Item Lost in the Post. Do I refund buyer?

[onyxbutterfly2912]

Hi all,  My buyer is intimating that I never posted her item.  Because it was sent Standard Postage, I can't even give her a tracking number. What do others do in these cases?  It has happened to me several times now and one even went into dispute via Paypal.  Long and short of it I had to refund her money and I was out of pocket for postage for two items and the two items  themselves worth approx $100.

Although you can put into your listing a note to say you are not responsible for Australia Post losing something, the buyer does not really care.  They just want their item or their money.

All thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks a lot

[coast_golf]

What is “proof of shipment” and what forms of “proof of shipment” does PayPal accept?  Examples of proof of shipment include the following:

A copy of the postage receipt that includes the eBay buyer's delivery address. You can get this from Australia Post's Registered Post and Australia Post's Registered Post International, or

For Australia Post eParcel customers, a copy of the consignment information page which shows buyer’s address and the online tracking code that can be used to confirm delivery, or

A postage code that PayPal can use online to view the postage status and the eBay buyer's delivery address. You can get this from TNT, DHL, FedEx, and other carriers, or

A receipt issued by the carrier that is signed by the recipient acknowledging delivery

 If you post your items to other countries PayPal Seller Protection applies to you as long as you sell items on an eBay site and your transaction meets the eligibility criteria.

Rules seem simple, proof is not a receipt with a postcode, must have buyers delivery address, which you do not get with standard post.

https://www.paypal.com/au/webapps/mpp/security/sell-shippingrecommendations

Buyers and sellers, at the very least, must provide documentation that includes the date the item was sent, plus one of:

A receipt from Australia Post showing at least the recipient's suburb, city or postcode (or international equivalent)

[thecatspjs]

OMG read the other posts

yes - regarding proof of shipment

in addition clause 1 of the agreement also outlines that to be eligible for protection in the first place you need to have proof of addressee and that this lines up with address on transaction order form.

[coast_golf]

OMG read the other posts

yes - regarding proof of shipment

in addition clause 1 of the agreement also outlines that to be eligible for protection in the first place you need to have proof of addressee and that this lines up with address on transaction order form.

If that was directed at me I have proof that a postcode alone is indeed sufficient for INR claims.

[thecatspjs]

Well... do share

[coast_golf]

Well my proof is personal experience, I've assisted friends and family on a number of occasions and on each and every occasion, a receipt with postcode and date has been deemed sufficient by Paypal. I could post the correspondence between PP and the sellers here but obviously I'd need to first seek the permission of the seller, and I dare say it's against board policy.

Irrespective of personal experience, the intent of the PSPP can be inferred in 2 distinct ways -

1. Note that 1.2(c) includes the word "proof", whereas it is omitted in 1.2(d) (presumably the clause you are referring to)

2. As Paypal expressly state that a receipt with postcode is acceptable for proof of shipment, if "proof" of full address was required to be eligible under the PSPP, this would obviously include the postcode which would render proof of postage (postcode requirement) redundant.

As it stands now, Paypal assumes that the item was posted to the registered address unless evidence is furnished to the contrary. This could be through admissions by the seller or evidence of an alternative shipping address in supporting documentation provided to Paypal. If you wanted to argue the point, under the civil standard of proof, a postcode would almost certainly be considered proof of address anyway (as it would be extremely unlikely that you sent an item of identical dimensions, on the same date, to the same postcode). Paypal obviously know this, hence why they don't force the issue.

For all of Paypal's flaws, they are pretty good with resolving disputes in line with Australian Consumer Law. They don't always get it right the first time of course, but if you escalate your complaint to a supervisor it is usually resolved on the spot.

[thecatspjs]

Australian consumer frameworks and legislation were put in place to protect consumers.

If your understanding was correct, it would make it a very sad day for ebay buyers who may buy expensive goods and a seller only has to produce a postcode lodgement receipt as proof of post - meaning that an empty parcel could be sent to any address in that suburb and suffice as proof. 

Mmm -  I think you need to rethink consumer protection angle.

[coast_golf]

I'm not going to argue issues of morality as I'm sure you can appreciate, I can only give you the benefit of my personal experience and the knowledge I've acquired over the past 15 years in the legal profession.

FWIW, in certain cases you need not even provide a receipt at all. Tall Bearded and myself discussed this in another thread and a high volume seller said that this was confirmed to him/her by Paypal themselves.

http://community.ebay.com.au/topic/Selling/Deemed-Delivery/600156495?#msg605029734

I register all items (at my expense) where I consider it necessary either due to value or the buyers history. If a parcel does go AWOL and I have no reason to suspect a fraudulent claim then I refund immediately and take up the issue with AP.

[thecatspjs]

what morality issues ??

I have a very comprehensive understanding of consumer rights.  Fortunately, a perceived "technicality" in wording does not remove them.  All relevant legislation is underpinned by some pretty basic consumer rights in the marketplace.

BIA is this your only posting ID ? 

[coast_golf]

what morality issues ??

I have a very comprehensive understanding of consumer rights.  Fortunately, a perceived "technicality" in wording does not remove them.  All relevant legislation is underpinned by some pretty basic consumer rights in the marketplace.

BIA is this your only posting ID ? 

I wouldn't call the wording a technicality, a multi-billion dollar corporation does not make such basic errors, I'd bet billions to bottlecaps that the omission was intentional.

The relevant legislation in this case is the Sale of Goods Act (or equivalent in others states or territories). You are obviously quite knowledgeable in this area so I won't bore you with explanations but one of the purposes of the legislation is to identify when risk passes in a contract that involves a third party (in this case a courier or postal service).

Once the point at which risk is transferred is established then we need only look at proving our case on the balance of probabilities which will obviously depend on who initiated the litigation. A good contract/user agreement/policy extends precisely to the boundary on which the law remains on their side, something that Paypal is VERY good at (as you would expect if you were a shareholder). The wording may seem ambiguous to some, but to a tribunal or court the intent is crystal clear. The intent of a contract, or even statute, can often be drawn by what it doesn't say rather than what it does.

This is my only posting ID, I have previously posted from my primary sellers account but decided this wasn't a good idea when someone took exception to comments I made on the boards. This is mainly my partners account which I utilise on occasions for the 30 free listings 🙂

[thecatspjs]

I am not confident you have read any of my previous posts ??

I am not going to rehash.