Additional 2% seller fees for High "Items not as described"

[cherylb8668]

I am absolutely appalled at this idea, and if I am affected in anyway, I will leave Ebay for good, When I first joined ebay sellers fees were 3% now over 11% then PayPal take their slice, I often accept returns and items apparently not as described, not that they are but because the buyer always win, I have one in the resolution centre at the moment, nothing wrong with item or the description or the photo's colours, she states "didnt like the, colour" but if I argue and stand my ground, I would cop a negative feedback from the buyer, not worth it!

Sellers are always at the dis-advantage, we can't do negative feedbacks for buyers, we loose on postage for returned items and.so many more

I had one lady purchased a fur coat for a wedding, I express posted it to her in Victoria for the up-coming Saturday, she wore it, then on the Monday she asked to return and came up with some lame excuse.

Does EBay realise there are so many options for sellers to sell their items, Facebook is getting huge, so is Etsy Poshmark Amazon, Gumtree, and so many more, without sellers, you have no Business, so why loose the one's you have

Regards Cherylb8668

[collect247]

I agree with you 100%.

But eBay care more about the buyers than the sellers lol.

And I don't think you're allowed to name other platforms but good on ya.

[clubesquire]

I was lookng at this just a while ago. In the absence of a declared number, as in what number of NAD’s and over what period of time constitutes a ‘high NAD count’, I’ve  been looking for the alternative of how they define ‘high’, but no luck there as yet either.

Anyone?

Melina.

[digital*ghost]

---

@clubesquire wrote:

I was lookng at this just a while ago. In the absence of a declared number, as in what number of NAD’s and over what period of time constitutes a ‘high NAD count’, I’ve  been looking for the alternative of how they define ‘high’, but no luck there as yet either.

Anyone?

Melina.

---

I was wondering the same thing.

So far, they have announced a 2% increase (I guess that means 12.9% if the rate is 10.9%) may be applied to sellers with a high rate of INADS, in "affected categories". 

What is "very high"? What failsafes will be there to prevent low-volume sellers from being affected unfairly (eg sell two items, one is subject to an INAD request, meaning a 50% rate, technically "very high" I suppose, but I would like to think eBay wouldn't apply this policy in those circumstances). 

What are the affected categories, why haven't they been included in the announcement, and why only selected categories anyway? 

I didn't see it mentioned anywhere if it's just the request being opened that counts, or only those resolved in the buyer's favour, either. (I suspect the former, though). 

The announcement is even more void of information than usual. 

[clubesquire]

@ Cherry....

Immediately prior to your post I was thinking, perhaps a good idea in some respects by bringing to heel some of our bodgey sellers (plenty that walk among us), but I realise there are plenty of honest, good sellers too that are ‘made to look’ bad and dodgey by bad and dodgey buyers.

Where to land with this?

Gawd! We’re opening a store. Some policy of late is not too conducive to it though.

Melina

[wide-world-of-stamps]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

---

@clubesquire wrote:

I was lookng at this just a while ago. In the absence of a declared number, as in what number of NAD’s and over what period of time constitutes a ‘high NAD count’, I’ve  been looking for the alternative of how they define ‘high’, but no luck there as yet either.

Anyone?

Melina.

---

I was wondering the same thing.

So far, they have announced a 2% increase (I guess that means 12.9% if the rate is 10.9%) may be applied to sellers with a high rate of INADS, in "affected categories". 

What is "very high"? What failsafes will be there to prevent low-volume sellers from being affected unfairly (eg sell two items, one is subject to an INAD request, meaning a 50% rate, technically "very high" I suppose, but I would like to think eBay wouldn't apply this policy in those circumstances). 

What are the affected categories, why haven't they been included in the announcement, and why only selected categories anyway? 

I didn't see it mentioned anywhere if it's just the request being opened that counts, or only those resolved in the buyer's favour, either. (I suspect the former, though). 

The announcement is even more void of information than usual. 

---

On re-reading the announcement, our interpretation of "affected categories" is that they will apply the higher fees to a particular seller's items in the category in which the INADS have featured.

Not sure if that's what they mean, but it's one interpretation.

[go-tazz]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

---

@clubesquire wrote:

I was lookng at this just a while ago. In the absence of a declared number, as in what number of NAD’s and over what period of time constitutes a ‘high NAD count’, I’ve  been looking for the alternative of how they define ‘high’, but no luck there as yet either.

Anyone?

Melina.

---

I was wondering the same thing.

So far, they have announced a 2% increase (I guess that means 12.9% if the rate is 10.9%) may be applied to sellers with a high rate of INADS, in "affected categories". 

What is "very high"? What failsafes will be there to prevent low-volume sellers from being affected unfairly (eg sell two items, one is subject to an INAD request, meaning a 50% rate, technically "very high" I suppose, but I would like to think eBay wouldn't apply this policy in those circumstances). 

What are the affected categories, why haven't they been included in the announcement, and why only selected categories anyway? 

I didn't see it mentioned anywhere if it's just the request being opened that counts, or only those resolved in the buyer's favour, either. (I suspect the former, though). 

The announcement is even more void of information than usual. 

---

This sound like it's to replace the defect system that they had in place that obviously didn't work,(so they are

trying again to bring in a system that will allow buyers to once again blackmail/coerce sellers into refunds

or free items so that they don't get marked down via NAD items),

Seeing as most of the NAD items seem to be from Chinese sellers I can't see this as a system that will work the

way they want it to unless they want to shaft genuine sellers again because of numpty buyers,

[digital*ghost]

---

 wrote:

On re-reading the announcement, our interpretation of "affected categories" is that they will apply the higher fees to a particular seller's items in the category in which the INADS have featured.

Not sure if that's what they mean, but it's one interpretation.

---

That would actually make sense (in the sense that it sounds more applicable to "affected categories").

@tazz - there are no problems on eBay unless eBay can find a way to solve it via increasing fees. 

[mbselections00]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

---

@tazz - there are no problems on eBay unless eBay can find a way to solve it via increasing fees. 

---

[countessalmirena]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

The announcement is even more void of information than usual. 

---

I was drinking my orange-mango sugar-free Sodastream drink and had to control myself severely when reading this.