Buyer Refunded for lost item.... Now delivered

[thehoarderhouse]

Hi all
A buyer recently opened a case for a lost item (after lodging an inquiry with Aus post first).
Australia post advised that it was likely lost. They refunded me (the seller) which I promptly passed onto the buyer and the case was closed.
The item has now been delivered to the buyer. So now they've got their items for free!
Hardly seems fair.
I would be more than happy to send Australia Post back their refund .... but as the buyer opened a case for the unrecorded item and did not message me directly I cannot contact them - even though they had said they would definitely let me know if it did arrive.
Is there a way to contact the buyer after a case is closed?
No wonder postage costs are getting higher and higher!

[danieh_6]

Ultimately the buyer is paying for the postage not the seller, If would be included in the sales cost. The buyer is the customer, the buyer paid for the item to be delivered within a reasonable time frame so the item was deemed lost in transit Auspost made a mistake, broke their contract/TOS and kept their customer happy (Good customer service).

Epidemic aside, Australia Post have a bad track record for losing items, They broke their contract and the agreement is they have to honor the postage and item value. Technically speaking as the item is deemed lost in transit they are no longer entitled to that money based on their TOS.

If this happened to you and you were so worried about the buyer keeping the money contact the buyer or Australia Post and tell them to work out the reimbursement, not for the seller. Better yet tell the buyer to donate the money to charity.

Again I don't see why this is an issue.

[davewil1964]

---

@tazzieterror wrote:

---

@danieh_6 wrote:
... the seller should not be profiting off this. Why should the seller be paid twice for the item?

---

To borrow your own "logic", why should the buyer be profiting off this? Why should the buyer get both the item and the refund?

---

Because Australia Post claimed the item was missing. At that point compensation from Australia Post was due and paid.

If the article turns up and is delivered at a time after that, there can be an assumption that the buyer now has the article and their money.

However, the buyer could well have purchased the item from another seller and now have 2 items when they only wanted one.

None of which has anything to do with the OP, who seems to be wanting to be the Postal Ombudsman.

I have had 2 lost in transit items recently. I was compensated for both and refunded the buyers. I told them that if the item/s turned up they were free and clear - keep the item.

As far as I'm concerned, and I doubt I'm Robinson Crusoe, if AP determine that an item is lost and compensate me and I compensate the buyer that is the end of it from my point of view. If the item subsequently arrives at the buyer's place, that is a bonus for them. And if AP don't want to flag such items to determine whether or not they will try to recover the compensation, that is down to AP.

You of course realise that AP 'search' for overdue items when a case is raised. Their determination of lost can therefore be taken to mean that an exhaustive search has been completed without result. Of course it might well be the case that the occasional refund is more cost effective than actually conducting any sort of search. At which point any compensation is free and clear, and the fact that the buyer received the item eventually is irrelevant.

[tazzieterror]

---

@danieh_6 wrote:
Ultimately the buyer is paying for the postage not the seller, If would be included in the sales cost. The buyer is the customer, the buyer paid for the item to be delivered within a reasonable time frame so the item was deemed lost in transit Auspost made a mistake, broke their contract/TOS and kept their customer happy (Good customer service).
...

Again I don't see why this is an issue.

---

The seller/sender is the customer as far as Australia Post is concerned, which is why they were refunded by AP, not the buyer/receiver. The buyer didn't pay anything to Australia Post, so the fact that the seller was refunded by AP is irrelevant to the buyer's side of the equation, especially since the seller would have been forced into a refund eventully anyway, regardless of whether AP covered them for the loss.

It's interesting that in this post here, you've described that buyer repaying the seller for a refunded item that eventually arrived as "doing the right thing"; surely that means keeping the item and the refund would be the wrong thing, yet that's what you're defending here.

It would seem you hold contradicting views.

[digital*ghost]

So, uhhh...

Relevant T&Cs:

9.1 Where an amount paid by Australia Post under the Service in respect of an article, or
the contents of an article, is greater than or equal to the lesser of the replacement or
Schedule 1 Page 4
market value of that article or those contents, Australia Post may retain possession
of that article or those contents and in that event such property becomes the
property of Australia Post.
9.2 Where an article has, or the contents of an article have, been lost and a payment
has been made by Australia Post under the Service in respect of that loss and the
article is, or the contents are, subsequently found by Australia Post, Australia Post
may notify the Claimant and that Claimant shall, on repayment of Australia Post’s
payment within 30 days after receipt of that notice, be entitled to receive delivery of
the article or contents

TL;DR - if the compo was to the replacement or market value of the item, it becomes AP's property. If they find it after delivery, they may choose to seek reimbursement for the compo they provided to the sender, after which they deliver it back to the sender.

Since they opted to deliver to the recipient, I can only assume the value of the compensation was less than the item value, or AP effectively decided to give it away.

If the compo was less than the value, technically the item remains the property of the sender, I warrant (but, not being a lawyer, can't say for sure, I'm basing it on what happens if you refund a buyer in full, outside of AP paying compo etc), since the buyer was made whole with a full refund. While I am speaking legally, not "righfully" or "ethically", if the item is worth $200 and the sender was compensated $100 while the buyer was refunded $200, I would not argue with the seller approaching the buyer to sort something out). 

[danieh_6]

---

@tazzieterror wrote:

---

@danieh_6 wrote:
Ultimately the buyer is paying for the postage not the seller, If would be included in the sales cost. The buyer is the customer, the buyer paid for the item to be delivered within a reasonable time frame so the item was deemed lost in transit Auspost made a mistake, broke their contract/TOS and kept their customer happy (Good customer service).
...

Again I don't see why this is an issue.

---

The seller/sender is the customer as far as Australia Post is concerned, which is why they were refunded by AP, not the buyer/receiver. The buyer didn't pay anything to Australia Post, so the fact that the seller was refunded by AP is irrelevant to the buyer's side of the equation, especially since the seller would have been forced into a refund eventully anyway, regardless of whether AP covered them for the loss.

As usual you are stuck the in same way of thinking. If nobody buys items from your store are you still a customer for Australia Post? No my point was the Buyer is the ultimate indirect customer as the seller is not wearing the postage cost its incorperated into the total sale. Thats for when it comes to ecommerce and onlines sales. The reason why the sender is refunded is because they are the person who sent it and can describe the parcel, contents, value, label etc.

It's interesting that in this post here, you've described that buyer repaying the seller for a refunded item that eventually arrived as "doing the right thing"; surely that means keeping the item and the refund would be the wrong thing, yet that's what you're defending here.

It would seem you hold contradicting views.

Are you even reading that thread? Clearly you aren't its an INTERNATIONAL DELIVERY FROM OVERSEAS, not an item being sent from Australia via Australia Post, Big difference.

---

[kitty-kat-kollection]

Last month I refunded a buyer as their item had not arrived after 3 weeks, which in my opinion is too long. I lodged an enquiry with Australia Post after 2 weeks, and they declared it lost, but then literally 3 days after I refunded the buyer, the item was miraculously found and delivered. So...no refund for me. Oops. Oh well.

[springyzone]

---

@thehoarderhouse wrote:
Hi all
A buyer recently opened a case for a lost item (after lodging an inquiry with Aus post first).
Australia post advised that it was likely lost. They refunded me (the seller) which I promptly passed onto the buyer and the case was closed.
The item has now been delivered to the buyer. So now they've got their items for free!
Hardly seems fair.
I would be more than happy to send Australia Post back their refund .... but as the buyer opened a case for the unrecorded item and did not message me directly I cannot contact them - even though they had said they would definitely let me know if it did arrive.
Is there a way to contact the buyer after a case is closed?
No wonder postage costs are getting higher and higher!

---

No, it doesn't seem 100% fair  when someone gets something for free, but in this case you don't seem to be out of pocket and it was not a deliberate scam by the buyer or anything, so I'd be inclined to leave things as they are. Life isn't always 100% fair and there are extenuating circumstances here.

Australia Post has already made the refund and no doubt closed the books on this. They have delivered the item. To them, it may be more trouble than it is worth to have staff following this up. It could drive up postage costs higher if they have to spend too much time on things like this.

Many businesses write off some things because it is probably more cost effective. I once received a pack of glassware with 2 smashed glasses. I was fully refunded for the pack of 6 and was not required to post back the other 4. My gain, but then again, they were bought as a gift and I couldn't give it.

From the buyer's point of view, they may have received the item but obviously way later than they expected and after they had been compensated. We don't know what the item was or what it was for, but it is probably a fair bet that in the meantime, they have gone out and bought a similar item elsewhere.

In those circumstances, a lot of buyers would not feel that they should have to pay again.

[tazzieterror]

---

@danieh_6 wrote:

Are you even reading that thread? Clearly you aren't its an INTERNATIONAL DELIVERY FROM OVERSEAS, not an item being sent from Australia via Australia Post, Big difference.

---

Whether the buyer is local or overseas doesn't change anything.  Repaying a seller their refund for an item that's since arrived is either the 'right thing' or it isn't.

[danieh_6]

---

@tazzieterror wrote:

---

@danieh_6 wrote:

Are you even reading that thread? Clearly you aren't its an INTERNATIONAL DELIVERY FROM OVERSEAS, not an item being sent from Australia via Australia Post, Big difference.

---

Whether the buyer is local or overseas doesn't change anything.  Repaying a seller their refund for an item that's since arrived is either the 'right thing' or it isn't.

---

No, I think you are confused on on a two points. 1) Items being directly handled & lost by Australia Post not another courier. 2) repaying sellers is the right thing to do IF the seller is out of pocket.

I suggest re-reading both threads clearly.

[tazzieterror]

---

@danieh_6 wrote:

---

@tazzieterror wrote:

---

@danieh_6 wrote:

Are you even reading that thread? Clearly you aren't its an INTERNATIONAL DELIVERY FROM OVERSEAS, not an item being sent from Australia via Australia Post, Big difference.

---

Whether the buyer is local or overseas doesn't change anything.  Repaying a seller their refund for an item that's since arrived is either the 'right thing' or it isn't.

---

No, I think you are confused on on a two points. 1) Items being directly handled & lost by Australia Post not another courier. 2) repaying sellers is the right thing to do IF the seller is out of pocket.

I suggest re-reading both threads clearly.

---

Whether the buyer is local or overseas doesn't change anything.  Repaying a seller their refund for an item that's since arrived is either the 'right thing' or it isn't.