Customer Support and Case Resolution Misguidance

[bengregg91]

Hey everyone - I was curious if any other sellers have run into a situation like this before...

I sold a used auto headlight. I listed the condition as for parts/ not working and tried to give a decent description and posted a lot of pictures. I explicitly stated that the headlight was broken, the seal was bad, and that it would need to be worked on by someone handy. I listed this item as a non-returnable item because I have no use for it. 

Someone purchased the headlight and when they received it they decided that it was more broken than they could work with. They noted that I used the word "crack" instead of "hole" in describing part of the headlight. I kind of felt bad about using the word "crack" interchangably but this defect was clearly visible in the pictures I posted.

The buyer opened a return and posted very upclose pictures of the hole, exagerating its size a bit. I responded that the defect was clear in the photos originally accompanying the item and also mentioned to some extent in the description.

I was concerned about what would happen so I contacted Ebay's support team. They said that based on the evidence they would likely rule in my favor if a case was open. This was re-assuring.

The buyer still hadn't responded to the message I sent after they opened the return so I made another call to Ebay support to make sure I would be ready for the next step. This time the agent I talked to stated that if a case was opened, she would leave a note on my account so that it was automatically dismissed and ruled in my favor. That was a true relief...

Until today happened. A case was opened and within 10 minutes it was ruled in favor of the buyer. I spent hours of my time making sure this wouldn't happen. I really wouldn't mind the item being returned except that the buyer chose to use priority shipping, which was over 3x (ended up being $67 instead of $20) more than standard shipping. I even advised the buyer in two messages that he/ she would save $45 dollars using standard. I even sent the buyer the differnce between the shipping quote and what he/ she paid for shipping over Paypal because I felt bad that priority costed so much.

While I am upset about Ebay's ruling on this case, I am more upset that two of their support agents gave me word that it would go the opposite direction. At the least I could have offered a partial refund back at that point. Also, the policy for having to pay for the shipping of an item as part of the refund it ridiculous. This was an $80 item. The priority delivery quote was $67. I'm guessing the buyer could have also asked for even quicker shipping method (overnight, etc.) that would have cost over $100. Why should I be responsible for refunding that amount when I have no control over it?

Has anyone found themselves in a sticky situation like this before?

[carlmarxx]

---

@goodluckselling wrote:

What is going to happen is ebay will go to a automated returns based on the type of case opened where if it is a seller issue they will auto submit a return label for the buyer to use from the sellers account.  There are far to many

• what if's,
• exceptions,
• might have been,
• could possible work that way scenarios to automate this process any other way. 

Selling online is really going to turn into a decision of is it worth the cost of doing business online versus locally (B&M,  flea markets, swap meets, consignment, etc)?  Lower priced items will start to disappear due to the item cost involved and time invested, automated refund risks  VS potential profit. 

This is also how big business will have an another advantage over us small sellers, because they are much more automated and although eBay has put in automated process for us to use in regard to refunds and returns many here just bad mouth them as unreasonable and declare they will never use them, which just plays into the hands of the big business sellers.

Good Luck Selling!

---

Ebay-motors  policy's are much different  then ebay.com  The MBG  doesn't  have  place  on that site in it's current form  .  Since buyers are held to higher standards of responsabblity Having to read what  they  are going to buy .   

[castlemagicmemories]

Absolutely agree!  It does appear the OP listed in the correct category, for parts not working, and had pictures showing damage, all good things.  It is unfortunate that he said crack, which implies a small fissure in the item, instead of hole, which is really was.  Even if seen in pictures, that choice of word made the difference.

It was also unfortunate the Ebay CS told him the wrong thing, twice.  My point was, though, that had OP checked the Boards or known how to process this, it would not have happened.  I understand that not everyone will do that or have the knowledge.  But had the OP come here first, and not last, he would not have relied on CS.  That's all.  I certainly wish CS had given him correct info, but we know that that doesn't always happen.

Possibly part of the reason CS tells people what they want to hear is self protection.  Who would want to listen to irate people, possibly using profanity, all day long?  Not saying this is right, but that could be part of it.

As you say, the MBG is plastered all over.  Most buyers know how it works, but not all sellers do, and that is unfortunate.  

I basically agree with no returns, if listed for parts, not working.  But in cases where the damage is very clearly far more extensive than it was portrayed?  I am not so sure.  Even if for parts, not working, the description and pictures need to be accurate. 

Not bashing the OP, just very sad that OP went through this, and I wish he had had the knowledge he needed to bypass that part of this experience and just handle it.  

Wishing all the best to all!

[castlemagicmemories]

---

@rolenboy01 wrote:

---

@ted_200 wrote:

Well, I don't really think so...  The only support for that is "hole" vs. "crack".  I don't think that constitutes Significantly Not As Described (or even just Not As Described), given a) the damage was shown in the listing pictures, b) the damage was described in the listing, and c) the item is listed as "not working - parts only".

---

Yeah this is a slippery slope, now any careless buyer or lying buyer can say they consider something a crack and not a hole or this and not that and claim SNAD on a For Parts or Not Working listing? I fail to see what the OP could have done differently to protect themselves not put a label on what the "damage" was? and then have the buyer claim it wasn't damage it was "wear"?

---

The OP said the listing had pictures of the hole, but that he made the mistake of calling it a crack.

[castlemagicmemories]

While Ebay may not pay much for their off shore CS, it still costs.  And every time a seller does not accurately describe what they have, it costs Ebay.  Now I understand the OP made an unfortunate choice of words there, things happen,

But I imagine that is part of the push to be like Amazon.  New in the box items have much less potential to blow up in the buyer's, or Ebay's, faces.  Lower cost equals more profit.

So the very thing that gives Ebay an advantage, used or vintage items, is a two edged sword.  And as it disappears, or if it disappears, that will be a blow to the individuality and uniqueness that is Ebay.  And I think both sides of the equation, buyers and sellers, will have been at fault for this.

[carlmarxx]

---

@castlemagicmemories wrote:

While Ebay may not pay much for their off shore CS, it still costs.  And every time a seller does not accurately describe what they have, it costs Ebay.  Now I understand the OP made an unfortunate choice of words there, things happen,

But I imagine that is part of the push to be like Amazon.  New in the box items have much less potential to blow up in the buyer's, or Ebay's, faces.  Lower cost equals more profit.

So the very thing that gives Ebay an advantage, used or vintage items, is a two edged sword.  And as it disappears, or if it disappears, that will be a blow to the individuality and uniqueness that is Ebay.  And I think both sides of the equation, buyers and sellers, will have been at fault for this.

---

I don't total agree with on that Used or vintage items  is a two edged sword  on ebay. Since  Snad case's very low for those items, Where as  New items  and high tech  items  have more snads  with most being on the phoney  side  .   Op should have done better job  on giving the details of item they sold.  

[papyruspapillo]

I don't understand why anyone would try to sell something broken and defective. Just asking for trouble

[ittybitnot]

I don't understand why anyone would try to sell something broken and defective. Just asking for trouble

You never know...Sold a "broken teapot" once.  Had a giant crack from a point on the rim, down the side, across the bottom and up the other side.  Someone had glued a "marble" on top of the lid because the finial was missing.  Sold for $490, and buyer was thrilled.  Told me "real collectors" don't mind the defects.  LOLOLOLOL.....

[d-k_treasures]

Plus, for those of us old enough to remember, you fixed something, maybe 2 or 3 times, before you finally bought another one(new or used).

We weren't always the throwaway society that we are now - mainly because of the chinese dollar items.

[ittybitnot]

Plus, for those of us old enough to remember, you fixed something, maybe 2 or 3 times, before you finally bought another one(new or used).

LOL   eBay has introduced the "trade your old one in for a new one for free".   

[chung-lee-2]

Just because there was a promise made to "look into this and get back to you " does not mean it will be changed , I would want to hear back from the OP to  see if that happened .

[nawlinsron2]

Can you imagine if ebay published the seller/buyer claim result percents?
That's more guarded than the JFK files.
Maybe they don't even track them...why embarrass yourself?

[dtexley3]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

While I am upset about Ebay's ruling on this case, I am more upset that two of their support agents gave me word that it would go the opposite direction. At the least I could have offered a partial refund back at that point. Also, the policy for having to pay for the shipping of an item as part of the refund it ridiculous. This was an $80 item. The priority delivery quote was $67. I'm guessing the buyer could have also asked for even quicker shipping method (overnight, etc.) that would have cost over $100. Why should I be responsible for refunding that amount when I have no control over it?

Has anyone found themselves in a sticky situation like this before?

---

I've gotten this reviewed and you will be receiving an update via email shortly. So sorry for the conflict between what you were told and how the case was decided - keep us posted if you have additional questions!

---

To @Anonymous and the rest following this.  What I really find horribly, horribly wrong is that two CS agents told him to WAIT to resolve the issue.  This is not the first thread where the CS agents have instructed people to WAIT until after the deadline.  THAT's my biggest issue here, sellers are being instructed to WAIT until it's too late.  (It's happend so many times I start to wonder if those that believe if it's a deliberate effort to lower seller ratings are right).  If they had not told him to WAIT and that regardless of the "for parts only, no returns" listing he was going to be forced to take it back.  He could have issued a much less expensive label.

[nawlinsron2]

The more I read these boards, the more I realize that ebay has NO STANDARDS.
Everything is AD HOC as regards to problem solving.
My bad...there is ONE standard...buyer is right 99% of the time.

[carlmarxx]

---

@nawlinsron2 wrote:
Can you imagine if ebay published the seller/buyer claim result percents?
That's more guarded than the JFK files.
Maybe they don't even track them...why embarrass yourself?

---

I not seen  ebay ,Amazon and Paypal  in   Lost-prevention.com  with  any documentations of  Their sellers  lost of Money to return retail buyer fraud  . All though  Amazon  did say in news story  in May 2016  that they have lost a lot money in return buyer abuse  , that is why  Amazon started a new policy then to crack down on them.  

[ted_200]

As you say, the MBG is plastered all over.  Most buyers know how it works, but not all sellers do, and that is unfortunate.  

I basically agree with no returns, if listed for parts, not working.  But in cases where the damage is very clearly far more extensive than it was portrayed?  I am not so sure.  Even if for parts, not working, the description and pictures need to be accurate. 

As a whole, buyers are far less sophisticated in this stuff than sellers.  I would imagine most buyers see "Money Back Guarantee" and believe they are guaranteed to get their money back - because that's the plain English of the situation.  Most sellers have been to this dance more times, and understand it's a lot more complicated - as evidenced by this seller's concerns and them contacting eBay CS twice.

I consider "crack" vs. "hole" to be a semantics argument at best - especially if the damage in question is shown in the photos - and not "damage is very clearly far more extensive than it was portrayed".   The buyer admits they knew it was damaged, and wanted it anyhow, and that they intended to repair it for use.  If I know it's busted, and I intend to repair it, then I would think I'm going to look at the pictures, and think long and hard before sinking eighty bucks into a "no returns" item... or even if it does have Returns Accepted, since it apparently would cost me $67 shipping to return it.  The buyer knew all this.  But the buyer also knows the MBG, so they know they can over-ride "no returns", and won't even have to pay return shipping... so they will buy it even if they think there's only a 5% chance it can be repaired. 

Buyer abused MBG?  Or buyer used MBG exactly as eBay intended it to be used?  I can't really say.  All I know is the seller sold a damaged non-working item, that they clearly described as damaged and not working, and that's exactly what the buyer got.   Regardless of the CS issues (a legitimate complaint), MBG made this "no returns" sale into a "on approval, seller pays return freight" sale.  The seller got abused, I just can't say exactly by whom.