Dishonest buyer

[aristides52]

I recently sold a bluetooth speaker, which was used but in perfect working condition. I had provided accurate info and images on the listing. I had thoroughly tested it and fully charged it before sending it out. A few days after receiving the item, the buyer opened a dispute stating the item was "dead-on-arrival" and that he tried charging the speaker for days, but it wouldn't power on. I provided as much support and guidance to the buyer to get the speaker to work, but he was adamant that it was dead and eventually got ebay to initiate a return. The buyer simply put up one shady image and that was obviously without pressing the power button. I got the item and I tested it and it was in perfect working condition. I immediately shared images of the working item with ebay, including screenshots from my phone to prove that the speaker also connected with the phone. But ebay just didn't listen to my claim and simply went ahead and refunded the buyer. To make things worse, the buyer left negative feedback and now it's also a defect against my seller performance. Plus ebay has also refused to credit the selling fees for this transaction. I've argued so many times with ebay, but they repeatedly keep stating that they are unable to validate my claim and that the buyer had every right to return the item if it didn't work. And it wasn't rocket science to get a bluetooth speaker to work. I've sold several items in the past and there was not a single instance where I had sold a faulty item. Besides, I offered free postage and spent $10.50 out of my pocket and yet ebay won't listen to me at all.

Can someone please advise of possible options? 

ebay is just over-protecting buyers who simply exploit the money-back guarantee. And the seller protection is purely on paper and good for nothing.

[davewil1964]

Correct - the buyer is king.

You have no recourse, unfortunately. At least you got your speakers back.

[kopenhagen5]

And no negative feedback. 

[rocket2retro]

These days with eBay, despite your losses, you're one of the luckier ones to have got your item back & working (ie not deliberately broken by the buyer). Doesn't matter what you do the buyer is always right in their eyes.

Over 20,000 sales I've never been the benficiary of seller protection (not even once). It is just a rort to make it look like they're being fair.

[justkidzbiz]

Doesn't matter what you say, show (via pics) etc as a seller when it comes to SNAD. Ebay will almost ALWAYS side with the buyer regardless of anything you say. There bs response is that they physically don't see the item so they have to take the buyers word.

I even had one buyer return a totally different, faded well worn item, and guess what, the buyer was refunded. When I jumped up and down (over a $110 item), ebay just said "well the buyer returned "AN ITEM" so we must refund them." Plus I had to pay return postage. 

I emailed led the buyer showing his returned item and the item I sold and his response was simply, "ah sorry, my bad" eBay refused to reopen the case.

Its almost getting to the point that you really only want to offer local pick up these days. 

The he number of SNAD is getting out of control and eBay will not do anything about. 😟

[kopenhagen5]

Wow, that's very poor form.

Maybe that's a good reason to stop leaving feedback until buyer has.

Then I would leave a pos with " xxxbuyers IDxxx returned wrong item, refunded.

A good chance that won't removed and everyone seeing it could add them to their party list.

[imastawka]

OP, you got your item back.   That was when you should have refunded.

Ebay stepping in and refunding is what got you the defect.

So, in essence, you got the defect through your own actions, not the buyers.

At least the item still works for you to re-list.

Ring ebay to get your fees refunded.

[digital*ghost]

The other day, I was browsing the net and spotted this article in The Guarian.

Ebay accused of failing its sellers as fraudulent buyers manipulate the system

There's two particularly interesting things within that article.

The first is this:

"“There is something wrong,” eBay admitted last April. “The system (they are referring to the MBG) was built on the premise that most people are honest. It needs to be more intuitive.”

Under the experimental scheme, a seller can ask eBay to intervene before issuing a refund if a buyer returns a damaged or substitute item. Ordinarily, they have a week to resolve the dispute before having to part with their money, but an unscrupulous buyer can ignore contact and open a claim directly with eBay. In many cases it issues an automatic refund without any evidence from the seller being considered."

It's interesting that they claim the system was built on the premise that most 'people' are honest, because aside from the fact that "most' inherently implies that some are not, I can virtually gurantee that the majority of sellers do not feel like they are being presumed honest when dealing with this system and that a more accurate statement would have been 'built on the premise that buyers are honest', but I digress as that seems to be what the second paragraph intends to address - that there is some acknowledgement not all people are honest, and that sellers may have an opportunity to prove their particular buyer isn't. 

-But-

Then we get to the last paragraph of the article. It speaks of a seller who had received a return of a damaged product, sent images to eBay of the damaged product (presumably via the trial program, which to my knowledge has never been conducted here), but the evidence was ignored and the buyer refunded. Eventually, this happened: "Ebay decided to refund him as a goodwill gesture after an Observer investigation, but claimed that since it never gets sight of items it could not judge whether the correct item was returned."

So, one wonders what the actual point of acknowledging some buyers are dishonest, implementing a program for sellers to show when they are not before the buyer gets a refund, but then saying "well, that doesn't prove anything" and refunding the buyer anyway. False hope (via their ever-traditional lip service to sellers) IMHO is worse than no hope, and the mind boggles at the lack of logic - if they don't sight the items, they can't judge whether the correct item was received, either (which takes us back to the previous statement, "but buyers wouldn't lie, so that must mean only sellers would"). 

This trial seems to have been taking place for over a year, meaning that it has been since at least April of last year when eBay openly admitted their system is allowing this, and they have done nothing - not a single thing - to change or address it in a real or practical way.

If you ever wondered how eBay feels about sellers, that evidences it. 

[the_dutchess_of_dork]

The whole dishonest buyer / seller dichotomy is artificial.  The fact is some people are dishonest ... they may be buyers; they may be sellers; they may be both.  There will always be ways to rort the system.  But at least buyers can seek redress through PayPal when they encounter a dodgy seller.

I can't understand ebay's slavish commitment to the buyer experience, at the expense of sellers.  Sure, without buyers there is no ebay ... but without sellers there are no buyers, thus, no ebay.  In addition, ebay derives all its income from sellers.

The "we can't inspect the item, therefore, we will refund the buyer" makes zero sense.  If they admit they have no access to the item, how can they make a judgment either way?

The concerns of buyers should not diminished but be fair to sellers too.  I'm not sure what the answer is.  Certainly, I think a seller's reputation and previous history should be relevant in a dispute.  It's unlikely a seller with years of honest trading will suddenly go rogue.

[kopenhagen5]

I agree.

The sooner eBay invests time on assessing cases on an individual basis, determinations/decisions made according to evidence presented will improve the site immensely.