Hypothetical INR Situation (for self Education purposes)

[clarry100]

We have a very good and trusted returning customer who buys lots of stuff from us on a regular basis.

She always pays promptly and leaves glowing POS FB.

Messages are always warm & friendly.

Just a pleasure to have and we would never want to lose such a customer, they are really too hard to find.

We always includes an "extras" package with each order and quite often next order she is buying some of these too.

She orders enough each time that we always use C&S 500gm satchels lodged over the counter but without paying for extra cover.

Now for the hypothetical bit...

So... what happens if one of these parcels never arrives. It's not uncommon from what I read on these boards.

I'm pretty sure PayPal protection would be in place as we have used a fully tracked sending method. So this means she would be refunded in the case of a formal INR claim? But do we lose our money? I hope not.

But we would not really want to go down the official INR track maybe. After all who (either of us) wants a INR case on the record if it's not really needed.

We would, of course, wish to replace her order as she is such a valued and trusted customer. I think she would prefer replacement rather than refund anyway. But we don't wish to lose our $$$ either.

So what would be the best way to handle such a situation so that neither of us lose out?

Do we advise her to open an INR case thru PayPal and get a refund?

Then we just send out another order after the claim is proceesd?

Or what are other options? Buy the additional cover each time and claim back thru Aust Post if it happened?

Or am I misunderstanding something about the INR claims process?

Just thought I'd throw this one out there for general comment and mainly for my own education really.

[digital*ghost]

---

@tall_bearded01 wrote:

There is an expectation under the law, that a person who undertakes an activity has acquainted themselves with their legal rights and responsibilities in condition with it – that is, ignorance is not an excuse. Unfortunately most people simply couldn’t be bothered.

A seller who has not complete a first module of business law by way of say an introductory accounting or business course, or hasn’t read a text such as ‘Australian Mercantile Law’, will, more likely than not, interpret the policy to say; if the item is not received they have to reimburse the buyer. Needless to say, it is in eBay’s commercial interest that the policy be interpreted in this way, if for no other reason, it will steer sellers towards forcing buyers to use a high cost, more secure postage option, thus increasing the overall FVF take on the postage component.

In the alternative, a seller who has a rudimentary understand as to the legal framework surround distance sales where the item is sold on description, will know the actual meaning of the word ‘delivered/delivery’ and interpret the policy to say, delivery is proved when postage is proved - but eBay knows these sellers are in the minority.

---

I wondered the same thing, because - interestingly - eBay's MBG states that if a seller loses a case, they will be held financially liable unless they can provide a "compelling reason" why they should not have to pay for the refund. I figured this could mean that technically, eBay will make the seller pay for the refund unless the seller points out the legal definition of delivered...

But, that doesn't necessarily mean that if a case is decided in the buyers favour but a seller successfully argues that the refund should not be paid for by them, that it won't still count as a case closed without seller resolution. In other words, it looks to me as though eBay's MBG policies are heavy-handedly geared towards the seller independently resolving an INR (or SNAD, for that matter) enquiry without getting anyone else involved ...unless you have acceptable proof to win a case, in which case they then actually provide an incentive for escalating to a case by making it so it's the only way to get the defect caused by the situation removed. As we can see, that'll do wonders for customer relations. 😕 (eg in clarry's hypothetical, the item could be marked as delivered by AP, but not received by the buyer - and let's presume it was AP error rather than the item being stolen after delivery - that means eBay have provided an incentive to make sure the buyer gets nothing from you than to address the issue and resolve it without making it into a case). 

[jensmanchester-australia]

There is now sufficient data to establish, that in the vast majority cases where a buyer claims an item was not received, it had in fact been delivered and delivered to the correct address, and then, because the buyer wasn’t home it was safe dropped, and went missing after it was safe dropped.

TB - I would be interested to know how you reached this conclusion.

All my parcels have tracking on them so in most cases it is easy to see what has happened. From my experience, the majority of parcels which go astray are either lost within the AP system (often at the black hole of Chullora) or misdelivered - and it is scary how often this happens.

With the thousands and thousands of parcels I have sent over the years I can only recall two instances where tracking showed delivered but the buyer claimed they didn't receive it. In both those cases the buyers were extremely cooperative so in those two cases I have no doubt that the parcels had been stolen.

When speaking to my Account Manager at Australia Post the main reason they find that parcels go astray is because the address details are incorrect (could be the fault of the buyer or the seller in this situation) or the address is so badly written they are unable to decipher where it is being sent to (definitely a seller's fault)

[tall_bearded01]

Sorry but that is not my experience.

Have been selling on eBay for over 10 years, with my main seller Id having in excess of 10,000 sales with a positive feedback rating of 99.9% with all stars at 4.9. In fact my only negative for the last 12 months has been from one moronic buyer who was disappointed with what they received because they didn’t read the description.

So how do I protect myself and still keep the customer happy. I rely on the fact that if I act reasonably so will the customer. For instance when it comes to item not received, I request that they, the buyer, lodge a PayPal claim on the expectation that PayPal will compensate the buyer. However, I’m not out of pocket because I can prove postage. That is, as PayPal protects both the buyer and seller, it is my experience that any reasonable buyer will allow the seller to access that protection, just as long as they get compensated as well. Furthermore, if for some reason PayPal decide to debit my account, then this is an issue between me and PayPal, not me and the buyer, who remains happy because, irrespective of what happen between me and PayPal, they got compensated.

So what do I do in the one in 100 instances where the buyer objects to putting in a PayPal claim, I refund them and then bloke them, with the only one losing out being the buyer. You see I am not a business seller. We (my wife and I) have a very large book and fine china collection which, over the past 30 years we have constantly improved on and updated, but, because we have now retired and moved not smaller premises, is sitting in boxes in the garage, literally wall to wall and to the roof. Therefore it’s time to do some serious downsizing, and to give my item the best chance of selling, not only are we meticulous when it comes to the description, but our items are always very competitively priced. This leaves the blocked buyer in the situation where they may well have to pay a higher price from, let’s just say a less reliable seller, in connection with an item which they could well have purchased from us a significanlty lower cost,  but that’s their problem not mine.

Furthermore, with the introduction of the EBay Guarantee life has become easier because there are now no concerns at the discretionary nature of the payment. That the buyer put’s in a claim, eBay will pay the claim, and any issue as to whether eBay can recover the cost of the claim from the seller, is an issue exclusive to the seller and eBay. That is the legalistic approach I am advocating has nothing to do with the buyer. They get compensated. Instead it has everything to do with the stance I intend to take with eBay should they decide to bill me the cost of the buyers claim.    

[tall_bearded01]

The proof actually comes from a discontinued service.

Until recently Australia post provided a “Do Not Safe Drop Service’ That is, if an item was sent regular post, the seller had the option of putting on the envelope/package a red “Do No Safe Drop” sticker”, which meant, if no-one was home, the item was carded and returned to the nearest post office for collection.

Now this service was discontinued a couple of months ago and immediately thereafter there was a fivefold increase in the number of claims for items not received.

[digital*ghost]

---

@tall_bearded01 wrote:

So how do I protect myself and still keep the customer happy. I rely on the fact that if I act reasonably so will the customer. For instance when it comes to item not received, I request that they, the buyer, lodge a PayPal claim on the expectation that PayPal will compensate the buyer. However, I’m not out of pocket because I can prove postage. 

---

If the seller provides proof of postage, the buyer is not eligible for protection. PayPal don't actually insure anything, what they do is provide the means to dispute a payment if the seller can't prove they fulfilled their obligation by posting the item. Whether or not an item is actually received by the buyer is irrelevant to PayPal - discretionary refunds to the buyer when the seller has proven postage are pretty rare.

It's likely to be irrelevant to eBay, too, what will matter is what the 'proof' indicates. 

[tall_bearded01]

Yes I know that where postage was proved any payment made by PayPal to the buyer was discretionary, but I haven’t come across a single instance where, PayPal refused to make one. I am not saying they haven’t. I saying I am not aware when they have. In any event, if a buyer had made a claim and a discretionary payment was refused then I would have paid the claim myself. That is, if the buyer was prepared to do the right thing by me, it is only right that I respond in kind.

However, the discretionary nature of the payment made by PayPal is now pretty much irrelevant, if for no other reason than payments under the guarantee are not discretionary. That is, the policy provides a clearly undertaking that eBay will compensate the buyer, irrespective of if, they, eBay, can recover the cost of the claim from the seller.

As to what eBay’s attitude will be when a claim is made this will largely depend on if they have learnt to recognise the mistakes of the past.

Sellers come in all shapes and sizes. There are those who have no understanding as to their rights let alone how to assert them.   There are those who know their rights but simply can’t be bothered asserting them. Then there is the final group. Those who know their rights, know how to assert them and are willing to do so. Now commercial prudence dictates, if in connection to a claim you receive a response from someone who falls within the last category, you tread very carefully, but PayPal didn’t. Instead when responding to seller concerns they opted for a one shoe fits heavy handed approach. The outcome, the ombudsman starts receiving complaints, and PayPal is forced to revise the wording of the policy so that everyone has a clearer understanding what it actually means, resulting in an ever increasing requirement to make discretionary payments.

Now if eBay adopt the same approach, then the same inevitable outcome arise. Complaints, followed by “recommendations” that that the policy be better worded, resulting in more sellers becoming aware as to where they actually stand, resulting a reduced capacity to recover the cost of the claims from sellers.

Or, they could, for once, do the commercially smart thing. That is, when a seller asks for a review of the decision, and if they have adequate proof of postage, then immediately concede the application. Outcome, the ignorant remain blissfully unaware, and those who aren’t have no grounds for complaint.

But somehow, on past form, I don’t think the smart thing has a snowflakes chance in Hades of getting a look in, but only time will tell

[tall_bearded01]

But, that doesn't necessarily mean that if a case is decided in the buyers favour but a seller successfully argues that the refund should not be paid for by them, that it won't still count as a case closed without seller resolution. In other words, it looks to me as though eBay's MBG policies are heavy-handedly geared towards the seller independently resolving an INR (or SNAD, for that matter) enquiry without getting anyone else involved ...unless you have acceptable proof to win a case, in which case they then actually provide an incentive for escalating to a case by making it so it's the only way to get the defect caused by the situation removed. As we can see, that'll do wonders for customer relations. 😕 (egg in clarry's hypothetical, the item could be marked as delivered by AP, but not received by the buyer - and let's presume it was AP error rather than the item being stolen after delivery - that means eBay have provided an incentive to make sure the buyer gets nothing from you than to address the issue and resolve it without making it into a case).”

They would be absolute fools to attempt to force the seller in this way, if for no other reason than, if they did, and either the regulator or the courts became aware of it, they would move heaven and earth to find some way to invalidate the policy in its entirety,

This is exactly the kind of conduct the Australian Consumer Law protects consumers against.  That is, the policy is written in such way as to lead sellers to believe that eBay will only recover when a right of recover exists. Therefore if they then attempt to punish the seller because they have proved no right to recover exists, this would amount for the purposes of the Australian Consumer Law, as conduct which is not only misleads but is also unconscionable, and dumb as some managers with eBay may be, they are not that dumb

[lyndal1838]

---

@tall_bearded01 wrote:

Sorry but I simply don’t understand the logic behind your reply.

There is now sufficient data to establish, that in the vast majority cases where a buyer claims an item was not received, it had in fact been delivered and delivered to the correct address, and then, because the buyer wasn’t home it was safe dropped, and went missing after it was safe dropped.

The security of the delivery point is under the direct control of, and as such, the responsibility of the buyer. Therefore what you are saying is, you hold the seller liable for the loss even when the loss is the fault of the buyer - to save money on postage the buyer selects the cheapest and therefore least secure mode of delivery, and then does nothing to ensure the security of the item after it has been safe dropped, by say paying for a PO Box or the installation of a lockable safe drop box.

Furthermore, eBay, for its own commercial benefit has decided to insure the transaction. That is they have decided that if an item has not been received they will reimburse the buyer irrespective of the circumstances surrounding the loss. Furthermore, though the policy is poorly worded, it appears that eBay has also provided an undertaking to the seller that is will not attempt to recover unless a right of recovery exists.

However, for apparently no other reason than an aversion to the involvement of 3rd parties, and though the transaction is insured, you expect the seller to abandon that protection, and pay for the loss out of the own pocket.

And people wonder why small sellers has left this site in droves, and then complain that the bulk of the products here are fakes or multiple listings for Chinese product of dubious quality dumped onto the sit by offshore sellers of doubtful reliability.

---

TB, I normally have a great deal of respect for your posts and your understanding of what posters are saying but in this case you have it very wrong.

My transaction was in 2012, nearly 2 years ago.

There was no cutting of corners....the transaction was for GBP165.00 and was sent with tracking and fully insured. 

According to the AP records it was delivered and signed for 9 days after it was posted in the UK which was a good delivery time but almost impossible in the week before Christmas.  Most mail was taking 2+ weeks at a minimum.

It was "delivered" on a Saturday morning when both my husband and I were home...other items were signed for that day but the "signature" on this particular docket was neither my husband's nor mine.  There was no safe dropping involved.

I had other items delivered by the same postage method and the routine was for the item to be scanned at the distribution centre when it was picked up by the contractor about 5am and I would receive an email that it was on board with the driver.  It would then be scanned when delivered to me a few hours later and I would receive a second email.  Neither of these scans took place and neither of the emails were received.

When enquiries commenced AP told me that the tracking events were showing in their system but they refused for nearly 3 months to provide me with any evidence of this and neither would they provide a copy of "my" signature.  The seller finally had to take legal action in the UK to get AP to provide any details but she still did not get her insurance payout because Royal Mail refused to believe that the parcel was not delivered to me, despite my Stat Dec that the signature was not mine.

I did my best to help the seller with Stat Decs and ringing AP from here to save her the cost of international phone calls.

The point I was trying to make to the OP was that despite everything being done by the book, once paypal gets involved things can go wrong and no matter how much you appeal you get nowhere. I was not advocating that the OP give up their right to protection, just pointing out the pitfalls of involving 3rd parties.

[digital*ghost]

---

@tall_bearded01 wrote:

But, that doesn't necessarily mean that if a case is decided in the buyers favour but a seller successfully argues that the refund should not be paid for by them, that it won't still count as a case closed without seller resolution. In other words, it looks to me as though eBay's MBG policies are heavy-handedly geared towards the seller independently resolving an INR (or SNAD, for that matter) enquiry without getting anyone else involved ...unless you have acceptable proof to win a case, in which case they then actually provide an incentive for escalating to a case by making it so it's the only way to get the defect caused by the situation removed. As we can see, that'll do wonders for customer relations. 😕 (egg in clarry's hypothetical, the item could be marked as delivered by AP, but not received by the buyer - and let's presume it was AP error rather than the item being stolen after delivery - that means eBay have provided an incentive to make sure the buyer gets nothing from you than to address the issue and resolve it without making it into a case).”

They would be absolute fools to attempt to force the seller in this way, if for no other reason than, if they did, and either the regulator or the courts became aware of it, they would move heaven and earth to find some way to invalidate the policy in its entirety,

This is exactly the kind of conduct the Australian Consumer Law protects consumers against.  That is, the policy is written in such way as to lead sellers to believe that eBay will only recover when a right of recover exists. Therefore if they then attempt to punish the seller because they have proved no right to recover exists, this would amount for the purposes of the Australian Consumer Law, as conduct which is not only misleads but is also unconscionable, and dumb as some managers with eBay may be, they are not that dumb

---

I hope you're right (about managers not being that dumb, I mean - I don't have the greatest amount of faith in eBay's decision making lately). Personally, I would still rather resolve everything between myself and a buyer without any involvement from PP or eBay, but I dislike the fact that a seller could essentially do nought for the buyer, but if provide certain documentation to eBay they can have a defect removed, while I can address the buyer's issue immediately, not let it get to the point where they want to dispute it further, refund / replace or offer some other resolution that the buyer is happy with, but I'd remain defective. Legalities aside, that's just ethically wrong to me.

[tall_bearded01]

Sorry if my response offended, but on the limited information provided, I truly couldn’t understand why anyone would punish a seller simply because they wanted the buyer to initiate a process which should ensure they both are protected, but now you have provided the additional information, I must say I agree, this one seller you ought to be avoiding.

When I comes to sellers, the one thing I truly have a problem with is those who can’t be bothered to educate themselves about the environment in which they are working. That is, it is my opinion that, as it is they who are selling the goods, they have a responsibility to their customers’ to have sufficient knowledge of the legal framework of the environment in which they are in, so they can properly advise, guide and assist buyers when something goes wrong; and this seller obviously didn’t have knowledge.

There is one significant piece missing in the process used, one which should have initiated immediately it became obvious that Australia Post was going to play hard ball, one which would have virtually guaranteed the desired outcome – a refund – and is essentially the same advice I gave to another board member who had a similar problem, and which resulted in positive outcome for him pretty quick smart.

One of the major benefits in using a postal service is that the decision it makes are subject to oversight by the Ombudsman, with the ombudsman having the power to reverse those decisions. Therefore here is what I would have done, if I had sold these goods to you.

As the item was sent with all the bells and whistles (tracked, insured with signature required), as soon as it became apparent Australia Post were going to play hard ball, I would have asked you to provide me with a sworn declaration that you and your husband were the only ones home on the day in question, that the item was not received on that day nor any subsequent day to the declaration. I would have then asked you to provide me with a document which assigns any rights to compensation you may have had to me.

Now if had done these things for me, I would have immediately refunded you the full cost you paid, and then filed a complaint with the Ombudsman, with it being my experiences that in 90% of such cases, once a complaint has been lodged, AP would pretty much cave-in. That is, when the time comes when they actually have to justify their decision before someone who can do something about It, they more often than not, very quickly lose their blow and bluster.

Now I note that this all happened almost 2 years ago, but I don’t think it’s too late to lodge such a complaint now and I strongly urge you to do so. It’s a free service and you just may end up getting your money back after all, and even if you don’t, you at least will be provided with an explanation detailing why you were not entitled to compensation claimed. Oh and yes, and if you decide to lodge a complaint, include in the declaration the fact that you have seen a copy of the signature on the receipt, and that signature is neither yours nor your husbands.