It's Time to Reimburse Buyers for Return Packaging

[9ahau]

When buyers receive  items not as described or defective, and need to return the item, very often they incurred additional cost to package the item before returning it. That's because, to open the package, one must destroy the onetime use packaging. eBay needs to take that into consideration and factor that in the refund process.

Buyers should never lose money just because they shopped on eBay. Sellers get the ability to deduct from their taxes for return merchandise whereas buyers do not.

eBay must create the ability for buyers to upload receipt for packages when they need to return items either not as described or item is defective so sellers can reimburse buyers.

[theteamsetguy]

@sumsum70 ,

Here’s an even better idea. Instead of not accepting returns. Offer FREE returns like I do to avoid false INAD cases. Not every buyer that returns something because they changed their mind is a bad buyer. 

I’m sure because many sellers not accepting returns is one major reason eBay is loosing buyers. Many buyers who find out they can’t return something will not come back to eBay when they can buy from a host of retailers who gladly take returns for whatever reason including buyer remorse.

Here’s a thought, eBay should require all sellers to offer free returns. This way eBay can get rid of some sellers. 

[theteamsetguy]

@pls-consignments ,

I don’t think so, based on some of the feedback left for others the OP has made.

[gone.c-33]

---

@gone.c-33 wrote:

---

@gone.c-33 wrote:

---

@9ahau wrote:

---

@ebooksdiva wrote:

What an absolutely ridiculous idea! 
Sellers already pay a return label. I am a seller I wouldn't be paying for a buyer to purchase packaging. Buyers need to open packages carefully in case they decide they don't want the item to repurpose the packaging for the return.  
There are no retailers that pay for packaging to return items so why should eBay sellers? 

You say why should buyers lose money when returning...why should sellers have to lose more money because buyers want to return? 

---

Remember, online shopping  mimics buying at a physical store...buying at a physical would never present the buyer with an item NOT AS DESCRIBED...only online shopping does. Also, if one buys a defective item at the store, buyer does not incur a cost of the container it came in; however, the buyer incurs a cost to return the defective whether it's the buyer's time and/or gas.

Remember, sellers have a tax deductible for return merchandise whereas buyer's do not...did you read what I said?

Those self-glued envelop  does not hold up under careful, and again, the buyer got NOT AS DESCRIBED item.

---

You never purchased a box/sealed item in a store and found out upon unboxing/taking it out of the packaging that it was malfunctioning?

If so, you’ve lived a blessed life, but it happens, and no one returning such item is reimbursed for their time/cost of travel to return to the store.

---

@9ahau I’d really like to know your thoughts on this 

---

Plenty of replies to other comments but none to this one that invalidates their argument, this is definitely a wind up thread.

[wastingtime101]

---

@9ahau wrote:

---

@wastingtime101 wrote:

Gotta ask: did you really report a seller to the FBI because they were out of stock on an item you purchased @9ahau ?

---

That seller took payment, didn't not ship the item, did not communicate that the seller was out of stock, the listing did not say out of stock, the seller did not communicate ever, not to me or eBay...

So, that's what IC3 is for, correct? BTW, it's eBay who enlighten me of IC3, some time in 2009.

eBay gave me the money back. eBay does not need sellers like that.

---

No, that's definitely not what the Internet Crime Complaint Center is for @9ahau . That's what eBay's Money Back Guarantee is for. You file a non-receipt claim on eBay and you get a full refund. It's not an internet crime to be out of stock and have the buyer file a non-receipt request through the marketplace before refunding.

You're wasting government resources by reporting things like that to IC3 and taking up their time sifting through frivolous reports that should be spent catching real criminals.

[mam98031]

---

@sumsum70 wrote:

What I meant was that eBay should let sellers block bad buyers automatically. As I've said before, eBay has all of the data. eBay knows which buyers open returns and leave non-positive feedback at rates which significantly deviate from the norm. It would not be difficult for eBay to give us a checkbox in the buyer requirements tab to block those buyers.

eBay is never interested in helping sellers, so here is another way that could help eBay - all of those blocked buyers will open new accounts to circumvent the blocks and eBay can then brag to shareholders that active users increased.

While they are at it, eBay could also give me a checkbox to never show me search results from sellers who get 1200 negs per month - and also the 15 other eBay accounts that same seller uses.

---

It appears to me that what you are asking for is for Ebay to disclose to you private account information on buyers.  How many returns a buyer has is private account info.  How many negative FB a buyer leaves is public info we can all see.

"eBay is never interested in helping sellers..."  Absolutely not true, but in the specific case of giving out private account info on members, that they don't do for buyers or sellers.

Any seller that gets 1200 negs in a month would have likely had a HUGE number of transactions.  While you look at things as how many returns a buyer may have, how many negatives a buyer may have given or how many negs a seller may have gotten, that is not the entire picture and is looking at things in a tunnel.  To have an accurate view of those numbers and what they mean, you would also need to know how many transactions were handled for the same period of time.  Otherwise the number you are working with just have no real meaning.

For example a seller with 1200 negative FB and 1500 feedback, makes a seller have a 20% FB rating.

A seller with 1200 negative FB and 15,000 FB, makes the seller have a 92% FB rating.  Etc.

You have to look at the whole picture, not just bits and pieces.  You can't get an accurate view of any member with just bits and pieces.

[wastingtime101]

---

@a_c_green wrote:

---

@9ahau wrote:

---

@tools* wrote:

What is this onetime use packaging of which you speak?

---

Those bubble self-glued envelop...do you even seen them?

---

I just snip across the folded-over flap at the end. If I need to reuse (reclose) the envelope, I just run a strip of tape across that end, folding it over to the other side. No big deal.

---

Same here. I reuse those all the time. Sounds like @9ahau may be tearing them open with their hands instead of using scissors to cut across the top?

[adamcartwright]

@9ahau 

For those who don't know how to cut open an envelope and reuse it with some packing tape, I'm sure there are how-to videos on YouTube. 👍

In fact, if people aren't doing this already, it's very wasteful.

[mam98031]

---

@9ahau wrote:

That's why sellers need to inspect what they're  selling...quality control is in there hands, isn't it?

Remember, when the buyer received an item NOT AS DESCRIBED, that's the seller's dishonesty or recklessness...

---

In that short post the amount of ASSUMPTIONS you make is incredible.  Your myopic view of sellers on Ebay is certainly true of some, but not of most.  If most sellers functioned the way you keep insisting they do, Ebay would not be about to celebrate their 30th anniversary next year.  The site simply would not have survived.

You have a great deal of bad luck when shopping on this site or you exaggerate your experiences to entertain yourself here in the community by the responses you get.  

So should sellers be able to charge a buyer more for having to process a return when they return it because they changed their mind, didn't like the color, it didn't fit them or some other Buyer's remorse reason?

Should a seller be able to charge a buyer when they ask the seller to cancel a transaction for whatever reason they have?

Should a seller be able to charge a buyer a fee when they email them with a question on the item being sold when the answer to their question is stated in the listing, the buyer just didn't bother to read it?

The silly list can go on and on.  But all those things cost a seller time and time is money.  Should we be able to bill and collect the costs from the buyer?

If you sell, it is clearly under a different ID.  What type of products do you sell?  How active of a seller are you?  Do you sell regularly or just occasionally?  

[adamcartwright]

@theteamsetguy 

Here's a thought, that's an absurd idea.

But I guess there will always be people who don't trust their own judgment and enjoy being regulated.

[tobaccocardyahoo]

My suggestion to buyers who are troubled by having to properly pack their returns without compensation is to buy FBA items on Amazon.

Just decided to return an improperly reading blood pressure measurement device.

Had my choice of dropoff at Staples, Kohl's, Whole Foods or the UPS Store. No need to pack.

Of course, the same logic about packing materials would make you want to reimbursed for the gasoline.

[mam98031]

---

@9ahau wrote:

That's why eBay now offers the buyer the ability to upload a picture of what they got...correct?

---

No it isn't.  It is so the buyer can offer up some proof that there really is a problem.  And when the buyer is claiming that the item was damaged in shipment, then a pic of the damaged package is a good thing to send the seller so they can prove the claim or start a claim with the shipper.

Offering up these pics isn't about what you believe it to be about.  It is because there have been so many buyers claiming stuff was damaged either through the carrier or in the inadequate packaging of the seller.  Having to attach a pic to prove the buyer's claim is a HUGE help to sellers.

I've had a buyer open a claim saying the item was not what they ordered, attached a pic and that pic was EXACTLY what my listings described and pictured.

You certainly have an unusual way of looking at things.  

[mam98031]

---

@9ahau wrote:

If you had nothing constructive to say, why waste you time here? There are dishonest buyers and sellers...right?

---

[mam98031]

---

@9ahau wrote:

---

@wastingtime101 wrote:

Gotta ask: did you really report a seller to the FBI because they were out of stock on an item you purchased @9ahau ?

---

That seller took payment, didn't not ship the item, did not communicate that the seller was out of stock, the listing did not say out of stock, the seller did not communicate ever, not to me or eBay...

So, that's what IC3 is for, correct? BTW, it's eBay who enlighten me of IC3, some time in 2009.

eBay gave me the money back. eBay does not need sellers like that.

---

The FBI have far more important things to deal with than this nonsense.

You were protected by the MBG and would have been fully refunded after filing an INR.  So no, the FBI isn't going to take your claim seriously.

If you are actually an active seller that sells on a regular basis, then you are also aware of how Ebay tracks stats on a seller and how a seller is eval'd on those stats every month.  A seller doing as you said above on a regular basis would be getting sanctioned by Ebay.  Continued behavior like this would eventually cause the seller to lose their selling privileges on the site.

Ebay has this in hand and guardrails in place.  Either you are unaware of them or simply don't acknowledge their existence.  

[bonjourami]

Op obviously enjoys playing the victim,high drama.

[mam98031]

---

@theteamsetguy wrote:

@sumsum70 ,

Here’s an even better idea. Instead of not accepting returns. Offer FREE returns like I do to avoid false INAD cases. Not every buyer that returns something because they changed their mind is a bad buyer. 

I’m sure because many sellers not accepting returns is one major reason eBay is loosing buyers. Many buyers who find out they can’t return something will not come back to eBay when they can buy from a host of retailers who gladly take returns for whatever reason including buyer remorse.

Here’s a thought, eBay should require all sellers to offer free returns. This way eBay can get rid of some sellers. 

---

@theteamsetguy 

Many sellers that state they have a no return policy do not realize they can't enforce that.  If the buyer files an INAD, the seller either needs to refund the buyer or accept the return.  All sellers are required to have a return policy that meets or exceeds the coverage for buyers in the MBG.

The only type of returns a seller with a No Return policy can deny is a properly filed Buyer's Remorse return.  But they have to file it using a buyer remorse reason.

I agree with you.  Not all buyers wanting to return something for a buyer remorse reason are bad buyers.  Smart sellers take each situation on a case by case basis.  Handle it on the merits of each case not like everyone is trying to steal your money. 

Most buyers are wonderful people and most transactions go off without a hitch.  If they didn't, there would be no reason for sellers to even be here as we couldn't make any money.  Which is why we are all here.