Question thread: Reducing unpaid items

[seller_update@ebay]

Today we announced one of the ways we are reducing unpaid item cases. Buyers will automatically be charged when sellers accept their Best Offer. You can read more about that here. Feel free to review and leave any questions you may have below! 

Please note that eBay experts will be present and engaging on the boards between 8 am and 4:00 pm PST on 2.9.

[ittybitnot]

I agree that is a real problem for some buyers

Yes, it would be a problem for me.   Say, for instance, my checking account has $1000

I make an offer on something for $700 with my debit card and it is declined by the seller. 

My balance now looks  like this:

$1000

(-700) charge hold
-----------------------------
$300 available



Now, even though my offer was declined, I cannot increase my offer to  $725 because there is not enough money.   I can't even come back the next day to increase my offer because that charge hold is still there even though there  is never going to be a transaction for $700.  If it is there for days on end,  I can't use that account at all to buy something for $400.    So, yes, it is a problem.   

The same could be said if a credit card was used, and the declined amount stays on their for days making subsequent purchases impossible if it should affect available credit amounts in the same fashion. 

[mam98031]

I understand what you are saying.  So what do you think the solution is?

[x75]

what happens when a seller can't leave negative feedback for a non-paying buyer.

Remember how simple things used to be in the early 2000s?

[casuallyattractive]

This may be helpful, but then again it may just make buyers change they're minds immediately.

It isn't ebay's fault though.

At least they are making up for the increased fees.

(Slightly)

[downunder-61]

I totally agree this is not an issue that relates to eBay, as I said in my post, but to the banks/providers themselves, but the NEGATIVE impact for buyers has to be something eBay would take seriously surely.

Especially when in all the threads I have read about this, the buyer is, incorrectly I admit, blaming eBay for it.

It is the buyers perception of eBay that is in question in this case and not all buyers come here to get the actual facts, so how many buyers hit the back button and won't come back?

[downunder-61]

---

@x75 wrote:

what happens when a seller can't leave negative feedback for a non-paying buyer.

Remember how simple things used to be in the early 2000s?

---

Smart sellers do this:

If a buyer hasn’t paid within 4 days, on the 5th day you can go to your Seller Hub to cancel the transaction using the “Buyer hasn't paid” reason and this gives the buyer a strike and you can relist. In future to have eBay automatically cancel your transactions due to non-payment:

Go here:   https://www.ebay.com/Cancel/Preference/UnpaidPurchase    

and have their block set accordingly.                                 

[mam98031]

---

@x75 wrote:

what happens when a seller can't leave negative feedback for a non-paying buyer.

Remember how simple things used to be in the early 2000s?

---

Nothing happens.  Life goes on.  Such an OLD OLD OLD subject.  It has been 22 YEARS since sellers were able to leave negative FB.  One would think that was more than enough time to adjust.

If Ebay were still functioning at the level it was in the early 2000's, Ebay would have closed years ago.  Way too many things have changed and the internet is very different now.  Buyers aren't the same either.

[mam98031]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

---

@x75 wrote:

what happens when a seller can't leave negative feedback for a non-paying buyer.

Remember how simple things used to be in the early 2000s?

---

Nothing happens.  Life goes on.  Such an OLD OLD OLD subject.  It has been 22 YEARS since sellers were able to leave negative FB.  One would think that was more than enough time to adjust.

If Ebay were still functioning at the level it was in the early 2000's, Ebay would have closed years ago.  Way too many things have changed and the internet is very different now.  Buyers aren't the same either.

---

NOT 22 years, I confused myself or something.  Or needed another glass of wine.  That should have been about 14-15 years.

[sandhya@ebay]

---

@coffeebean832 wrote:

---

@chapeau-noir wrote:

---

For multiple buys eBay needs to add a bundling feature so the buyer can send an offer on the bundle, and when they check out, there is a single payment with a single .30 fee.

---

sandhya@ebay- Some great feedback for your team!

---

@coffeebean832  Thank you for the feedback. Yes, we have heard this from multiple buyers and sellers and we will take this back to the team. 

[ittybitnot]

Especially when in all the threads I have read about this, the buyer is, incorrectly I admit, blaming eBay for it.

@downunder-61 
@mam98031 

sandhya@ebay 

The good thing about a discussion is that we can all share information.  Though I have been studying the reports from users of this program, it was only the other day that the problem with the "charge hold" was brought to light.  After just a couple of days, I don't have a definitive answer, but simply looking to understand the process. 

I am of the opinion that it is NOT my bank's doing per se, but may be a combination of things in play. For an example, one gas station may place a $100 hold, another entity a $1.00 hold  to simply check the card.  These happen instantly.   So who is determining the amount?  Not my bank, but the vendor, and in this case I assume the vendor is  eBay. 

The gas station hold may last for five days even though my actual purchase was $20, another may last less than 24 hours.  I am using the same bank. So who (or which bot) is determining the length of the hold?   In this day and age if it can be placed instantly, it can be removed instantly as well so it would seem.  If a buyer's available funds are depleted due to long lasting legacy type holds it will have adverse effects that should be addressed in this preliminary stage.  

If this is not possible with this eBay program, at the very least they should throw up a WARNING to the buyer about to make that offer "that even if your offer is declined, a hold will be on that amount for X number of days and the funds may not be available to you".   In eBay style, they could add "depending on your financial institution." 

Because I read here, I know how it might play out well in advance of using the program. I won't be making offers that are holding my funds, when they are declined.  Others using the new system may not know , and it is going to cause issues. 

I think this new program has some very good benefits, especially for newbie sellers that are plagued with the "text me" scammers making offers simply for the opportunity to carry out their unsavory business.  It is good for other sellers who don't have a lot of requests for combined shipping TO SAVE ON POSTAGE, when a buyer would be interested in making multiple offers with the same seller.  

This program is new.  It is still being tested, and I am glad we have the opportunity to discuss the operation PRIOR to it being put in place for all.  It is good that sellers have a choice to use it or not, but not particularly good if they don't know their prospective buyer is hampered by being in the present test. 

[d-k_treasures]

---

seller_update@ebay wrote:

---

@clarkphilatelics wrote:

Will this change result in more 30 cent fees and make it even more difficult to consolidate multiple orders from the same buyer? Some competing sites automatically consolidate orders from the same buyer within a defined period of time like 24 hours.

---

Hi @clarkphilatelics - it's possible that you may have buyers that make multiple Best Offers which, if accepted, would charge as multiple transactions (just as they could now if they use 'Buy it Now' instead of adding to cart). 

This change should not impact your ability to combine multiple purchases into a single shipment if you use eBay Labels. 

Also, as @buyselljack2016 notes, this is a feature you can manage for your business via the Buyer Requirements section of your preferences screen when it's available for you (link here).

---

You're missing the point. Sigh.

It DOES change the impact if the seller offers combined shipping AT A REDUCED RATE.

[d-k_treasures]

---

@buyselljack2016 wrote:

---

@selsa84 wrote:

wouldnt forcing them to pay just create more actual returns?  Buyer makes offer, doesnt pay, ebay forces them and then theyll just return it when it is recieved?

---

With this program....................    buyer MUST commit to pay before making the "offer".  There is no "doesn't pay".

---

And if the seller declines the offer, the money is tied up for 7-10 days regardless.

[d-k_treasures]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

I understand what you are saying.  So what do you think the solution is?

---

The merchant - ebay - can cancel or revoke the authorization at any time.

[d-k_treasures]

---

sandhya@ebay wrote:

---

@coffeebean832 wrote:

---

@chapeau-noir wrote:

---

For multiple buys eBay needs to add a bundling feature so the buyer can send an offer on the bundle, and when they check out, there is a single payment with a single .30 fee.

---

sandhya@ebay- Some great feedback for your team!

---

@coffeebean832  Thank you for the feedback. Yes, we have heard this from multiple buyers and sellers and we will take this back to the team. 

---

The fact that 'the team' didn't consider this from the start is mind-boggling.

[lacemaker3]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

---

@ittybitnot wrote:

@downunder-61 

Thanks for your post.  I was just going to mention it myself.  The "charge hold" or authorization that is not removed when the offer is declined is certainly an issue.  That money is no longer available for the buyer to use until it "falls off" or is taken off.  The charge holds can limit the available funds for the buyer EVEN when the offer is DECLINED.  DAYS is too long. Instantly would be best.   It appears to be a similar issue with buyer's general payments that make them think they have been charged twice.  The authorization/charge hold is NOT being removed in a timely fashion.  Is this a function eBay can improve or are buyers stuck with days of charge holds due to managed payments  being quick to authorize, slow to let it go? 

The person upthread that mentioned having a "bundling feature"  gets 100000+ thumbs up for that fantastic idea!   

---

I agree that is a real problem for some buyers, however Ebay doesn't have anything to do with how long a buyers funding source takes to process stuff.

Pinging of funding sources is a necessary process for payments otherwise Marketplaces or other websites would be flying blind on if a buyer's payment is any good until it reached the funding source.  That would significantly hamper the process.

---

The funding source is reporting that the hold is being placed at eBay's request, and that it is up to eBay to release it. One buyer has reported that the hold was placed for 10 days; but it's not clear if that was calendar days or business days, which would amount to a hold of 2 weeks.

Also, it has been reported that if/when the offer is accepted, eBay does not follow through on the initial payment request, but sends a new one. This has caused multiple buyers to be double-charged, and some have had hundreds or thousands of dollars tied up for more than a week.

So that puts it firmly back in eBay's court. Please leave this for eBay to respond; we need to hear from eBay about this, not from a community volunteer who can't speak for eBay.

seller_update@ebay  and sandhya@ebay,

Please address these issues:

1. Why is eBay putting such lengthy pre-authorization charges (10 days) on buyer's accounts at all?
2. Why is eBay not releasing the pre-authorization charges immediately when an offer is declined?
3. Why is eBay issuing a second charge against the buyer's account when an offer is accepted, and not releasing the earlier pre-authorization charge, so that buyers are charged twice and can't recover their money for days?

These practices need to stop. This is not acceptable.

I don't use negative feedbacks, but if a seller continues to use such a badly programmed system as this, then they can expect to get defects and negative feedbacks, and they would be deserved.