mam98031 • Volunteer Community Member • Buyer/Seller since 1999
@prettywoman-2012 wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:
@prettywoman-2012 wrote:
@coffeebean832 wrote:
@prettywoman-2012 Does not fit is a remorse return which means you don't have to refund the original shipping cost charged to the buyer.
Assuming you didn't refund the original shipping cost to the buyer, why are you entitled to a FVF refund on the shipping cost?
Are you serious? Or just sarcastic? In the unlikely case you have asked this question in all seriousness, the answer is, because it was already spent from OUT OF POCKET of the seller (in this case, mine, but my post is valid for most return cases with buyer's remorse and a HUGE portion of the other returns that are FAKE INAD cases.
Sending good vibes
PW🐿
@coffeebean832 is correct and it makes sense. When you have a BR claim and you refund, if you have separately stated shipping on the listing, you do not have to refund the original shipping charge. Since most sellers don't refund that original shipping when they have a BR claim, then NO FVF credit would be due because no refund on that amount was given to the buyer.
So is it your opinion that even though you didn't refund the original shipping you should still get the FVF refunded to you? Why would you be entitled to that?
Your out of pocket expense on the original shipping should have been covered by what you charged your buyer. If you didn't charge the buyer enough, that isn't on Ebay. That is a decision you made on the price to charge the buyer. So how are you out anything?
On INADs, when you refund in full, you are give your FVFs back unless you asked Ebay to step in and they ruled for the buyer.
Trust me, you don't want to know what my opinion is...
PW🐉😍
IDK why? I asked. Why would you expect Ebay to refund you the FVF on a portion of the sale that you did not refund? Why would Ebay be "stealing" from you? If Ebay were to refund you the FVF on something you did not refund, wouldn't you be "stealing" from them?
@ironeagle7378 wrote:eBay does not care about the sellers. they never did. they have always settled for the buyers. and the sellers pay the price. here's something you forgot. when that Item was returned to you. you paid for it. eBay lets them print a label, but that is deducted from you funds when the eBay fee's are collected. you lost the first shipping cost, lost the sale, lost the second shipping cost and eBay walked away with any extra that was left over. and Now they want to pull us out of PayPal and run our payments and pay outs too ? They have forgotten who put them where they are. it was the little private seller, not China.
What you are talking about is an INAD, which is not the type of claim the OP dealt with, so there are some details you missed.
The OP offers 30 days returns with buyer pays shipping. The buyer filed a proper Buyer's Remorse return request. That means the BUYER pays return shipping, not the seller. And when the item came back to the seller, if they have separately stated shipping on the listing, sellers are allowed to refund the product price only and they do NOT have to refund the original shipping charge.
And because the OP did not refund the shipping charge to the buyer is why Ebay did NOT refund their FVF on the shipping. The OP is not out any extra money. Ebay didn't "steal" anything. The processed worked as it should.
@prettywoman-2012 wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:
@ironeagle7378 wrote:eBay does not care about the sellers. they never did. they have always settled for the buyers. and the sellers pay the price. here's something you forgot. when that Item was returned to you. you paid for it. eBay lets them print a label, but that is deducted from you funds when the eBay fee's are collected. you lost the first shipping cost, lost the sale, lost the second shipping cost and eBay walked away with any extra that was left over. and Now they want to pull us out of PayPal and run our payments and pay outs too ? They have forgotten who put them where they are. it was the little private seller, not China.
What you are talking about is an INAD, which is not the type of claim the OP dealt with, so there are some details you missed.
The OP offers 30 days returns with buyer pays shipping. The buyer filed a proper Buyer's Remorse return request. That means the BUYER pays return shipping, not the seller. And when the item came back to the seller, if they have separately stated shipping on the listing, sellers are allowed to refund the product price only and they do NOT have to refund the original shipping charge.
And because the OP did not refund the shipping charge to the buyer is why Ebay did NOT refund their FVF on the shipping. The OP is not out any extra money. Ebay didn't "steal" anything. The processed worked as it should.
You are wrong on all points. I do not offer 30 days return on jewelry, the eBay standard return policy spells out quite clearly that jewelry returns are 14 days (minimum) and that is how I have listed them. That eBay - completely unjustifiably and illogically - made a decision to change the 14 days to almost 60 just shows how poorly managed this company is. People who are currently out of work have not less, rather, MORE time to inspect and return what they do not wish to keep. Even if they only venture out one time per week for supplies, the 14 days = 2 weeks standard return time-frame should be more than enough to drop off the package, and for those who cannot do so, the USPS and others offer at-home pick-up. So, eBay has stolen, right there, a lot of time and money from SELLERS (of course, nobody gets surprised by this, anymore). And all this to be able to claim it did something to help with the COVID situation.
As for WHY ebay would want to steal from its sellers, as per your question in another one of your well-constructed posts, please ask them.
In regard to WHY eBay should return the FVF on shipping: Once again you are talking about something else than what the topic is. It is not at all about the return shipping fee (in the particular case described in my opening post - although it is of major concern with any false INAD case where the seller is forced to pay for the return). Of course the seller does not pay for return on buyer's remorse items, unless the seller voluntarily chose to offer this perk.
Focusing on the topic at hand, which is the originally charged FVF on the shipping portion the buyer paid: that was a fee that ebay took from the seller in the context of the sale. eBay charges for the entire sale amount - including the shipping - 10% - but returns only the 10% charged on the item price when the buyer - without the seller's fault - returns an item. THAT is the stealing part. No matter how you look at it, that shipping fee (the 10% ebay confiscates from each shipping) was part of the total fees, and because the sale is null and void, so should be the fees.
eBay will start combining the item price + shipping + taxes (the last two items not being the seller's income) once the July enrollment into Managed Paynotwhatyouowe begins. How will they calculate the amount of fees they will HAVE to return to the sellers, once everything is lumped together and the seller pays over 12% on the combined total amount, if they cannot get it right now, without the taxes being charged a fee?
And to those who still think eBay is not enriching itself unethically in multiple ways, here is another link:
https://community.ebay.com/t5/Buying/Ebay-will-refund-taxes-in-case-of-a-return/m-p/30436506#M300111
Have a good night, whenever you retire
PW😳🐿
14 day return or 30 day return with buyer pays shipping doesn't change anything I've previously said. Ebay requires all sellers to adhere to the MBG. But then this wasn't about that in the first place. You were upset because you did not get your FVF credited back to you on the shipping fees you were charged on the original transaction.
" Once again you are talking about something else than what the topic is. It is not at all about the return shipping fee" I never brought up the fees on "return shipping". My post have been pretty clear that I was speaking to the original shipping. Besides your concern was the FVF on shipping and "return shipping" has no such charge by Ebay.
As to the FVF, I still don't understand why you think you should get the FVF refunded to you by Ebay on the original shipping when you did NOT refund that to your buyer? If you had of refunded it to the buyer, then Ebay would have refunded you the FVF. But since on a properly filed Buyer's Remorse return sellers do not have to refund the original shipping [if stated in the listing], if the seller does not refund it Ebay isn't going to refund you the FVFs for the original shipping.
Now you want to bring the new Simplified Fee structure of MP into this when it has nothing to do with this transaction or your issues with it and is a much larger subject than a simple statement can cover.
@zamo-zuan wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:
@comicsmyth wrote:Yes, stealing is the correct term for what they're doing, but it's like one of those Rube Goldberg contraptions where there's a ton of extra steps & most people don't even see it.
I like the idea of getting an employee to make the calls to ebay, if only I had one.
A soundboard program could probably make most of the calls & keep up with the employee runarounds & nonsense. One with a strong accent would be ideal, LOL.
Why should the OP get a refund on FVFs on an amount they did not refund to the buyer?
This would be a valid question if the situation was as simple as a generic return.
The same situation isn't quite as simple once we consider the reason for the return was a dishonest one, and lack of protections from eBay supports the dishonest return. Now sellers are being asked to pay for something that should be the buyers responsibility. In other words, buyers don't read, sellers are held responsible.
It's less about the return policies itself, and more due to the lack of protections which allow those returns to happen. There's a severe lack of buyer responsibility on eBay.
The reason people are upset at eBay about this isn't only this lack of responsibility, but that eBay is literally making additional money out of the lack of responsibility.
It's a two-fold problem resulting from the lack of protections.
What?
So you are of the opinion that even though the original shipping was NOT refunded to the buyer, the OP should get the FVFs on the original shipping refunded to them by Ebay?? Why?
What is dishonest about a buyer that files a proper Buyer's Remorse return? To me that is quite the opposite. It is a buyer taking responsibility that they made a mistake not the seller. And the buyer is willing to accept that they should pay for shipping to return the item as well as allowing the seller to keep the original shipping paid by the buyer. Apparently you and I see this very differently. I don't know how much more honest the buyer could be.
The issues with INADs is NOT what this thread is about and is a much more complex issue. This thread is about a BR return that was properly filed and properly executed and refunded by the OP. The OP did the proper refund, they just seem to think they should also get the FVF credit on the original shipping when they did not refund that portion to the buyer.
It is NOT "a two-fold problem resulting from the lack of protections." You are trying to bring in the problems on INADs into the conversation when it has nothing to do with what the OP brought to the threads.
