item refund/return

[pennylane70]

Can someone tell me how this is fair?......I purchased a Designer Blazer from a seller who descrobed the item as mint condition with no marks. When it arrives the lining is just about falling out of the outer shell and seems to have been washed as the lining was all crumpled. When I contacted the seller about the item stating it was falsly advertised, she accused me of being a liar...so i sent her photos of the damage to which she could not possibly argue. 

I was told to pay for the return postage and she would refund only the original purchase and postage amount. 

My gripe is this....I have to fork out for a postpak that has tracking around $15 for something that was not my fault. Im not the one that described the item incorrectly. I thought I was buying something that was near mint?? 

Why should I pay the return post for something she did? shouldnt she have to wear that?.....if not its pretty unfair.

I had asked her to post me a postpak with tracking and I would return the item immediatley but she was not having any of that. 

Annoyed?....you bet.

[putney32]

when you signed up with PayPal, you did agree to abide by their rules, and terms and conditions   If as a buyer you have a problem, the return of the item is always AT YOUR COST.

a good Seller will rfund postage both ways to keep their good reputation intact, a poor seller will not, and will stick to the Paypal rule of buyer pays return

much the same as if you returned something to Myer or David Jones, you have to pay the bus fare back to the shopping center.!

[pennylane70]

thanks, 

When I took it up with Paypal I voiced my frustration with having to pay double for postage when was not my fault. Paypal emailed me today telling me they were refunding the original purchase/postage price as long as I sent the item back via tracking so that paypal have evidence its been returned.

When I asked the seller to send me a return postpak she told noway and to take it up with Paypal who will inevitably tell me to post it back at my expense. I guess she wins 😞

[digital*ghost]

---

@pennylane70 wrote:

I guess she wins 😞

---

If you allow her to keep your money, she certainly does. I don't know how much the original payment was, but if it's anything more than the cost of return, as much as I would begrudge it, I would pay it and send the item back. If it's something you can't possibly wear, then spending the $15 to get some money back will leave you in a better position than keeping it, and while you may not get return postage costs back, the seller is out the original postage (instead of you). They do get the item back, but appropriate, calm and factual feedback should help buyers make an informed choice as to whether to deal with that seller or not.

[pennylane70]

thanks, that does make sense. 🙂

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@pennylane70 wrote:

Can someone tell me how this is fair?......I purchased a Designer Blazer from a seller who descrobed the item as mint condition with no marks. When it arrives the lining is just about falling out of the outer shell and seems to have been washed as the lining was all crumpled. When I contacted the seller about the item stating it was falsly advertised, she accused me of being a liar...so i sent her photos of the damage to which she could not possibly argue. 

I was told to pay for the return postage and she would refund only the original purchase and postage amount. 

My gripe is this....I have to fork out for a postpak that has tracking around $15 for something that was not my fault. Im not the one that described the item incorrectly. I thought I was buying something that was near mint?? 

Why should I pay the return post for something she did? shouldnt she have to wear that?.....if not its pretty unfair.

I had asked her to post me a postpak with tracking and I would return the item immediatley but she was not having any of that. 

Annoyed?....you bet.

---

"Why should I pay the return post for something she did?" because they are the terms and conditions that you agreed to when joining this site.

"shouldnt she have to wear that?" well yes, she "should" but that's not what you agreed to.

"if not its pretty unfair." Then why did you agree to this when joining the site?