Community Chat, October 16 @ 1:00 pm PT - Seller Protection

[tyler@ebay]

Hi eBay Sellers! 

This Wednesday, join us here for another Community Chat dedicated to the topic of Seller Protection.
 
The Seller Protection team will be here to answer questions submitted between 1-2 pm PT. During the chat hour, eBay staff will answer your questions in real-time. At 2 pm, the thread will close. We'll work through any unanswered questions after 2 pm.

See you then! 

How the Q&A chat works:

This discussion thread will open for replies at 1 pm PT. When the thread opens, you can ask questions by clicking the 'Reply' button.

[vrykalak]

>Partial refunds are designed as a remedy for when a buyer uses or damages an item and then returns it.  In this case the seller can deduct up to 50% from the refund because the item still has value.

If the item was new, in original packaging and is returned NOT in/with original packaging, it may have value, but it is not salable. 
The seller should not have to eat half the payment (and the cost of outbound and inbound shipping).

[mikeyjt_123]

---

@dusty_relics_tx wrote:

This last point makes NO Sense - if an item is returned to you used or damaged, you have access to give the buyer a partial refund and withhold up to 50% of the value of the item to recover the diminished value resulting from the buyers alterations. If the item is used, damaged or altered the resale value of it may very well be zero so how does refunding them up to 50% provide a seller protection?  Perhaps it sounds more like a buyer protection ~ Oh by the way you don't have to return the item in the condition received. Just make sure you send it back and you can get some of your money back. And then  perhaps appeal and end up with the balance.  Further 50% allows very little room to resell even if it can be as this assumes little or no cost in purchasing the item. I think eBay needs to re-evaluate this...

---

@dusty_relics_tx - thank you for the feedback; we are offering new protections that will help sellers, but may not cover all use cases.  As we continue to look at the way that buyers are using returns, and how that impacts our seller community, we will continue to address feedback like this.

[bestdealinparts]

tyler@ebay  and @gracieallen01 I have no idea how my post disappeared, I've just reposted.

[mr_lincoln]

tyler@ebay  Since there is no 100% way to prove or disprove a Buyer's INAD or SNAD claim for return purposes the not as describe Seller metric should be dropped.  A system that relies on a 3rd party (eBay) making a determination via the return claim process where they had no involvement or personal contact with the item from sale to delivery is simply not justifiable from a reality standpoint ... meaning, eBay doesn't know where the truth lies or if in fact the INAD or SNAD claim is indeed a lie or not ...

[mikeyjt_123]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

Thank you for the feedback.  There is some confusion around a Return that is used/damaged and a Fraudulent Return (wrong item).  We are working with our Risk teams and our Customer Service folks to reiterate this distinction and ensure that sellers are protected in these instances.  Examples like these help us identify and measure the problem - so we appreciate the feedback.

That is good news.  What about those sellers that have already been financially damaged due to this not being handled in the way it should have been?

---

@mam98031  We have two conflicting points of view, and we aren't there to inspect the item when it is returned.  This is a really complex problem, and we are working on it.  

[sj125690]

---

@golfingaddict wrote:

---

 

---

@golfingaddict 

That is a great question and I understand why you are concerned. We have just recently launched a new policy, seller protections abuse, where we are monitoring sellers who are abusing these protections. Sellers who violate this policy face a range of actions on their account, including the loss of seller protections.

---

Now I think I am even more confused:

here is eBay's statement on that page:

• The amount withheld should be equal to or less than the value lost due to buyer use or damage
• Sellers may not withhold a refund for any reason other than recovering the lost value due to buyer use or damage

Does that mean that if a buyer returns something without the tags, or with the packaging destroyed or without the packaging.. Does that constiture lost value due to use or damage?

Thank you.

---

@golfingaddict 

You can find our partial refund guidelines here, however you know your business better than we do. If missing tags or a destroyed package causes loss in the value of your item, then that is when you should be using the partial refund tool.

[alan@ebay]

---

@bestdealinparts wrote:

tyler@ebay  and @gracieallen01 I have no idea how my post disappeared, I've just reposted.

---

Hi @bestdealinparts,

Sorry about that and thanks for reposting. We'll look into this and see if we can find out what happened. 

[postcardcountry]

I am confused...can you explain how I am protected from the following:

Buyer purchases, pays, I ship.   Within 2 hours of receipt, the 'buyer' starts a return.

They purchased a vintage ad.  It says vintage ad in the title and in the description.

Reason for return:   Does not fit.

How does an ad not fit.

Under comments she wrote "my son thought he was getting the real thing, not an AD"

How am I protected from buyer ignorance compounded by a false claim for a free return?

[mam98031]

---

@mikeyjt_123 wrote:

---

@mam98031 wrote:

Thank you for the feedback.  There is some confusion around a Return that is used/damaged and a Fraudulent Return (wrong item).  We are working with our Risk teams and our Customer Service folks to reiterate this distinction and ensure that sellers are protected in these instances.  Examples like these help us identify and measure the problem - so we appreciate the feedback.

That is good news.  What about those sellers that have already been financially damaged due to this not being handled in the way it should have been?

---

@mam98031  We have two conflicting points of view, and we aren't there to inspect the item when it is returned.  This is a really complex problem, and we are working on it.  

---

In the case I was quoting from, there were pictures that proved that the buyer returned something different.  And there was written prove from a 3rd party expert on the subject telling the seller that the item received was not what was shipped nor was anything that was ever in their stock.

What "point of view" is "conflicting"?  Ebay's?  If Ebay isn't going to take into consideration a 3rd party experts written statement then IMHO Ebay isn't going to accept any type of evidence no matter what it is unless it is a court order.  I realize that is an extreme statement.  But what is it that Ebay would accept.  Not the word of the seller, not pics taken at time of receipt of the return items and not a 3rd party's observation.  What is it that Ebay wants?

[gracieallen01]

---

@bestdealinparts wrote:

tyler@ebay  and @gracieallen01 I have no idea how my post disappeared, I've just reposted.

---

Thank you.

[golfingaddict]

---

@sj125690 wrote:

---

@golfingaddict wrote:

---

 

---

@golfingaddict 

That is a great question and I understand why you are concerned. We have just recently launched a new policy, seller protections abuse, where we are monitoring sellers who are abusing these protections. Sellers who violate this policy face a range of actions on their account, including the loss of seller protections.

---

Now I think I am even more confused:

here is eBay's statement on that page:

• The amount withheld should be equal to or less than the value lost due to buyer use or damage
• Sellers may not withhold a refund for any reason other than recovering the lost value due to buyer use or damage

Does that mean that if a buyer returns something without the tags, or with the packaging destroyed or without the packaging.. Does that constiture lost value due to use or damage?

Thank you.

---

@golfingaddict 

You can find our partial refund guidelines here, however you know your business better than we do. If missing tags or a destroyed package causes loss in the value of your item, then that is when you should be using the partial refund tool.

---

Actually, for many of my items, the return itself usually is a 100% loss because I can't/won't resell the items.  I offer returns because it is the right thing to do, but it still infuriates me when  a buyer claims that the item is not as described because it doesn't fit or is not comfortable or is bigger or smaller than expected.

I guess I am happy I can get 50% back and I don't have to lose the return shipping as well.

I just worry that ebay is going to slam me for taking advantage of the new seller protection program and punish me because others will have a lower average in their service metrics because they are not honest.

[mikeyjt_123]

---

@mr_lincoln wrote:

tyler@ebay  Since there is no 100% way to prove or disprove a Buyer's INAD or SNAD claim for return purposes the not as describe Seller metric should be dropped.  A system that relies on a 3rd party (eBay) making a determination via the return claim process where they had no involvement or personal contact with the item from sale to delivery is simply not justifiable from a reality standpoint ... meaning, eBay doesn't know where the truth lies or if in fact the INAD or SNAD claim is indeed a lie or not ...

---

@mr_lincoln  - Thanks for the feedback.  We've found that service metrics is the best way to compare apples to apples, rather than comparing a seller's business to a much larger subset that may not represent the type of business that you do.

[bestdealinparts]

I would also like to add that I understand eBay can't check on different facts and often can't judge when it's my word against the buyer's only, but I'm strictly to the cases where the proof comes straight from the abusing buyer, they give out all information, so the proof is clear and certain, no room for "maybe".

[mam98031]

---

@bestdealinparts wrote:

I would also like to add that I understand eBay can't check on different facts and often can't judge when, but I'm strictly to the cases where the proof comes straight from the abusing buyer, they give out all information, so the proof is clear and certain, no room for "maybe".

---

Oh I've had those too and still lost.

[vrykalak]

---

@mikeyjt_123 wrote:

---

@mr_lincoln wrote:

tyler@ebay  Since there is no 100% way to prove or disprove a Buyer's INAD or SNAD claim for return purposes the not as describe Seller metric should be dropped.  A system that relies on a 3rd party (eBay) making a determination via the return claim process where they had no involvement or personal contact with the item from sale to delivery is simply not justifiable from a reality standpoint ... meaning, eBay doesn't know where the truth lies or if in fact the INAD or SNAD claim is indeed a lie or not ...

---

@mr_lincoln  - Thanks for the feedback.  We've found that service metrics is the best way to compare apples to apples, rather than comparing a seller's business to a much larger subset that may not represent the type of business that you do.

---

How can Service Metrics be "the best way to compare apples to apples" when it is obviously penalizing the small honest seller and aiding the large dishonest seller?