Ebay gives refund because item was late

[pmk_comp]

I'm at a loss here.

Ebay has just refunded in full (without asking for the item to be returned) because the item was "LATE" acording to ebay's schedule "Get it Free & Fast by ???"

Despite the attached note saying delivery might take longer in peak periods, a buyer complained that it was "late" according to ebay's schedule and demanded a full refund.

Ebay obliged without asking for the buyer to send it back. I appealed but ebay dismissed my appeal.

What gives? So I can order an item on ebay, say it's late, get a full refund and get away with fraud?

I can't afford to give away my products.

What can I do?

[tall_bearded01]

I fail to see what “Fast and Free” has to do with the topic under discussion, unless of course someone is saying the ‘free’ part of Fast and Free means - if the item doesn’t arrive by the estimated delivery date as determined by eBay, then it’s free: which of course it doesn’t.

What has happened here simply demonstrates that the assurances given when the Money Back Guarantee was first introduced, namely, that it would be administered by specially selected and trained staff, was pretty much as expected – a lot of hot air. That is, as expected, it’s being run by ill trained staff, who are required to follow scripted protocols all of which are designed to shift the financial burden inherent in the Guarantee from eBay to the seller, and though they may be able to get away with this kind of conduct elsewhere, as our consumer laws and different, they won’t get away with it here,

As I see it the fact are pretty simple.

Buyer pays for item on a Friday. Seller sends item the next business day (the Monday). EBay provides an estimate that the item should be received by the Thursday or Friday. Item is not actually received until 10 days later. Buyer get nickers in a twist because the item didn’t arrive within the time advised by eBay and wants a fund. EBay finds for the buyer and bills the seller the cost of the refund.

No it goes without saying that, had this case been handed by someone competent and with the ability to make a finding based on the facts, this claim would have been rejected on the spot, and given the fact that it wasn’t, speak volumes as to the actual intention behind the Guarantee and the way it is being administered.

So how do you stop them from getting away with it? Lodge a complaint with those who can do something about it. The ACCC and/or Consumer Affairs. As for the grounds and dispute and the relief being sought, I’ll provide that in a latter post.

[i-love-my-sheep]

I just find it absolutely disgusting that the buyer admits they got the item, but they still got a refund because it didn't arrive in the eBay estimated time (which doesn't account for busy time, like Christmas). The seller posted within their handling time. They did everything as they should, yet have now had to refund because of some ridiculous feature inserted in listings.

Hence why it's a really good idea to fatten out your handling time. It gives you a bit of breathing space with that Estimated Delivery Time farce. EBay doesn't control the post, the sellers don't control the post, yet eBay blames the seller if AP were slow to deliver. It's just plain wrong.

[tall_bearded01]

The point I’m trying to make was that nothing in the eBay postal policy provides for a refund if the item is posted late or arrives late. Therefore, if this was the justification used to provide the refund then eBay is in breach of its own policy. That is providing a refund where no authority for a refund exists.

But I don’t think that is what has happened here. What I think has happened is what I call the ‘near enough is good enough match’ solution. That is, the buyer lodges a claim on the basis they are not happy with how long it took to “receive” the item and therefore want a refund. Now this doesn’t fall with any of the usual grounds for a refund under the Guarantee, so let’s look for the closest match. The grievance contains the words, “not received in time”. Ignore “in time” and you are left with “not received” – which is the closest match to the actual ground for dispute. The system then generates a flow chart which the case manager must follow. The flow chart asks “Has the estimate delivery date expired” – answer Yes. “Has a tracking number been provided”? The answer is No.   Solution - claim accepted, reimburse the buyer, advice PayPal to deduct the cost of the byers claim from sellers account.

So what are the grounds for dispute, I’ll explain that when I finish the next post.

[antonios7529]

most times ebay is right to to refund because item was late.

There are sellers who appeared as locals but they sent their products from overseasChina etc.

When a buyer buy a product from a local seller logicaly he expects it with 8 days, if he was waiting for 2-3 weeks then it is clear that the seller was not ok.

I bought a machine from China and  I took it after three  months, I knew this was not of cause sellers mistake, I knew the whole proccess takes time. In this case ebay should not refund me because seller did the right thing and buyer( me) should use my brain and expect the delays.

It is not easy to find who is right, seller , buyer or ebay if we do not have full details.

But generaly  for delays I think buyers and ebay are right.

Do not sell products if you do not have them, do not appeare as local when the products you sell come from overseas.

BE HONEST WITH BUYER, TELL THE TRUTH.

[tall_bearded01]

There is absolutely no right, be it under the eBay User Agreement, the eBay Money Back Guarantee, the PayPal Buyer Protection Policy, or consumer laws such as the Australian Consumer Law and the Sales of Goods Act, for buyers to receive a refund because goods arrive after the estimated date of delivery, and I would invite anyone who thinks otherwise to cite actual authority in support of their assertion that such a right exists

That is, what buyers think they should be entitled to is, more often than not, vastly different to what they are actually entitled to.

[tall_bearded01]

Due to time constraints this is pretty rough but adequate

GROUNDS FOR DISPUTE

Background

Give precise details as to the transaction – eg: On (date item purchased) buyer name and eBay user ID) (the Buyer) purchased from me (the seller) A (item description)) which I had listed for sale on the eBay Australia web site as Item Number (item number) This item was handed to the carrier (Australia Post) on (date), which is the next business day after the date of purchase, and with, as directed by the buyer, the postal service being used being the cheapest service, name stand post. That is, in the listing I offered a number of postal option from which the buyer could choose from, with the service selected and paid for by the buyer was standard post which did not come with a tracking number.

Give precise details as to what happened – eg; At the time the item was posted eBay, of its own volition, calculated the estimated date when the item should be received, and, I, the seller, had no input re same. That is, it was a communication between eBay and the buyer with the seller having no impute. This communication advised the buyer that the item ought to be received by (date), but, due to delayed delivery by Australia Post the item wasn’t actually received until 10 days later.

Give precise details as to the claim and claim outcome – eg: Subsequent to receipt of the item the buyer requested a refund of both the purchase price and postage on the grounds that, though the item had been received, as it was not received until 10 day after the estimated date of delivery, and as such the buyer was entitled to refund. That is, eBay’s communication had created and expectation, and as that expectation had not been satisfied, they (the buyer) were entitled to a refund.

Give precise details as to claim outcome – eg: On (date) eBay determined in favour of the buyer and even though it was eBay who created the expectation, they determined that the liability to pay the compensation rests with the seller, with the actual compensation payable being a refund of the total cost of purchase (including the delivery charges). On (date) I requested that eBay review this decision, with the outcome being that on (date) the decision was confirmed.

Grounds for Complaint

I am to date, yet to received something remotely intelligible as to the reasons why eBay determined the buyer was entitled to a fund in these circumstances, let alone, why I, the seller, was liable to bear the cost of the refund, but from the information provided thus far, it it would appear eBay are of the view that the refund, was authorised vide the eBay Money Back Guarantee which commenced operation in the eBay Australia site on 1 November 2014. That is, though the item was actually received by the buyer, it appears eBay of the view that the buyers claim fell within the meaning of ‘Item Not Received’ for the purposes of the Guarantee.

I have read the Guarantee and have a number of concerns re same.

The Guarantee appears to be a form of insurance, but it is not clear whether eBay is licenced provider of insurance services in Australia. That is, what distinguishes the eBay Money Back Guarantee from PayPal Buyer Protection is, whereas refunds under buyer protection were limited to where the buyer had a right of recovery, the Guarantee guarantees a refund in the absence of a right to recovery. Furthermore, the Guarantee appears to be worded so that any liability to refund rests with eBay, with seller only being required to reimburse eBay if a right of recovery exists. That is, the process has all the hallmarks of eBay underwriting the buyers risk inherent with distance sales of goods sold on description – that is a policy of insurance.

Though eBay has a vested financial interest in claim outcomes, and though the Guarantee has all the hallmarks of a policy of insurance, it is uncertain if eBay is a member of the Financial Ombudsman Service. In fact, if the following provision as contained in the Guarantee under the heading ‘Other Terms’ is anything to go by - “Buyers and sellers permit us to make final decisions about all cases, including appeals” (emphasis mine), - it would appear that not only does eBay see itself as sole determiner of claims and any appeals arising out of same, but the determinations it makes, no matter how self-serving or erroneous such as the one detailed here, are not subject to judicial oversight. This is an unacceptable state of affairs to say the least.

Furthermore, earlier this year eBay decided to include the cost of delivery into the calculation of its Final Value Fee, and now appears to be attempting to use the Guarantee as a means to forcing sellers to make buyers’ pay higher postage costs, than would ordinarily apply.

Though the Guarantee uses the word ‘delivery/delivered these words are not defined for the purposes of the Guarantee, and as such, have the meaning as assigned to them by the relevant legislation – the Sales of Goods Act - which provides that delivery has occurred when the item was handed to the carrier. That is, when it comes to, ‘items not received’ claims, the it appears eBay will accept proof of postage is proof of delivery and appear to concede, if delivery is proved, no right to recover exists. However it appears the only proof eBay is prepared to accept are postal services which have ‘tracking’, which means item sent as large letters must be registered, thus double if not treble the cost of postage. The point, courts have routinely accepted properly compiled and correspondence journal/ledgers as proof of postage without the need to register the article, yet eBay appear to refuse to do same. The gives rise to the question, why?

Finally when it comes to claims, eBay appear to be using the Seller Performance Standards as a means of forcing sellers to concede to buyer demands, and as such carry the financial burden inherent in the Guarantee, irrespective of how irrational or ridiculous the buyers’ complaints may be.

The Seller Performance Standards stipulate that a deficit arises not after the bona fides of the buyer claims have been proven. Instead a deficit arises simply because the buyer has requested eBay’s intervention because they and the seller have been unable to reach a resolution. That is, under the standards, the only way a seller can avoid a deficit and avoid the selling and account restrictions that eBay will impose as a result of same, is to concede to buyers demands before they, the buyer, request that eBay intervene.

Relief Sought

If eBay is not already a licenced provider of insurance services in Australia, that they be required to suspend operation of the Guarantee, until such time as they applied for and received the necessary licences/approval, with any such licencing/approval be subject to eBay making all determinations subject to oversight by the Financial Ombudsman Service. This will insure both buyers and sellers have access to an independent dispute resolution process should they be dissatisfied with outcome of the eBay in house dispute resolution process.

In the alternative, and for the reasons provided above if eBay is already a licenced provider of insurance services in Australia, and if they are not yet a member of the Financial Ombudsman Service they should be invited to consider membership, and if they decline, they should be required remove those parts of the User Agreement and or Guarantee which allows eBay to garnish sellers accounts purely on the basis of assertion that right of recovery exists. That is if eBay believe a right of recovery exists, and if the seller disagrees, then eBay, like everyone else, should is required to prove the existence of the debt in the court of appropriate jurisdiction, before any monies are payable.

In the further alternative, if the Guarantee is not in fact a policy of insurance, then when eBay should still be required to moderate the Guarantee as provided in 2 above.

Finally, in addition to the above, eBay be required to modify it Sellers Performance Standards in relation to claims made under the Guarantee so that a deficit only arises where a right of recovery has been agreed or been independently determined by either the ombudsman or a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

[chameleon54]

Tall bearded01, Thanks for taking the time to write the extensive posts. It is a very interesting and concerning case and you have put a lot of effort into providing others with some well thought out comments. Good luck with it all.

[i-love-my-sheep]

WOW Tall Bearded one! What a great, not to mention interesting read. I would have loved to read what you would have written if there weren't time constraints!!

Thank you so much for writing all that!

[aussiebargains_2011]

Thank you, copied and saved 🙂

[davewil1964]

Thanks tb.

Nedds a bit of work, but the detail is good.