eBay Buyer Protection

There may be instances where a seller doesn't resolve a claim and we find in favour of the buyer, in which case, under eBay Buyer Protection, eBay will pay the buyer and invoice the seller for the amount paid to the buyer by eBay. Where a seller fails to comply with the eBay Buyer Protection policy, eBay may also remove any special status associated with the seller's account (e.g. PowerSeller status), reduce or eliminate any discounts received by the seller, decrease visibility of the seller's listings in search results, place certain requirements regarding payment options offered by the seller and potential holds on payments made through PayPal and/or restrict or suspend the seller's account.

Alternatively, if eBay are now saying they reserve the power to make financial decisiona and bill the seller, over and above those decisions made by PayPal, that's one more nail in the coffin for eBay. The more eBay discriminates against the seller, the more sellers are going to leave.

This is another major fuck up by all accounts. PayPal already offer buyer and seller protection, heavily weighed in favour of the buyer. If a buyer cannot make a valid claim with the existing policies in place, they are either not entitled to it, or too stupid to be online in the first place.

Is that actually new?

If PayPal did not provide protection, and eBay took on the mantle, it will kill both companies. Whilst most people who use PayPal still use a credit card for protection reasons, if PayPal dispensed with it's current responsibilities, I for one would refuse to accept PayPal. It is the only protection I have against fraud and chargebacks. eBay cannot protect a customer against chargeback from buyers who predominantly only buy and therefore have no reason to pay eBay anything.

If the current status quo were swung more in favour of eBay buyers, I for one will cease trading. I will sell through ads on Acaeum and Dragonsfoot, and prut up my own site. There is too much protection for buyers under the current regime. Most disputes between buyer and seller are the result of one party or other being dishonest, and to default the system in favour of assuming the seller is a liar is wholely wrong.

The onus should be on the seller to send the item and prove it was delivered, and to insure the package in transit. The onus should be on the buyer to prove the item was either damaged in transit, or that the seller lied, and then prove that the item was returned and signed for in the packaging and condition it was received.

The assumption should be that the seller is honest and truthful unless the buyer can prove otherwise, and there should be an obligation on the buyer to return the goods before any judgement is made.

lawrenson wrote:Hi,

so what are you going to do if you go "private"?

Just assume that everyone who doesnt receive their goods is lying, or what?

My Missus ALWAYS accepts responsibility if a package goes missing on her CCG sales, even if she thinks the buyer is a lying scumbag.

She always then replaces or refunds.

That brings her a lot of repeat business in goodwill.

I can't see how you can do anything else if you go off ebay - and that is pretty much what Ebay insists on anyhow.

Cheers,
Malc

No. I always send recorded delivery with full insurance. Often I lose out on postage and packaging, and I go out of my way to source double wall cardboard and pack everthing is at least two skins of double wall cardboard. So anything I post should either arrive in the condition I describe and photograph, or I have a valid claim against the PO.

If I send something signed for, and it arrives, but no signature is required (I'm sure it has happened), I am quite happy to pursue a claim through the PO and allow my customer a refund. The PO didn't do it's job.

I have however had customers (Dragonsfoot members even) who have claimed items have not arrived, I have either shipped replacements or provided a full refund, and the PO will not entertain a claim because they can prove the item was delivered.

I have also had buyers claim that the item received was damaged/torn, but are not willing to provide photos of the item or the packaging to allow me to make a claim under my insurance, and still get a refund through the system.

The system by default is already set up to allow fraud against sellers, and whilst I have only been of the receiving end maybe six times in five years, it is plain wrong to bias the system towards the buyer without forcing the burden of proof onto them as well.

What I ask is that the burden of proof (photographic) be forced onto the buyer, and that the buyer also has to prove the item was returned to the seller insured and recorded. That way, the easy fraud is removed, and the potential fraudulent claims are reduced to those willing to go to extremes.

I also had a fraudulent buyer buy an iPhone from me. He was a zero rated buyer and in the space of two days, bout three phones and two cameras. I was not stupid enough to ship to him, but within a day I was receiving PMs from the other sellers who had shipped, two of which lost everything. Now, you may well think I was lucky, but eBay still hit me with £20 in fees, and I was not allowed a refund because I had refused to ship the item, even though all four other transactions were fraudulent.

If you are going to champion the buyers rights over those of the seller, then I can only assume you haven't suffered as much as some of us from the current assumption that the seller is the liar.

lawrenson wrote:ccg players having the reputation of being fairly dishonest in the general gaming world,

I recently read an article in Pyramid magazine about this (#12 I think) where Crazy Egor's was scammed out of about $5000 worth of magic cards, kids at Cons were essentially mugged for their cards and various stores and vehicles (traveling home from a Con) were broken in to and their Magic cards stolen.