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]

Do you know if there's a way we can effectively impel eBay to properly define delivery? I'm almost keenly awaiting a case to arise, just so I can get some insight into the process and how eBay will handle them, but ideally, the questions I have would be answered in the policy itself. 

[lyndal1838 · Accepted solution]

Clarry, I am not a seller so I will argue this from a buyer's point of view.

I buy regularly from a couple of sellers and can spend a couple of hundred $ at a time.  If one of my parcels went astray I would hope that any of my sellers would refund or replace without the need for a dispute.

In the case of used items, obviously the seller could not replace with the same items so refund would be in order but where they are new items I would imagine it would be cheaper for the seller to replace and that would certainly be my choice.

If I was forced to go to paypal to get my refund/replacement my sellers would lose a regular customer and collect a negative for every item that was involved.

I had an incident similar to your scenario.....I bought a lot of costume jewellery from a seller in the UK over a number of years. She had become a very goood friend as well as a seller.

A couple of years ago (long before defects were a problem) she posted just before Christmas.  The parcel was not expected till possibly the New Year going by the delivery times at the time.  In early January the tracking showed that it had been delivered before Christmas, which was highly improbable.  I certainly did not get it, nor did I sign the receipt that AP finally produced.

Several emails later and after extensive enquiries both in Australia and the UK we decided that I should open a paypal dispute as we should both have paypal protection.

In short, I received my refund but the seller lost her money as paypal decided that her postage method was not compliant.  She appealed and paypal then said it had been delivered and that I had signed for it, despite my statement that it was not my signature.  Royal Mail also refused to pay out on the insurance as they maintained that it was deemed delivered.

I feel terrible for the seller but it has taught both of us a lesson....don't rely on a third party to solve problems if you can do so amicably without it.

If the same thing happened today the seller would probably be defected out of selling.

[amber-eyed-girl]

Lyndal, I agree with you. As a buyer, when I find sellers who are professional I will repeat buy. Sometimes, sellers can be lovely 🙂

if a problem ever happened, I hope that it could be resolved amicably without formal third party involvement.

I have done some selling, and if something had ever gone astray, if I felt it to be above board, I would refund or replace. As a courtesy, and I would hope to retain that customer.

If it was someone who behaved unpleasantly, then, if appearing to be honest, refund or replace too, but then blocked.

[clarry100]

Hmmm!

Lots of interesting takes on various aspects of this one. Thank you so much to all who have had input so far. Appreciated.

The first thing we would wish to do in such a scenario is to make our very good long term customer happy so we would absolutley believe that she had really not received it (ie definitley not scamming us) and replace her order no questions asked. We always choose to replace since we can do thi. We have never been asked for refund.

I guess to protect the loss of our stock is really not the buyer's problem and nor should it be for that matter.

So in the case of a C&S parcel (without extra cover as per the scenario) then we would be approaching Aust Post to find out why a tracked item has not been delivered, assuming that the tracking status upheld this. And if so then request a discretionary payout that would hopefully at least cover our stock loss plus the cost of the original postage.

Not sure where you would stand with AP if the tracking said delivered but the buyer is still saying well I definitley do not have it. I guess it would be stat dec time from the buyer to assist your case. And since they are happy having received their replacement order and since they genuinely do not have the item then they should have no trouble helping with our claim case against AP I would hope.

[amber-eyed-girl]

As the buyer I have had a couple of things go missing in the post. One was marked as delivered, but only to my mail distribution centre, it turned out. I was happy to sign anything that supported a claim with AP.

But as a buyer, I started to pay for registered or a signed post on everything. I found that for me, everything was then delivered without a problem. That was an expense I was happy to pay to ensure as best I could, delivery. I know I might be the exception on that way of thinking though, it just works for me. I would rather have the item delivered safely than chase a refund. Where I live, the parcels are somewhat apt to wander, so I am very pleased with the trackable satchels 🙂

I have seen a few threads dealing with articles that were marked as delivered, hopefully someone can answer what happens there for you.

[lane-ends]

TBH I get few INR now that most parcel post items have tracking so I can absorb refunding the odd one that may go astray. Anything that is high $ I would insure. It is good PR not to squabble with buyers over this and it doesn't feel good either.

I would rather get the odd rare con artist than most likely upset even more well intentioned buyers. Truth is buyers risk more than I do. They loose full sale $$, I just loose a bit of effort, cost price and post price, which is less. It is also a smaller % of my transactions. The odd loss is part of doing business, and a calculated one at that.

[tall_bearded01]

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.

[tall_bearded01]

The short answer is, only after it has been "suggested" to them by the relevant regulatory body that they do so.

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.

So this brings us back to where we started. There is no legal onus on eBay to educate, therefore no requirement for eBay to define the word(s) ‘delivered/deceived’ unless their meaning is different for the purposes of the policy than as defined in the legation.

Therefore if sellers make the wrong decision based on an erroneous interpretation then the seller has no one to blame but themselves.

[clarry100]

Your explanations make a whole lot of sense.

But the minute a seller stands up for his legal rights and, quite rightly, refuses to compensate a buyer for an item they claim to have not received then that buyer will simply leave bad feedback and low DSRs and hence hurt your ability to sell and make a living.

And because we have no real protection from this situation we are compelled to just suck it up and move on regardless of the legalities if we wish to continue to sell.

[wilk1149]

But nothing will beat the warming glow of being legally in the right while you are surrounded by all the stock you can no longer sell as your account is suspended, aaahh warming legally right afterglow