Buyer looking for refund

[ntnjj23]

Hi, Looking for an opinion.  Sold an Applie iPod Touch, 1st Generation.  Wiped the item back to factory settings.  Item was working before being packaged and sent.  The item was packaged correctly and sent to successful buyer.  Postage was listed as general post.   Buyer did not request insurance or ask for registered mail.  I have been told that the item has arrived with a cracked screen (no photo supplied) and that the buyer can't get it to sync to his computer.  Have suggested that it will need updated software as it was wiped to factory settings.  Buyer does not appear to be all that tech savy.   Buyer is requesting a refund.  I feel that all the correct things have been done here, and not sure where to from here.  I have followed all the rules according to ebay.  Appreciate any advice.

[designers*n*more]

Oh wow, hadn't read that one Digi. What a joke!

[designers*n*more]

I've contacted Help asking for clarification between the two contradicting policies. Will be interesting to see what the response is. Will post back when I get a response!

[clarry100]

I was not aware of that blatant cointradiction in policies either DG. Thanks for highlighting that one.

It would be interesteing to see their response to the clarification question on this one. I'm sure they will find a way to wiggle around it tho.

As you say there must be many such contradictions in their policies. Plain wrong really that they should be making decisions when this exists.

[clarry100]

IMHO "Damage in Transit" should not be allowed as a buyer SNAD claim under the terms of their MBG as its impossible for any seller to predict what damage (if any) might occur during transit and correctly describe that damage in the listing so that the damage it arrives with has been fully described in the listing.

Any guesses at the kind of wording one might use in a listing to head off such SNAD claims so any such claim by a buyer could be invalidated by the seller.

[phorum_junkie*]

If damage in transit is not allowed as not as described then who should compensate the buyer if I pack a china item in a satchel with no internal packaging? Obviously not A~P's fault, not ebay's fault, not Paypal's fault and definitely not the buyer's fault.

A solution could be that buyer should have to take the damaged item and packaging to the PO and put in a claim, if that is allowed then there is no need for them to ask ebay to step in as AP will compensate them. If the seller failed to pay for insurance if it is over $50 then they should have to pay the balance. If the buyer refuses to do that then ebay should turn down their claim or pay the compensation themselves if they feel it is due.

Alternatively the buyer should have to return the item with the packaging and a copy of the form assigning the right to claim to the seller. The seller then refunds and if the packaging was good enough AP will compensate them, if it wasn't then they have to refund the refund postage as well on top of the original refund.

Of course it will never happen and ebay will remain as intractable as ever but it is always worth calling ebay and pleading your case, it costs nothing and now and again they make a right decision.

[clarry100]

Yep agree... something needs to change.

Perhaps there needs to be a third MBG claim category.

Then processes similar to what you describe have to take place.

Yes you are correct that if the seller inadequately packs an item and it gets damaged then only the seller should be held responsible.

But there should be some onus placed on the buyer to show proof that the item is indeed damaged beyond repair and is unusable.

As you say once the buyer receives the item the onus is on them to chase Aust Post for compensation as the item (and its packaging) is in their ownership then. But if AP say inadequate packaging, which they undoubtedly will, then there will have to be some haggling to decide if it is seller responsibility or AP responsibility. But it should not be buyer responsibility definitley.

Complex issue and, sadly, unlikely to change any time soon.

But I don't believe it should be allowed as a claim for item significantly not as described.

[designers*n*more]

EBay's clarification on "Damaged in Transit" for Money Back Guarantee

its interesting to note what the clarifications are, but nowhere in the policies is this explained!

eBay
RE: Re: Handling returns from buyers SR# 1-107593025826

Hi,

Thanks for getting back to us in regard to our ebay money back guarantee policy.

I understand that you want to clear things out in regard to our coverage for our money back guarantee policy. I'm here to help and guide you with this transaction.

I've checked the communication that you've sent us in regard to our policy for damaged item during postage. To clarify everything let me discuss into details what we've meant for the policy that you're inquiring for.

Not Covered
Items damaged during pick-up or postage - this is not covered once the item was pick up and filed a claim for a physical damage for an item. This also refers to an item that was posted and the buyer is the one who initiated the delivery for the transaction.

Covered
An item isn't received or it isn't significantly as described in the listing. - this claim is covered once the item is not as described from the sellers listing. This goes when you've received a damage item and the seller is the one who initiated delivery.

I trust that I've explained everything clearly. Thanks for choosing eBay.

Kind Regards,

April A.

[digital*ghost]

Interesting, and a little curious - the MBG used to state that (albeit in a slightly confusing way), so I still have to wonder if they're talking about the old policy wording, and / or why whoever changed the wording made it such a simple and fairly categoric statement that appears to exclude all transit damage, no matter who organised the shipping. With no provisos, and with such misleading wording, a seller could (legally) push the issue if they wanted to. o.o