Should non paying bidder's be charged a fee?

[kobies_costume_jewelry]

Hi and thanks to everyone for their advice if only Ebay was as helpful

I know that this probably has been raised before.

But.

Should non paying bidder's be fined? I didn't realise that there were so many.

A simple fee of say $5 (charged by Ebay) that goes to the seller for their time and effort. .

A dishonour fee?  

Placing restriction on an account for non paying is pretty lame. (you bad person don't do it again this month next month go for it.)

They would certainly think twice about bidding on an item and then not pay espescially if the item was under $10.

Come on Ebay if it wasn't for the seller's where would you be?

The million's of dollar's your company has spent on lawyer's to protect yourself yet you don't protect the people that made you.

Yes I know I'm a newbie at selling and I have a lot to learn but this is ridiculous.

.

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

---

@belindabargainhunter wrote:
In that case I think sellers who cancel sales should be charged a fee. I have missed out on many items only to have sellers withdraw or cancel sales. I have then had to pay more money to buy from someone else. Should the seller pay the difference.

---

No, they should not. 

[belindabargainhunter]

Of course they should not. My point was in the way a seller shouldn't have to pay either should a buyer. I may not like buyers who bid and don't pay but they can't be fined.

[thecatspjs]

No ...

But IMO..

Ebay should forgo ALL listing fees.

Ebay should shorten the time a buyer has to pay after a non-payment dispute is opened.

Buyers should lose % for each non-payment strike.

Non payment strike tally should show on a buyers feedback page.

Buyers with more than 2 strikes should have to go through a more rigorous identity process to  continue buying on ebay.

And thats just some thoughts off the top of my head....

[digital*ghost]

---

@thecatspjs wrote:

Ebay should shorten the time a buyer has to pay after a non-payment dispute is opened.

---

That is one change I would definitely welcome. If given the choice, I would much rather the number of days before a UPI dispute can be closed for FVF credit be shortened to 2 than have that as the number of days before it can be opened - the number of days from go to whoah might be the same, but I dislike being obliged to give someone another 4 days (minimum) if they've already neglected to meet my payment terms.

[kobies_costume_jewelry]

Hi everybody and thanks for your thought's

Look's like the no's have it at 5 to 4

I will let her know as she raised the question

[davewil1964]

I suspect it's more than 5 to 4.

6 to 4 at least. i didn't respond before because I had nothing to add to what was already posted, but since it's now a poll, I vote no.

[*crikey*mate*]

*throws hat into the ring*

make that 7 to 4

EDIT - oops cancel that - shoulda scrolled back -