eBay

calhounmonster · ‎11-03-2021

I purchased a camera lens for $2100 but ultimately didn't like it and decided to return it. The seller's listing did say they accept returns, I paid the return shipping cost. The seller sent me some angry messages about a "remorse return" and he charged me a 50% restocking fee of $1050 that he called a "rental fee" even though I told him I never even used the lens.

Restocking fees are not allowed on eBay since 2018. I opened a case with eBay and I got an email today saying they decided to issue me a "courtesy refund" of the full $1050 which includes the purchase price plus original shipping.

Now normally, courtesy refunds are issued for small amounts and eBay covers it, and it does not come out of the seller's account. I have never heard of a "courtesy refund" for such a large amount. Would eBay really cover $1050 and let the seller off the hook or am I reading this wrong?

lacemaker3 · ‎11-04-2021

@dubiousgain wrote:
Yes, I get all of that, but in reading the O/P's saga, one can glean that this was not an exclusive game plan; That it's likely a chronic modus operandi of the O/P. I never questioned that the actions of the O/P were not within the letter of eBay policy, but was questioning the ethics of it. If you were a seller, and had items returned to you, just because the buyer was backed by eBay, and able to do it, how long before you would be thinking to yourself: "Hmmm.... I don't believe I care for this"🤔 And yes, it's all academic, but just saying.

The seller, in this case, is running a business, based on their user ID, and the type and number of items they are selling.

So yes, with a business seller, they should be expected to live up to the terms of their return policy. That is the ethical and moral thing for any seller to do. And especially a business seller.

As for the buyer's viewpoint, when a buyer can't examine and inspect an item before they purchase, then it is reasonable that they would search out items that have a policy of accepting returns, if they think that an item might not suit them, or they might wish to change their mind for any reason.

It would not be reasonable for the buyer to lie about the condition, or deliberately damage an item to force a return when there was no return policy. But again, it's not ethical or fair to punish a buyer who followed the terms of the seller's policy to the letter, because of what other buyers may have done, or were expected to do.

mr_lincoln · ‎11-04-2021

@lacemaker3 wrote:
@mr_lincoln wrote:
@buyselljack2016 wrote:
It is a "perk" that the seller gets when they accept the return.

I did a return back a bit that the seller pulled that 50% nonsense, and upon appeal I was refunded the shortage. It was much less than your refund.

The seller that did that to me, and many other buyers is no longer TRS, so they will not be doing it anymore.
@buyselljack2016 I think in time eBay will stop that practice OR reduce the amount Sellers can withhold from the item price. They wind up footing the bill for what the Seller does NOT pay the Buyer on a partial refund like that.

@mr_lincoln , there are guidelines that seller is expected to use, when issuing a partial refund in this case. See the table below.

A partial refund is only allowed at all, if the item is returned in a different condition than it was sent. And a 50% refund is only allowed if the item is received back badly damaged, missing essential parts, or requires repair, for example.

After reading all of @calhounmonster 's posts on this thread, he appears to be very knowledgeable about this kind of equipment, and since the listing had a return policy, he had every right to return the item for a refund. I don't think there is any reason to doubt that he handled the lens carefully and considerately while testing it, or that he packaged it well for the return (he said better than the seller had packaged it). And as he points out, the seller immediately relisted the lens with the same description for the same price, so it clearly wasn't damaged, missing parts, or in need of repair. According to the guidelines, he was entitled to a full refund, 0% reduced, and that is what the seller promised with their return policy.

Calhounmonster did nothing wrong here. The seller misused the partial-refund policy, and was rightfully reported to eBay for the abuse. This type of a return is allowed under the terms of the seller's return policy, and the ebay MBG.

@mudshark61369

https://www.ebay.com/help/selling/managing-returns-refunds/handle-return-request-seller?id=4115

@lacemaker3 Thanks, I've used those benefits on Free Returns and understand them.

Regards,
Mr. Lincoln - Community Mentor

dubiousgain · ‎11-04-2021

Oy vey ...🙄

lacemaker3 · ‎11-04-2021

@dubiousgain wrote:
Oy vey ...🙄

I have to agree with that.

px_455 · ‎11-04-2021

Well, I am going to let the cat out of the bag...

Here goes...

As TRS+ a seller can withhold up to 50% of the return for basically any reason, and I say that because it hardly matters... As in no matter how valid or invalid the reason, buyers ALWAYS call eaby to get their full refund anyway... And in reply eaby ALWAYS issues the courtesy refund as well.

So, it doesn't really matter.

Neither does the amount, small or large, has no effect on the above outcome.

That being said, for it all to make sense we have to understand that from a seller's perspective there's nothing free about free shipping and free returns, the simple fact is the seller pays for it all!

Yes, the seller pays for both shipping labels.

I am going to guess, buyers simply think nothing of this cost since it doesn't come out of their pockets and besides, all sellers are rich and can afford to pay all sorts of expenses out of their gold bullion holdings.

Further... As a seller I have noticed a disproportionate amount of what I will call "entitled" returns. These are products being returned simply because the buyer feels entitled to return and get a full refund for any and all reasons, whatever, you know, because they can... As in I didn't really want to buy it but I thought you should ship it to me and now you can pay for me to ship it back after I looked at your product and decided I didn't want it after all...

And yes, I realize eaby advertises free returns like it's such a great thing but it's all at the seller's expense and we're tired of carrying the cost... So fair is fair, eaby sticks it to us as sellers from the free returns perspective by basically allowing buyers to "window shop" from home by "try before you buy" all at our expense, so then we as sellers decide to let eaby pay for the shipping and the inconvenience by holding up to half the refund and let them (meaning eaby) pay for the courtesy refund.

Fact is, change only happens on the side that's losing money.

You'll never see the side that's raking it in worrying about changing anything other than to benefit themselves even more, so if we as sellers want this idiotic system to change then we stick it to those who are capable of making it happen because from our end we are doing and have done everything we can to avoid paying two-way shipping "for free."

Sorry got a bit carried away...

justafemster · ‎11-04-2021

Yea, amzn does make sellers accept returns. Difference is, amzn doesn't make sellers pay for the return.

justafemster · ‎11-04-2021

This is the ONE time a seller gets to win with ebay's return policy.

The only time a seller can stick up for themselves.

And ebay always issues a "courtesy refund" to the buyer. All the buyer has to do is ask.

THIS is why we pay fees. So when we (as sellers) follow the rules, ebay sucks up the difference.

I don't have a problem with a seller utilizing the policy ebay has.

px_455 · ‎11-04-2021

I did want to issue a correction:
The OP stated the "buyer paid" for the return shipping, in this case.

Seems to me the seller may have gone a bit overboard with the 50% withholding, on the other hand I can only relate to having so many returns that this one was simply the straw that broke the camel's back?

It's not entirely the buyer's fault either, but where there is shipping cost involved that is advertised as "free," the problem here is folks don't connect a face to the expense... The prevailing attitude that has been bred here is someone pays for it, so long it's not me!

lacemaker3 · ‎11-04-2021

@px_455 , yes, that is correct, and the seller's return policy on the listing was "30 day returns. Buyer pays for return shipping." so that is in agreement as well.

I agree, the seller went overboard on this specific case. Nobody can know what else the seller might have been dealing with, but the seller was out of line to send angry emails when the buyer was not expecting anything other than what the seller had promised in his return policy, and it was out of line for the seller to violate his own return policy.

If the seller was going to get angry, it should not have been with a buyer who was considerate, and took great care to preserve the condition and value of the item they were returning, so that it could be resold without any decrease in value attributed to the buyer's actions.

popblox · ‎11-04-2021

@lacemaker3 wrote:
@px_455 , yes, that is correct, and the seller's return policy on the listing was "30 day returns. Buyer pays for return shipping." so that is in agreement as well.

I agree, the seller went overboard on this specific case. Nobody can know what else the seller might have been dealing with, but the seller was out of line to send angry emails when the buyer was not expecting anything other than what the seller had promised in his return policy, and it was out of line for the seller to violate his own return policy.

If the seller was going to get angry, it should not have been with a buyer who was considerate, and took great care to preserve the condition and value of the item they were returning, so that it could be resold without any decrease in value attributed to the buyer's actions.

@lacemaker3

I know we're really analyzing this one to the ends of the earth, but I'm compelled to add that we don't really know exactly what was said without the seller being here to defend himself. The seller has 2,800+ feedback at 100% - doesn't even have any neutrals, which is kinda spectacular (especially for the categories they're listing in).

eBay forces a heavy burden on honest sellers and we're taken advantage of constantly. Because of this, we all know the hardships other sellers are forced to endure. Personally, I feel bound to a certain "seller code" that isn't written in eBay policies. If I had read this in the description, I would've tried to resell the camera, not return it (I wouldn't have bought it, tbh):

Yes, as we all know, those terms aren't binding. However, I wouldn't be surprised if I found out the seller has been through the ringer on returns and has already lost far more than this courtesy refund issued by eBay. It wouldn't be at all unusual for the platform.

I also have to mention that OP isn't out anything. They got exactly what they wanted. They came here to complain about a policy that allowed the seller to recoup financially, possibly come out ahead. OP should've just read the description in the first place, then moved on to a listing that better suited their return habits.

calhounmonster · ‎11-04-2021

@justafemster wrote:
Yea, amzn does make sellers accept returns. Difference is, amzn doesn't make sellers pay for the return.

Neither does eBay! Free returns is an OPTION. If you don't like it, don't use it.
The seller in this case did not use it. I (the buyer) paid the shipping for the return.

artwinds · ‎11-04-2021

From what I read and understood, the buyer received a completely new item, unpacked it, used it and then decided to return it. I understand the seller because he will receive back the item that was in use. And what should he do now if this item has lost its value by about 30-50%? I think that you should not abuse the ebay return policy, but you need to more responsibly buy such expensive things.

buyselljack2016 · ‎11-04-2021

@artwinds wrote:
From what I read and ~~understood~~, the buyer received a ~~completely new~~ used item, unpacked it, used it and then decided to return it. I understand the seller because he will receive back the item that was in use. And what should he do now if this item ~~has lost its value by about 30-50%~~? Has been relisted for same amount ~~I think that you should not abuse the ebay return policy, but you need to more responsibly buy such expensive things~~.

You missed a lot of what was posted about this item

calhounmonster · ‎11-04-2021

@artwinds wrote:
From what I read and understood, the buyer received a completely new item, unpacked it, used it and then decided to return it. I understand the seller because he will receive back the item that was in use. And what should he do now if this item has lost its value by about 30-50%? I think that you should not abuse the ebay return policy, but you need to more responsibly buy such expensive things.

Well then you read wrong. The item was not a completely new item, it was a used item. The item was inspected, not used. The item was returned in the same condition it was received in, as evidenced that the seller relisted it in the same "mint" condition as before.

Let's be clear here, if a seller chooses to accept returns, they are making a contract with the buyer to agree to eBay's return policy that includes the following valid reasons for return:
- Changed my mind
- Found a better price
- Just didn't like it
- Ordered by mistake

Returning for any of these reasons is not an "abuse" of the eBay return policy. eBay's generous return policy is simply in line with the generous return policies that have been become standard at places like Amazon, Zappos, Lands End, L.L. Bean, Bed Bath and Beyond, and many other retail outlets who accept returns for any reason, no questions asked.
If a seller on eBay wants to play with the big boys, then they can choose to accept returns for any of these reasons, OR, if they don't want that hassle, they can OPT OUT of taking returns, in which case they must only accept returns for defective items.

This seller is trying to have it both ways. They want the seller benefits of accepting returns (more sales), but they don't want to accept remorse returns.

A seller cannot accept returns, and then state in the description "NO REMORSE RETURNS" and "REMORSE RETURNS WILL BE SUBJECT TO A RESTOCK FEE" . Again this is trying to have it both ways. In fact stating that they charge restocking fees in the description is an explicit violation of eBay's return policies. Restocking fees were banned by eBay in 2018.

house*of*paws · ‎11-04-2021

Hi @calhounmonster

Perhaps this was mentioned somewhere I missed ... but I was wondering whether you opened a return request before returning the item ... or did you simply return it without opening a case?

I thought that might have had something to do with how eBay decided to handle issue.