Locked
Discussion interactions are currently paused.
Buyer protection abuse: eBay agrees with me but I lose out on the shipping cost: insult to injury (+ useful advice)
Summary: elettronicapt discusses a dispute with eBay regarding a faulty wireless sensor return. Despite being initially responsible for the cost of return shipping, eBay refunded both parties €11 after the sensor was found damaged upon return. However, eBay did not compensate elettronicapt for the shipping label cost, citing their policy. Frustrated with eBay's practices, which they believe favor dishonest buyers, elettronicapt expresses strong discontent with the platform and advises others on handling similar situations.
Customer requests replacement for wireless sensor for shutters due to malfunction.
Customer informed that the product will be inspected on return and, as usual, tested before being sent with a video proof. If they want, they can start the return procedure.
Customer buys another wireless sensor for shutters. I test, film and send.
Customer requests return of the first sensor due to fault. I send (at my expense) via Packlink shipping label for the return.
On return the sensor had a disconnected wire (reason for the malfunction). Unboxing was filmed from start to finish.
I open 2 reports on Ebay for incorrect procedure, as the customer has abused customer protection. The damage was caused by the customer.
Ebay unblocks my funds and reimburses me 11 euros, as I am not responsible for the damage. It also reimburses the customer 11 euros.
I ask Ebay for reimbursement of 6.49 euros for the shipping label that I bought to receive the return of the product damaged by the customer.
eBay does not reimburse, reason: "the amount for the return label is not refundable, because I accepted and sent the label as provided by the rules.
The advice for next time is to ask for their intervention before accepting the return and sending the label. The case is closed and they can no longer intervene."
PLEASE NOTE:
If you DO NOT send the label within the set days, eBay penalizes your account for "item not as described" and still reimburses the customer (often even letting them keep the product).
If you SEND the label (as I did, as an honest seller), you lose the shipping money even if you prove the scam.
eBay preferred to "buy the silence" of both by reimbursing 11€ to me and 11€ to the fraudulent buyer. This behavior does nothing but encourage dishonest customers, since they know that in the end they never really lose out. But now I can do one thing... having established that eBay has become a platform to avoid, as they deserve and as I did.
elettronicapt
OP3 months agoSince the previous thread was closed/suspended, I wanted to make a technical and economic reflection for the benefit of all the sellers in the community, to clarify how really the protections work and to debunk a few myths (like the one that says eBay “shows mercy” to sellers out of sympathy).
If a seller sees their funds released after a buyer has returned an item that was clearly damaged or tampered with (in my case, an internal copper wire torn out), it is not luck or eBay’s goodwill. It is simply the (hard-won) application of seller protection rules, achieved by documenting the abuse step by step.
However, there is a systemic paradox in this management that unfortunately is nothing new, given that platform decisions often tend to protect improper behavior:
The dead-end obligation: If you do not send the return label within 3 days, the automatic system penalizes your account for ‘item not as described’ and refunds the customer.
The economic insult: If you send the label (as an honest seller) and prove the damage caused by the user, eBay refunds you, refunds the buyer (buying both of their silence), but does not reimburse you for the return shipping costs (in my case €6.49 via Packlink).
The final balance for eBay in a situation like this is a whopping -€22 (item value refunded to both) just to avoid taking a firm stand against whoever abuses the system.
The real underlying problem is that it is absolutely not the first time that eBay’s decisions have favored improper behavior. By now it’s a constant: the platform has embraced a policy aimed at always siding with the buyer, even in the face of the most overwhelming evidence, turning seller protections into a smokescreen.
No mercy, then. Just an economic system that would rather lose money than upset dishonest customers, leaving the honest seller with the financial damage of the shipping. That is the reality of the facts; I hope it can be useful as a gauge of the current situation on the platform.
marioelegio
Mentore3 months agoYou were spared by eBay, maybe because it considered you a good customer.
In general, video evidence has no value: the wire may have come loose during transport, or you may have filmed the packaging of one item and then shipped another one. For this reason, eBay had to refund the buyer.
hi
mario