Please help! I would like to know where we, as sellers, stand

[meg-and-sam]

I am getting so frustrated as a seller as there doesn't seem to be any 'protection' for us against buyers. I clearly state on ALL of my listings that there is 'no insurance or tracking provided unless requested & paid for, no responsibility taken for lost or damaged parcels without insurance'. It seems that having this on my listings is a waste of time as recently a buyer was given their money back after claiming they didn't receive their item. Why are we, as sellers, held responsible for Australia Posts incompetence at delivering the item? Who knows for certain if a buyer received their item or not? What is stopping many buyers stating 'they didn't receive the item' just so they can get something for free? 

I sell mostly small priced items, lots of them and 90% are sent as 'letters/large letters' at a cheap postage rate. To insist on tracking or insurance would decrease my sales significantly so it's just not an option.

I have also had cases similar to this from my overseas buyers. When shipping overseas, I use the green 'customs declaration form' but this too, has proven useless when it comes to a missing parcel, and again, to insist on purchasing insurance or tracking would decrease my sales. I have even gone to the extra trouble of writing down the customers name & country plus the customs number in a book to try and cover myself if a claim is made, but to no avail.

Can anyone suggest what I can do to protect myself? Or, have any information that might help?

Thanking you in advance, have a wonderful day 🙂 Meg

[the_pooze]

"It's against ebay policies to say in your listings that you're not responsible for lost mail.  Regardless of what Australian law is, it's part of ebay's policies and that's what you sign up to."

As an aside, it's against Australian law for eBays policy (Contract Terms) to limit somebodys rights at law, and restrict somebody stating their rights at law, particularly when that same Contract refers to those laws as being the basis of the contract. 

But, I digress........................let the actual discussion continue.   

[digital*ghost]

---

@springyzone wrote:

But don't go telling people in an ad that they can decide on paying extra or not for tracking, it just puts people's backs up and alerts the scammers there is no tracking.

---

That's pretty much exactly what I do, though I don't make any explicit statement, I offer regular and registered services on the majority of items being posted as large letters. The basic jist is essentially exactly the same, though. 

Not a lot of people do opt to pay more, unsurprisingly, but some do, even on <$10 items. There is value in registered post, aside from who gets protection from it, and I kind of wish tracking / registered wasn't consistently reduced to this notion of solely existing to provide protection for the seller, with letting people being able to see tracking events a welcome side-effect - registered post was introduced in the late 1800's, long before online tracking, eBay and PayPal were even an idea. (I know times change, and how things are used change too, but I contest that registered is just (or primarily) for the seller's protection, and has a wider variety of benefits for buyers). 

[phorum_junkie*]

As I sell mostly plus size clothes it is not often things will fit in a large envelope but if they do I send that way but I accept that if the buyer says they have not received it I will have to refund them without question. You cannot know if the buyer is telling the truth or not but it is entirely possible, actually more likely, they are not telling porkies and I see no reason why a buyer should be out of pocket when they have paid me for nothing.

For parcels I do have proof of posting but if the item tracking shows it hasn't been delivered and AP cannot find it I still refund the buyer although I could rely on Paypal seller protection, again I don't see why a buyer should be out of pocket.

[lane-ends]

---

@phorum_junkie* wrote:

As I sell mostly plus size clothes it is not often things will fit in a large envelope but if they do I send that way but I accept that if the buyer says they have not received it I will have to refund them without question. You cannot know if the buyer is telling the truth or not but it is entirely possible, actually more likely, they are not telling porkies and I see no reason why a buyer should be out of pocket when they have paid me for nothing.

For parcels I do have proof of posting but if the item tracking shows it hasn't been delivered and AP cannot find it I still refund the buyer although I could rely on Paypal seller protection, again I don't see why a buyer should be out of pocket.

---

Ditto, and it makes for a much more rewarding time as a seller. Taking an occasional hit is part of doing business.

[thecatspjs]

---

@englishrosegardens wrote:

It's against ebay policies to say in your listings that you're not responsible for lost mail.  .

---

Can you please provide the link to this policy ~ thank you !!

[thecatspjs]

---

@englishrosegardens wrote:

  Regardless of what Australian law is, it's part of ebay's policies and that's what you sign up to.  .

---

Rubbish. 

eBay should abide by Australian legislation and should direct sellers to do the same.

IMO it is a disservice to Australian consumers and traders to promote otherwise, in any forum.

In Australia we have some of the strongest consumer protections in the world, that eBay chose to overlook some of these with their policies will only come under scrunity if consumers (including traders) point these anomolies out at every opportunity.

[englishrosegardens]

I'm not saying it's right, nor am I saying they should be able to get away with it, but unless we want to fight ebay then we have to live with their policies if we're going to use their site. I personally don't have the energy to fight such a big company, though I'm not saying I would just roll over either.

I've seen it somewhere in their policies that you can't say you're not responsible for lost mail but I'm not going to spend hours looking for it again. If someone else wants to check they're welcome. I feel no need to prove anything. It's not the sort of thing I'd say anyway. There's a world of difference between saying the extra options are available and saying I'm not responsible and don't care unless I'm paid to care.

[englishrosegardens]

More than ebay, I blame the powers that be that let them get away with breaking the law! A law that isn't administered properly is pretty useless and companies get to know this and exploit it. Being slack with punishment is almost an invitation to break the law.

[thecatspjs]

Please post a link to the policy you claim eBay has and advised the OP about englishroses

OR don't advise others of policies that may or may not exist, its not fair and misleading, and eBay does enough of that.

I thought it was done away yonks ago... I am assuming as it was unlawful (IMO) as it misleads consumers bout their rights, but interested to see if it is still a published policy - if it is I take issue with it 

[thecatspjs]

---

@englishrosegardens wrote:
I'm not saying it's right, nor am I saying they should be able to get away with it, but unless we want to fight ebay then we have to live with their policies if we're going to use their site. I personally don't have the energy to fight such a big company, though I'm not saying I would just roll over either.

I've seen it somewhere in their policies that you can't say you're not responsible for lost mail but I'm not going to spend hours looking for it again. If someone else wants to check they're welcome. I feel no need to prove anything. It's not the sort of thing I'd say anyway. There's a world of difference between saying the extra options are available and saying I'm not responsible and don't care unless I'm paid to care.

---

Many small businesses, including some posters on these boards, question eBay actions and decisions that have been applied and on occassion win that fight - please don't promote aline that it is pointless ~ it is not always the case.