@audistarelectronics wrote:Hi all, appears to be some confusion regarding who has to wear it when items are lost with Aust Post. I have lodgement receipts, and tracking shows the items have gone through Sydney, but thats where they stop, according to the tracking. I don't wish for my buyers to be giving me a neg, if I have to refund, I will. Aust Post have emailed me with their results of my two cases open with them, and they have requested values of the items, and the postage costs involved. I believe they may offer some type of payment when they lose items, but it probably wont cover the full value. It is a joke that we sellers really need to insure items in case they lose them. I mean, why should we pay extra, on top of the skyrocketing postage costs, to cover them for not doing their job and losing stuff. This is three items they have lost with me, in two weeks. A joke.
Wow, talk about a topic that has been taken off course.
Here's my take on it.
1. Topic was originally about who has to bear the loss-buyer or seller-when an outside agency loses an item.
Therefore, the topic is just as relevant to buyers as sellers. It doesn't matter which of those boards it is on. If a topic is seriously in the wrong place, the mods move it for the person, so no one here needs to work up a sweat worrying about it.
I'm pretty much a buyer these days and I find the subject of who wears it when Aust post loses an item very interesting.
From what I've read in posts in the past, the degree of proof needed can vary, with some items just having to show as delivered within a suburb for it to be deemed as received by a buyer.
In this case, it does seem as if Aust Post has lost the items & acknowledges that and there may be some compensation, though maybe not to the full extent of the original price.
If that is the case, I would think it probably falls to the seller to refund the buyer if they don't receive the item within a reasonable time.
2. Audio at no time said he was actually crying about a possible neg, he said he didn't wish for his buyers to be giving him a neg. Can't see that saying he doesn't want a neg is anything radically unusual. havn't struck a seller yet who actually wants negs. I know when we were selling, we liked having a 100% rating and would have been disappointed to lose it.
However, I am with countess on this and don't believe a seller should let it be the main or only consideration. I believe if you are on ebay long enough and do enough deals, eventually you're likely to strike an unreasonable buyer or get a neg for an unfair reason. If it happens, quite often other buyers can see through it. And that's the main thing, isn't it. Feedback is mainly there as a guide for other buyers.
In this case though, a neg would be for items not received. For a neg like that, I think a seller needs to be able to respond that an item was lost in Aust post, full refund given.
3. Lots of people are both buyers and sellers. The fact audio had a problem with an item he bought doesn't mean he is necessarily a bad seller or has double standards about transactions. From memory, his purchase experience was totally different to this one. No item received by ETA, no tracking details provided till after that, Aust post confirmation the item was not sent till much later.
In this case, we have a seller with tracking evidence the item was sent when claimed, confirmation from Aust post they can't find it and it has not been delivered. Chalk & cheese and in any case, not related to his opening post here.
-------
If i were the seller, I'd explain to the buyer what was happening, ask them to wait a few extra days to see if it was sorted and assure them that if it remained lost after that, that i would refund them.
Then follow through. If you do get a neg, at least you will have a reasonable response.
As for things lost with Aust Post. I personally have rarely had trouble, I have found they are usually reliable, but of course stuff does happen sometimes. Their terms and conditions aren't likely to change too much so sometimes it is probably a good idea to just insure for more expensive items and maybe build that into the cost of the item.
