Any chance of removal ?

[flotsam-jetsom]

Hi all, story goes, sent reminder on day 5 to buyer, opened UPI day 7, buyer paid day 8, case closed. A week later we receive negative: Great item SHOCKING SELLER IMPATIENT DEMAND PMT - NOT DEAL AGAIN

Goes witout saying that no feedback has or will be left for this buyer and have put on our BBL

eBay states 4 days can open UPI, close 4 days later if no payment.

Should we ask eBay to remove fb on the grounds that we were following eBay protocol?? Bit cheesed off actually, 8+ years and first ever neg!

[patchoo78]

Something along lines of "guilty! buyer ignores msgs, only pays when UPI case opened ON DAY 7, I'm impatient?"

Bad idea... That just makes the seller look bad.. Also if you mention a UPI dispute that makes the seller look even worse.. I would just leave it and wait for it to drop off the page..

[badboybartie]

"eBay states 4 days can open UPI, close 4 days later if no payment"

EBay also states buyers have the option to leave feedback according to their perception of the transaction - positive, negative or neutral.  You chose to use the option of opening an UID on day 7 because you felt you had been patient enough waiting for your buyer to pay...your buyer chose to use the option of leaving you negative feedback because he/she obviously felt you had been impatient in opening the dispute.

[thesoulyearns]

leader-of-the-band: "on what grounds?"

By claiming the seller was impatient by following eBay protocol is to claim the eBay system is impatient. As a buyer, they agreed to accept eBay's conditions of business when purchasing from an eBay seller. It's defaming eBay by slandering the agreement in a public forum (Feedback comments) and unnecessarily using a simple seller as a way of doing that.

By reading eBay's rules, every party in that transaction should have known what they were facing should any late/non-payment situation arise.

[badboybartie]

"By claiming the seller was impatient by following eBay protocol is to claim the eBay system is impatient"

It's not eBays "protocol" for sellers to open up UID on day 5 or 7 (or whenever) - it's an option...much like the feedback system.  Buyers don't have to leave feedback...sellers don't have to leave feedback...in the same way sellers don't have to open up an UID at any point.   

[badboybartie]

"As a buyer, they agreed to accept eBay's conditions of business when purchasing from an eBay seller."

The same can be said for feedback - that is, as a seller, you agree to have your performance and items rated on a public platform according to your buyer's perception of both.

[jensmanchester-australia]

"As a buyer, they agreed to accept eBay's conditions of business when purchasing from an eBay seller."

The same can be said for feedback - that is, as a seller, you agree to have your performance and items rated on a public platform according to your buyer's perception of both.

From eBay it is stated that:-

You cannot remove Feedback you have left, so be sure to leave only fair and factual comments and ratings that relate to a specific transaction you have with your trading partner.

Although the buyer may have perceived that the seller was impatient and demanded payment this is not a fact and as such can cause damage to the reputation of the seller.

If the buyer can prove this then it is a different matter but considering the amount of time the buyer took to pay and also that the seller gave the buyer option to mutually cancel the transaction when the reminder was sent on day 5 the buyer would find it very hard to prove that the seller was impatient and demanded payment.

[badboybartie]

"Although the buyer may have perceived that the seller was impatient and demanded payment this is not a fact and as such can cause damage to the reputation of the seller."

An UID is a "demand"...simply because there are negative consequences for non compliance...a strike on one's account an the inability to leave feedback.  In regard to her use of the terms of, "impatient" and "shocking"...she may have felt the seller had been impatient and the UID/demand for payment may have come as an unpleasant surprise on day 7...so this is very much a matter of perspective - in other words, the buyer left factual feedback according to her perception of the transaction.

[thesoulyearns]

This is a tricky one... it may come down to the perception of the word "demand."

If you look at it another way, if flotsam had chosen to open a Mutual Cancellation, the buyer could have argued they "demanded" the cancellation without giving the buyer enough time to pay. Or, if flotsam had not done anything and given them three months to pay, then just relisted the item, the seller could argue that they were going to pay on the fourth month but the item was relisted, so they didn't have a chance...

Depending on how you look at it, flotsam was in a lose-lose in this case. Simply an unhappy buyer who may have just made the wrong purchase choice but felt compelled to prevent a strike against their name and begrudginly paid.

[badboybartie]

"if flotsam had chosen to open a Mutual Cancellation, the buyer could have argued they "demanded" the cancellation without giving the buyer enough time to pay"

No, it wouldn't be a reasonable argument - a Mutual Cancellation is an option....it's not a "demand" because there are no negative consequences if declined. 

[tuffy42tuffy]

Seems as though the feedback system needs to be reviewed with such an unfair feedback being given to a highly respected member of eight years without a blemish...?