Global Shipping Damaged item Shipping Problem

[gjlutz]

I sent an item through global shipping and it was damaged during transit.  Usually  I have had no problem with getting reimbursed in the past for this, until now....  Buyer filed through Paypal as "not as described" instead of filing through Ebay, and because of this it has been a nightmare!  It has been 2 weeks, and now Paypal is saying another month to look into this??? My $200 in funds is being held, and I've called them twice with no luck.  They informed me that it should have gone through Ebay, (which I'm  aware of ), instead of them, but now there is nothing they can do about it.  My question is;  Is there a chance this will go wrong for me?  Why should it be different how they treat the case just because its Paypay and not Ebay?  I packed item extremely well and absolutely do not feel that this should be on me, nor do I feel the buyer should lose either.  If Global shipping is going to be so difficult to use, then I will not be using them anymore, not worth the risk.

[marnotom!]

---

@sg51 wrote:

The headline is deceptive when it over-promises, and the promise is compromised down in the text.

---

I don't think it's a matter of the promise being compromised.  I think it's just a matter of the text being misread.

Having said that, the .com site really seems to be lacking a "proper" set of GSP terms and conditions for sellers that's in the same vein as the one on the UK site and the ones buyers are expected to wade through.  Yes, those T&C pages are full of legalese and may seem daunting at first, but once you get the hang of reading what they contain (and more importantly, figure out what they're missing), you can tease out the information you need.  They're a lot more precise and useful than anything you're going to find on an "overview" or "FAQ" page.

In fairness, perhaps some suit somewhere determined that sellers don't need a "proper" set of GSP terms and conditions as they have no financial stake in the program; it's all being borne by buyers.

[myangelandmyprincess]

---

@sg51 wrote:

As a seller your responsibility ends once the item reaches the Global Shipping Center. If the item is lost or damaged during international transit, the Program has you covered.

The part that Says that is meant to be an overview.  If you fully read the policy it is specific in protections with the money back guarantee or PayPal purchase protection 

The headline is deceptive when it over-promises, and the promise is compromised down in the text.

Quite analogous to deceptive ebay listings, where the bad news is buried way down there somewhere.

---

Exactly. It’s an overview and then further stipulates when the seller isn’t responsible.  It specifically mentions eBay and Buyer protections and no where mentions it cover C.C. chargebacks.  They don’t have to legally say what they don’t cover only what they do and they’ve done that.   You can assume anything that doesn’t specifically say it covers you won’t do so. 

[marnotom!]

---

@myangelandmyprincess wrote:

---

---

Exactly. It’s an overview and then further stipulates when the seller isn’t responsible.  It specifically mentions eBay and Buyer protections and no where mentions it cover C.C. chargebacks.  They don’t have to legally say what they don’t cover only what they do and they’ve done that.   You can assume anything that doesn’t specifically say it covers you won’t do so. 

---

If you're referring to what @lovtaco0 posted earlier, it only states that a seller is responsible for a MBG claim if they mess up on preparing a GSP shipment, and goes on to list the various ways the seller can mess things up.  The "buyer protections" mentioned are just that: for the buyer.  The buyer has to deal (indirectly) with Pitney Bowes in the event of a GSP item lost or damaged once in Pitney Bowes' possession.

The protections have nothing to do with the seller unless the seller messes up in one or more of the ways described in the passage @lovtaco0 quoted.  If that happens, then the seller is the one answerable to the MBG claim, not Pitney Bowes.  

Which only makes sense.  If liability for loss or damage of a GSP item is with Pitney Bowes once the item is accepted at the Global Shipping Center, why would a seller need so-called "protection"?  Liability and "protection" are two different things, or should be.

[lovtaco0]

---

@marnotom! wrote:

I'm not sure what the point you're making is, @lovtaco0.  Perhaps you're just passing along information.

---

I was not making a point; I was providing the information requested. You said:

As has been mentioned by a couple of others, the .com site is a bit of a patchwork quilt when it comes to specific information on the GSP.  A link to the "GSP info" page you're referring to would be useful.

The only information I've been able to find so far that connects "protection" to the MBG and PayPal's purchase protection schemes is....

[marnotom!]

---

@lovtaco0 wrote:

---

@marnotom! wrote:

I'm not sure what the point you're making is, @lovtaco0.  Perhaps you're just passing along information.

---

I was not making a point; I was providing the information requested. You said:

As has been mentioned by a couple of others, the .com site is a bit of a patchwork quilt when it comes to specific information on the GSP.  A link to the "GSP info" page you're referring to would be useful.

The only information I've been able to find so far that connects "protection" to the MBG and PayPal's purchase protection schemes is....

---

Okay, thanks for clearing that up, @lovtaco0.  It does seem, then, that the connections being made to the MBG and PayPal's purchase protections are there to clarify that while the purchaser of a GSP item is able to use those "protections" if necessary, the seller won't necessarily be on the hook unless they mess up in one of the scenarios described.  And the use of "subject to the foregoing" suggests to me that these circumstances would be the only way a seller would be liable for a loss or damage claim made against them.

No, it doesn't jive with what was found on the Wayback Machine, but we're referring to here and now. 

[myangelandmyprincess]

---

@marnotom! wrote:

---

@myangelandmyprincess wrote:

---

---

Exactly. It’s an overview and then further stipulates when the seller isn’t responsible.  It specifically mentions eBay and Buyer protections and no where mentions it cover C.C. chargebacks.  They don’t have to legally say what they don’t cover only what they do and they’ve done that.   You can assume anything that doesn’t specifically say it covers you won’t do so. 

---

If you're referring to what @lovtaco0 posted earlier, it only states that a seller is responsible for a MBG claim if they mess up on preparing a GSP shipment, and goes on to list the various ways the seller can mess things up.  The "buyer protections" mentioned are just that: for the buyer.  The buyer has to deal (indirectly) with Pitney Bowes in the event of a GSP item lost or damaged once in Pitney Bowes' possession.

The protections have nothing to do with the seller unless the seller messes up in one or more of the ways described in the passage @lovtaco0 quoted.  If that happens, then the seller is the one answerable to the MBG claim, not Pitney Bowes.  

Which only makes sense.  If liability for loss or damage of a GSP item is with Pitney Bowes once the item is accepted at the Global Shipping Center, why would a seller need so-called "protection"?  Liability and "protection" are two different things, or should be.

---

I’m referring to the fact page that has been posted 

[ted_200]

We can all wander blindly around global sites, pick through FAQ's, try to separate propaganda from TOS, all day.  It doesn't change a couple of FACTS.

1.  There are statements about eBay MBG and PayPal PP here and there, that say the seller would not be responsible for refunding.  That's nice, but since that didn't happen here, all those statements are irrelevant.

2.  There are other statements, which are absolute and stated without conditions, that say the seller's risk of loss ends at the GSP center, and that if they lose it or break it, they have you covered.   I already posted those in bright red. 

There is nothing that anyone can find, including Trinton and myself, that suggests 1. is the only protection the seller has.

There is nothing that anyone can find, including Trinton and myself, that suggests 2.  is limited to certain types of claims, or is conditional in any way shape or form. 

eBay is well-versed in inserting weasel words (may, could, at our discresion, in some cases, excluding, limited to, *, might, et al) into TOS and agreements, and they are not there. 

They owe the OP a refund. 

[ted_200]

---

@sg51 wrote:

As a seller your responsibility ends once the item reaches the Global Shipping Center. If the item is lost or damaged during international transit, the Program has you covered.

The part that Says that is meant to be an overview.  If you fully read the policy it is specific in protections with the money back guarantee or PayPal purchase protection 

The headline is deceptive when it over-promises, and the promise is compromised down in the text.

Quite analogous to deceptive ebay listings, where the bad news is buried way down there somewhere.

---

If that's true, Trinton has yet to find it. 

[dtexley3]

---

@ted_200 wrote:

We can all wander blindly around global sites, pick through FAQ's, try to separate propaganda from TOS, all day.  It doesn't change a couple of FACTS.

1.  There are statements about eBay MBG and PayPal PP here and there, that say the seller would not be responsible for refunding.  That's nice, but since that didn't happen here, all those statements are irrelevant.

2.  There are other statements, which are absolute and stated without conditions, that say the seller's risk of loss ends at the GSP center, and that if they lose it or break it, they have you covered.   I already posted those in bright red. 

There is nothing that anyone can find, including Trinton and myself, that suggests 1. is the only protection the seller has.

There is nothing that anyone can find, including Trinton and myself, that suggests 2.  is limited to certain types of claims, or is conditional in any way shape or form. 

eBay is well-versed in inserting weasel words (may, could, at our discresion, in some cases, excluding, limited to, *, might, et al) into TOS and agreements, and they are not there. 

They owe the OP a refund. 

---

I agree with everything but the last statement.  What they owe the seller is assistance in enforcing the contract that eBay has with PB and having PB reimburse either the buyer (if the CC has not been completed) or the seller as appropriate.

[agent006140]

---

@ittybitnot wrote:

PayPal is supposed to be aware of the fact that the GSP is responsible..

GSP Snad and "damaged in shipping" claims are initally sent directly to the seller.  Both ebay and the Pal pretend they don't know that it was a GSP sale that has a couple of additional protections for the seller.  The seller must CALL CS...a behavior that is likely more frustrating and painful than getting a root canal. 

Both entities, the Pal and ebay, know full well it is a GSP sale.  They hope the seller will not pursue. 

---

pAYPAL is no longer part of Ebay, Paypal is not obliged to learn all about different facets of Ebay operation.

As far as Paypal is conerned,buyer paid seller using Paypal,seller would have to deal with Ebay/GSP if she thinks GSP is responsible for the damage.

Lack of understanding on how GSP works or lack of transparency on the part of Ebay/gsp is to blame.

As you can see from Ebay CS response,they dont know much about GSP or anything. 

[agent006140]

Paypal doesnot have to know Ebay sales policy or any site which uses Paypal as payment processor,many merchants use Paypal,how do you expect Paypal to learn all the arrangements they made with their sellers or buyers/

Seller should approach GSP and ask them to file claim with their insurer.

[agent006140]

if the claim is filed with Ebay,Ebay will reimburse seller and GSP will file claim with its insurer.

you just have t o find out how t o reach GSP and make them aware the shipment is damaged and you should get refund and they should file claim with their insurance company/

[missjen831]

---

@agent006140 wrote:

if the claim is filed with Ebay,Ebay will reimburse seller and GSP will file claim with its insurer.

you just have t o find out how t o reach GSP and make them aware the shipment is damaged and you should get refund and they should file claim with their insurance company/

---

If a claim is filed with eBay, eBay refunds the buyer. The seller does not refund the buyer and then get reimbursed by eBay. Neither the seller OR the buyer contacts the GSP to make them aware of the damaged shipment. That is NOT how it works. The buyer files a request against the seller. If GSP is responsible, then the request is closed with eBay/GSP refunding the buyer. 

i think you’ve misunderstood everything ittybitty not has said. 

[missjen831]

---

@agent006140 wrote:

Paypal doesnot have to know Ebay sales policy or any site which uses Paypal as payment processor,many merchants use Paypal,how do you expect Paypal to learn all the arrangements they made with their sellers or buyers/

Seller should approach GSP and ask them to file claim with their insurer.

---

You don’t understand how the GSP works. The seller does NOT approach the GSP and ask them to file a claim with their insurance. Not how it works.

[agent006140]

---

@lovtaco0 wrote:

@Anonymous- Is it possible for the buyer to cancel the chargeback and instead initiate a regular PayPal SNAD case? Could this be an option for the OP to work with the buyer, explain the 3rd party insurance and try to get cooperation?

---

buyer can cancel the chargeback or just open a case with paypal,as soon as he does that ,his cc issuer will close his chargeback,then it becomes a Paypal case.if buyer has made 2 payments,one to seller and one to EBAY/GSP,chances are he will file 2 chargebacks,not one.

seller should really understand GSP better before using its service.