was incorrect and not what I was buying. (It was a winter skirt, listed as a summer skirt),  I wasn't going to pay $12 to return it, I already paid $12 to get it,  so I just tried to leave neutral feedback because it arrived within 2 days, so I decided to at least give the seller some merit for fast delivery but  It said I couldn't leave it for 7 days, so I just waited it out and then I gave the feedback anyway. Nothing changed my mind.

Sellers need to think about their listing description and headings and make sure everything is correct, instead of making the listing heading and description using keywords that are designed to attract everyone and not just a few buyers that actually want the item.

[davewil1964]

---

@jameshouseofstyle wrote:

Hi belinda,

what a terrible thing to happen! And also so obvius from the pics.

There is a bit of responsibility that you also have to take for not questioning the appearance of the shoes as well as the exact condition before you bought them - not that that excuses the seller's misrepresentation and reluctance to help afterwards.

But with leaving a neg - you really have to be careful how to word it, not so much that Ebay doesn't remove it (that would be a cheap option), but to avoid being taken to court by the seller if the f/back is not to his liking!

Ebay now doesn't accept defamation forms, one has to go to court and get a court order.

To cover myself, I asked a law firm (recently I bought something and was tempted to leave a neg) - and the trouble with that is that anything derogatory is wieved as defaming someone publicly, not only that they get the court order to remove it , they get punitive damages and all court costs awarded as well - payable by the buyer!

They told me that court would take an average earnings per day of the seller, and award damages for each day that goes by with the neg present accordingly - and my seller was HUGE, definitely didn't want to take a chance! Not worth the worry,  especially about something stupid like a neg that not many buyers would pay any mind to anyway.

In my case, item was perfect, seller was rude and arrogant - so I couldn't really leave f/back like that, even Ebay would have most likely removed it.

If I was you, I would claim through PP if you paid that way, forget about the f/back - and shop with them again.

Best of luck, but don't be put of Ebay - not every seller is like that, thankfully.

---

What a lot of garbage.

FACTUAL feedback cannot be the subject of a defamation claim. Something like "Not New, if worn once it was a 1000km forced hike" could in no way be classed as defamation. Especially as the terms 'New in Box' and 'Worn Once' are mutually exclusive. Besides a defamation claim would have to do harm to the seller's reputation. If they have a habit of collecting negatives, then another one is not going to harm their, already tarnished, reputation.

There is also the public interest defence, but I'll let crikey give you both barrels on that one.

[*crikey*mate*]

I just need some time to stop laughing first Dave.

and once the laughter subsides, I will undoubtedly have to wait for the disbelief that anyone could write such unsubstantiated and misinformed twaddle to similarly pass.

[phorum_junkie*]

An absolute defense against defamation, slander or libel is that what has been said or written is untrue.

I absolutely agree that the seller deserves the neg, the 7 day rule just means you have longer to be creative with ehst you leave. There is no excuse for listing as new although if they qualify it with worn once I would not expect anything in as new condition. Even if you are not going to waste your money retuening them I would still open a dispute and wait 19 days before escalating so you at least tie their money up for that length of time. As long as I am going to be up on the deal even if the return is only a dollar less than I paid then I would still return them.

[davewil1964]

Don't you mean true, pj?

[phorum_junkie*]

Blushing profusely, of course thst is what I meant. It is esrly mornong here and I am still on my forst cup of coffee lol.