mam98031 • Volunteer Community Member • Buyer/Seller since 1999
@gurlcat wrote:Ah, thanks for answering that. Ha the eBay-trashing in this thread is NOTHING compared to some. They don't read these forums.
Hey @valueaddedresource what do you make of this? The OP and I both got a very specific kind of garbage returned to us, but from different locations. -Mine was right AT a FF address, one that just opened in Newark Deleware, and I managed to not only get the return closed but the buyer's account shut down (details if you're curious in the 'Beyond Bizarre Return' thread). I think it had to be an employee doing it.
I suspect that my success from reporting them had more to do with the undeniable fact that they filed the return the night BEFORE they even received my package (unlike photos of sent garbage, there was no way eBay could deny that the message they -eBay- sent me about the return was many hours before the delivery scan).
But anyway, what on Earth could explain both of these scammers using these same plastic pebbles to ship back????
OP's photo, and my photo:
@gurlcat that's pretty wild! I'll check your thread out later when I have more time to dig in but just as a quick answer to your question - I did a google lens search on your picture here and found those exact plastic rocks being sold very cheaply on Alibaba and other similar places.
It's certainly possible there is a connection between your return and the op and I wouldn't rule out that they could be part of the same fraud ring, but it's also possible the connection is not as tight as that, like maybe there's a telegram group chat or other place where fraudsters post tips and suggestions for each other and this just happens to be a cheap, easy to buy in large quantity item to have on hand when you need to put a little bit of weight in a package to pull your scams?
I'm half joking on that last part...but only half. 😂
@fbusoni wrote:
@robbie31415 wrote:What I want is support from eBay when the seller does INR and goes on and on about not receiving the item and finally loses the INR after they asked eBay to step in.
But next day they try again this time with INAD.
Crazy that for days you never got it. Now you can claim it's defective.
So magical. Obvious fraud.
But nope. Gotta issue them that free label. Accept the ding to my INAD service metrics and issue a 50% refund (not really 50% since you don't get the fees back) once they send you some random cheap item you'd find at a dollar store.
Do you mean buyer (first sentence)?
And yeah, this is an easy fix. Just program the computer to prevent a buyer from attempting an INAD after a failed INR.
IF {buyer attempted INR and was rebuffed by eBay} THEN {Block Buyer access to INAD}
Could not be easier.
I get it that this buyer is clearly misbehaving. That is crystal clear.
I'm only responding to the highlighted sentence in your post.
There actually is good reason to allow this. Sometimes a buyer that has filed an INR that gets closed because it arrived may need to file a legit INAD. Again I'm NOT talking about the situation that @robbie31415 covered in their post.
The item may have arrived damaged or legitimately for one of the other reasons for an INAD, so the buyer needs to have the access to filing an INAD. That is why Ebay allows an INAD after a failed INR.
@westextelpyc wrote:
"There actually is good reason to allow this. Sometimes a buyer that has filed an INR that gets closed..."
And that is my problem with everything about the "seller always getting screwed", there will always be a "sometimes" in every situation but rules can't be made for the exception and that is the new norm now.
It is not OK for 100 legitimate sellers to get screwed bc of the fear that 2 innocent buyers get screwed. It is only ok the seller gets ripped off on internet transactions? I don't get the rational personally.
It is likely not a real big problem. In other words, this situation doesn't happen often. But I don't have stats, just my belief.
@westextelpyc wrote:I think you are right, it likely is not a nig problem therefore it shouldn't be allowed. What percentage of INAD after failed INR are legitimate maybe 10%? So for fear of the 10% being wronged they allow the other 90% to scam?
Every seller policy is now based off that premise. As someone else commented it just online shoplifting at this point. Some ran by individuals and some ran by sophisticated rings but it's all fraud allowed and protected by these online platforms at expensive of sellers.
I would disagree. I think it is rare to be abused. It of course would be very problematic for any seller this happened to. But for buyers that have a legit issue, they need to be able to file an INAD if necessary. So IMHO this is a policy / procedure that should stand. Not that any of us have any voice in whether Ebay keeps the process or they don't.
@westextelpyc wrote:
"There actually is good reason to allow this. Sometimes a buyer that has filed an INR that gets closed..."
And that is my problem with everything about the "seller always getting screwed", there will always be a "sometimes" in every situation but rules can't be made for the exception and that is the new norm now.
It is not OK for 100 legitimate sellers to get screwed bc of the fear that 2 innocent buyers get screwed. It is only ok the seller gets ripped off on internet transactions? I don't get the rational personally.
I understand why you feel the way you do. I just don't share your sentiment. Buyers that then go and file an INAD for damage have to attached a picture per the rules. IDK if "100" sellers are getting "screwed". That would be a guess on your part as it isn't stats that Ebay releases that I'm aware of.
