@springyzone wrote:
I understand what you are saying about the right of a retailer or seller to inspect goods to see if a refund is warranted but I think it gets complicated with ebay as they are not the seller. Probably more to the point, most retail stores have pretty clear guidelines for staff to follow when it comes to refunds and (most of the time) a buyer is dealing with staff who don't own the business, so have nothing to lose by giving a refund/playing fair.
On ebay a lot of the time, the opposite applies, a buyer is dealing with the person running the business or in some cases, with the occasional home seller. I don't necessarily trust them to do the right thing. After all, there is no one watching at their end to counter their claims either.
Imagine if you were a buyer with a legitimate complaint about an item, you returned it and the seller said nope, nothing wrong with it, no refund.
In a real shop, the buyer might not get a refund but at least would walk away with the item. In the above scenario, the buyer would be left with nothing.
I am quite sure you & a lot of other sellers here are honest people but there are a few who sell on ebay who are not.
That's why I said I understand the buyer would be vulnerable, so I know it's not really a viable solution for isuses with online retail, more particularly when dealing with unknown parties, sometimes even when dealing with well-established businesses.
But, an argument could also be made that certain things need to be the responsibility of the buyer, as a result of choosing to shop online over other options.
To put that in context, many online sites only accept credit card payments. Ok, so the buyer needs to have access to an acceptable payment method to shop there. They can't message a store and say "I don't have a card, you have to let me pay a different way".
Everyone hopes that nothing goes wrong with their purchase, but that's just not how it works, even with the very best of sellers, which means every time a buyer purchases something online, they really should be aware of, and accept, the possibility that they might have a responsibility (or responsibilities) to fulfil post-sale. A seller can do as much as they can to make those easier to fulfil, but they can't elininate things like the need for the buyer to drive 20ks to the post office to return the item and so on. So too, a buyer's lack of available equipment like a phone or camera is not the seller's problem - as much as a buyer who is having a difficult transaction might not like to hear it, those issues are 100% theirs, just like not being able to pay with a credit card isn't a seller's problem.
If a buyer turned around and said "I don't have a printer, so I can't print the postage label the seller purchased, so I can't return the item, give me a refund anyway", they would should be shot down instantly (figuratively speaking 
). I don't really see some buyers not having access in any way whatsoever to anything that can provide visual proof of a claim should result in 100% unquestionable acceptance of word.
In saying that, I also understand visual evidence isn't always possible, in the sense that the issue is non-visible, so any system that requests (as opposed to requires) visual evidence needs to be able to make exceptions.
I also don't see why ebay can't / won't accept evidence from the seller of incorrect items being returned, or clear evidence the issue was caused by the buyer, but that's something only they can answer.
