Should I refund full amount if buyer didn't collect the item?

[liquidationhouseffi]

On 13th, I received a buyer's message saying she didn't receive the item. I checked the tracking which showed the item had been waiting for collection since 1st March. So I sent 2 messages asking her to go to collect asap, but she didn't reply me. Today I checked the tracking again, it shows the item has been returned due to nobody picking up. In this case, do I have to refund the full amount to the buyer (my item is free of postage)? It cost me $8 to post it, it seems it will be unfair if I refund the full amount for doing nothing wrong. Can any one give me suggestions? Thanks.

[digital*ghost]

---

@keythisin3 wrote:

context does matter, individual circumstances as well (thats to say i agree there to) but i disagree about only maths deals with absolutes (or should i put sith there with a line through it? i could do that if i was trying to imply evil or evil persona)

moral ethics aside, no one can have both item back and money as well (unless you give permission) it scamming plain and simple no matter how it is justified

---

I was just referencing a meme with the sith bit - it was tongue in cheek, as the statement itself is something of an absolute, however I also said it because I don't agree with moral absolutism, which I thought was is an important thing to mention to give context to my position. 

Your statements are contradictory, though - if you agree that context and individual circumstances matter, then you'd need to agree that those can affect (and / or justify) a certain action, or inaction, as the case may be. Or, is there ever a situation where the seller is justified in keeping the item and the money? (I once received an item returned to me from overseas, several months after posting it (unopened, and uncollected by the buyer) - it had been so long I no longer had the ability to refund the payment, and their payment method wasn't PayPal, so I had no way of sending them funds. They didn't reply to my message, so I was in a position where I didn't have any permission to keep both, but I had no choice). 

And if we are putting morals and ethics aside, on what basis are you saying a seller can't receive the item back but not refund?

[chameleon54]

I,m not sure how much you have sold on ebay and whether you have ever run a succesful business, but you dont seem to understand the costs involved with ebay or basic business practice. With lower cost items the biggest component of a buyers payment is the postage cost. I incurred this cost in mailing the item to the buyer, so that portion of their payment has already been used to service their purchase. 

With lower cost items I dont actually make a profit at all. The cost of the item only covers my time to list it, store it, find it again when purchased, pack it including the cost of packing materials and get it to the post office. I value my time spent on ebay at $30 - $35 per hour and low value items barely cover this. 

If I then have to fight a fraudulant item not recieved case, I am imedieately out of pocket. There was no money to return to the buyer. It was used in postage costs, packing costs and time expended in initial sales process. 

Your attitude seems to be that ebay sellers time is of no value at all and they should not include this when selling items on ebay. This is quite a common attitude of buyers and is the reason so many sellers dont make a go of selling on ebay or in other bricks and mortar businesses. I realise you are only trolling, but your attitude is disrespectful to all ebay sellers ( not just me ) which may be why you dont recieve much support for your posts here.

[keythisin3]

And if we are putting morals and ethics aside, on what basis are you saying a seller can't receive the item back but not refund?

---

the basis is that the seller knowingly and deliberately kept money as well as item.

From the members comment you can see that they sent the item, the buyer tryes to scam the seller and fails so the seller then goes on to scam the buyer, it was through ebay so its not as if the seller would not have access to buyer paypal addy or address to send money back (minus ebay fees) 

seller justified decision on time is money and there time on ebay should be at a chargeable rate at cost to the buyer (because the buyer tryed scamming so i have get some phone calls happening to ebay then my internet time, my personal time (maybe not that far but chuck it in for good measure)

[digital*ghost]

---

@keythisin3 wrote:

And if we are putting morals and ethics aside, on what basis are you saying a seller can't receive the item back but not refund?

---

the basis is that the seller knowingly and deliberately kept money as well as item.

---

That is just a statement of fact, it's not justifying your postion that it's the wrong thing to do.

You said that it was wrong on a basis other than morals or ethics (by prefacing the statement with "moral ethics aside"), which suggests that you think there is different (or even less subjective) basis for the action to be considered wrong. 

Scamming is deliberate deception in order to defraud someone of something - can you truly apply that to a scenario when the circumstances that resulted in chameleon re-obtaining the goods and defending themselves against a suprius INR claim, were completely outside of their doing? 

Things like the handling fees function for returns were a thing (and still are in many retail outlets) because eBay recognised that COM returns incur costs for sellers (I personally treat items that are RTS as COM returns, which is why I mention it) - if recouping those costs takes up the entirety of any refund available, and it's 100% the fault of the buyer, how is that a scam? 

[brerrabbit585]

How can it be scamming when the buyer had every opportunity to pick it up but didn't bother? If they wanted it re-sent all they had to do was re-pay the postage. If they lost anything it was through their own actions, not the seller's.  They tried to force an unethical return at the seller's expense so why should they be rewarded for their bad behaviour, which is what you obviously think should happen.

[keythisin3]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

---

@keythisin3 wrote:

And if we are putting morals and ethics aside, on what basis are you saying a seller can't receive the item back but not refund?

---

the basis is that the seller knowingly and deliberately kept money as well as item.

---

That is just a statement of fact, it's not justifying your postion that it's the wrong thing to do.

You said that it was wrong on a basis other than morals or ethics (by prefacing the statement with "moral ethics aside"), which suggests that you think there is different (or even less subjective) basis for the action to be considered wrong. 

Scamming is deliberate deception in order to defraud someone of something - can you truly apply that to a scenario when the circumstances that resulted in chameleon re-obtaining the goods and defending themselves against a suprius INR claim, were completely outside of their doing? 

Things like the handling fees function for returns were a thing (and still are in many retail outlets) because eBay recognised that COM returns incur costs for sellers (I personally treat items that are RTS as COM returns, which is why I mention it) - if recouping those costs takes up the entirety of any refund available, and it's 100% the fault of the buyer, how is that a scam? 

---

lets have a look at the comment at hand shall we...

Did I refund them ......... Nup............. I wasted a lot of time and put up with a lot of stress chasing it up, making phone calls, and responding to the case, so Tuff t!tties buyer.........No time or sympathy here for numpty buyers. 

[countessalmirena]

chameleon, I do not believe that you need to defend your actions in this example, nor explain what sort of profit you make or don't make. You shouldn't be put in the position of feeling that you must discuss this in order to give context to the particular instance that's being referenced. It's your business.

@keythisin3, you should not be posting in a way that leads any seller to have to explain their business details with you on a public forum. I am a BUYER on eBay, not a seller - yet if I purchased an item on eBay, had it delivered to the nearest post office rather than directly to my address, and failed to pick up the parcel before the deadline was up for it to be returned to sender, I would feel annoyed at myself for not picking up the item, acknowledge that it was my fault, and would contact the seller to apologise, explain, and ask if they would be willing to re-send (with my covering the second round of postage, of course).

If I never contacted the seller about the item, and it was quite a low-cost item, I wouldn't be surprised by no refund. The postage amount is not recoverable; packaging costs are not recoverable; time spent preparing and despatching is not recoverable.

If the item's failure to arrive was the seller's fault, that's another matter.

If the item were relatively expensive, I would of course contact the seller to request a refund less any reasonable costs involved to the seller, and I would still be apologising to the seller for my error in not picking up the item.

(For the record, if I'm carded (which is not very often), I go that day or the next day to pick up items.)

If the issue involves customs charges or other import fees, I am fully aware that they are MY responsibility, and I would not attempt to gyp the seller by behaving as though I expected those charges to be paid by the seller, or as though I expected the seller to lie on the customs form about the value, or as if the actuality of customs/import charges somehow absolves me from collecting the item and gives me the right to seek to recoup my money at the expense of the seller (who has done nothing wrong).

[digital*ghost]

---

@keythisin3 wrote:

lets have a look at the comment at hand shall we...

Did I refund them ......... Nup............. I wasted a lot of time and put up with a lot of stress chasing it up, making phone calls, and responding to the case, so Tuff t!tties buyer.........No time or sympathy here for numpty buyers. 

---

Sorry, but this is not an explanation, it is just underlining something I said, with a copy-paste of something chameleon said, and suggesting it's self-explanatory, when I specifically asked for you to explain it - I already read what chameleon wrote, and I already read your assertion that it was a scam, and yet I still asked how it was a scam (and included a definition [or interpretation, if preferred] of the word scam, which was intended to highlight by that definition, from where I'm sitting, the retention of funds to cover costs incurred isn't "ipso facto scam"). 

[keythisin3]

sorry but you asked how it was a scam not for me to explain it, if your going down thr route of i can try this when i didnt do it... wel it just aint gunna work.

id did underline part of your text and i did copy and paist another members comment... guilty as charged.

i used that comment in reply to your question of how was it a scam (not an explanation but lets not confuse it) 

not at any point have i said its a scam to hold funds to cover fees incurred as part of the transaction, the issue is withholding funds that are rightfully owed.

from my point it seems that the member has deliberatly withheld funds because the buyer is a numpty (i use that word as it seems to crop up time to time) and one can conclude that funds are owed because of all the hassle in replying to the case, phone calls (ebay offer call back service and i think there is a free phone number to call?? not 100% on that, but call back is free) then the time taken costs money accoring to the member, thats a lot of free stuff going for $$$... see the point?

[enigmabear]

And as for the buyer's scam of lying and opening a false item not recieved case?

Is that scam alright ? 

Or did the buyer 'make a mistake' when they opened the case ?