eBay

prettywoman-2012 · ‎06-02-2020

I had a return a few days ago, because someone did not carefully read the length description. The buyer selected, "Item does not fit," so that, the way I understand, is not the seller's fault when all measurements were provided in the listing text. The item price was 34.99 but as we all know, eBay charges 10% Final value fee (FVF) currently on jewelry (for those not enrolled in Managed Paymore). INCLUDING the 10% of the shipping cost the buyer paid for.

Just checked my eBay account fees and charges. Sure enough, eBay returned to me the item price Final value fee - 3.49 - as a credit - but not the 10% of the shipping cost it also took from me at the time point of the order. In this case, the shipping was 4.00 bucks and I am entitled to the 40 cents eBay confiscated by charging a FVF on the shipping part of the buyer's payment.

This is just one sale and one seller. Multiply the 40 cents (and many items ship for much more than 4.00 dollars, plus many have far more returns than I do) by 1,000,000 (1 million) sellers and you get 400,000 (four hundred thousand!) dollars if the seller does not notice it / or does not care to /or cannot get hold of anyone at eBay. Again, this is just ONE return to ONE seller (me) and most sellers have at least one return now, even the best ones, within the same calendar year, so the actual number must be tens of millions of dollars. I am assuming that returns are more prevalent for sellers who are selling electronic devices or high-end jewelry and appliances.

Interesting way of earning enough to pay their CEO Devin Wenig 57 Million in the severance package. Now I am no longer wondering where they got the money for the exorbitant compensation of their Execs.

PW

pjcdn2005 · ‎06-04-2020

I don’t think that your points are relevant in this situation. The buyer used a buyers remorse reason for the return. If the seller has a no return policy they could have refused the return. If they have a return policy, they had already agreed to returns for any reason. Either way, they accepted the return, the buyer is out their original and return shipping. How us that a dishonest return?

The seller received the fees back for money that they refunded. They did not receive fees back for the original shipping because they did not refund that. Are you saying that eBay should refund fees on items that were not refunded? That would mean that whether or not a seller refunded the original shipping on buyers remorse returns, they would get their fees back.

dietaryconsultant · ‎06-04-2020

I only recently found out about the hoops. Since I started working from home I have had more time to spend on improving my record keeping. I only just realized I wasn't reimbursed any fvf on any of the items I refunded. I don't refund the initial shipping so they all say partially refunded which doesn't trigger an automatic credit. Has this always been the policy? Shame on me for not noticing this sooner. I have had several buyers contact me recently to cancel items they bought by accident and paypal doesn't reimburse the transaction fee anymore. Overtime all these fees on items that are return or cancelled start to add up.

mam98031 · ‎06-04-2020

@dietaryconsultant wrote:
I only recently found out about the hoops. Since I started working from home I have had more time to spend on improving my record keeping. I only just realized I wasn't reimbursed any fvf on any of the items I refunded. I don't refund the initial shipping so they all say partially refunded which doesn't trigger an automatic credit. Has this always been the policy? Shame on me for not noticing this sooner. I have had several buyers contact me recently to cancel items they bought by accident and paypal doesn't reimburse the transaction fee anymore. Overtime all these fees on items that are return or cancelled start to add up.

That depends on why you withheld the original shipping. Was it on an INAD or on a properly filed Buyer's Remorse return request? Did you ask Ebay to step in on the return request? Don't make assumptions. More details are needed to know why you did not get your FVF refunded. It may or may not be as the OP describes. so more details please.

@dietaryconsultant

mam98031 • Volunteer Community Member • Buyer/Seller since 1999

zamo-zuan · ‎06-04-2020

@mam98031 wrote:
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.

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?

No. My opinion is that the problems start way before the refunds happen. The problems are in terms of protection and responsibility. Shouldn't the financial responsibility be determined by who's at fault?

Are you of the opinion that sellers should have financial responsibility when they did their job properly?

What is dishonest about a buyer that files a proper Buyer's Remorse return?

Now you're getting closer to my point. Why should a seller have to assume financial responsibility in the case of a proper Buyers Remorse return?

Should sellers have to pay for a buyers remorse?

Should eBay be making FVF's off of a buyers remorse?

I don't know how much more honest the buyer could be.

EBay's honesty, integrity, and fairness is what's in question here. They don't even vet a buyers honesty, so the determination of honest or not isn't even part of the equation.

It is NOT "a two-fold problem resulting from the lack of protections."

I disagree. Protection and returns are inherently related. Can we honestly say the OP was protected in terms of financial responsibility for a mistake that the buyer made?

@pjcdn2005 wrote:
Are you saying that eBay should refund fees on items that were not refunded? That would mean that whether or not a seller refunded the original shipping on buyers remorse returns, they would get their fees back.

Nope. I'm saying that if we were trying to make a policy in the interest of fairness, or integrity, the financial responsibility would not be on a seller who is not at fault. Why shouldn't a seller who makes no mistake get their fees back? They're already at a loss for money. Is eBay or the buyer at a loss at all? How come all the responsibility is held on the seller?

Regarding no returns vs remorse returns, etc. That's all part of the problem. Let's be real; neither route you go offers sufficient protection. Either choice you make will leave you vulnerable. Even if you, as a seller, do everything right, you won't be protected. You will still be at a loss, while buyers and eBay take no losses and only potential gains.

I know I'm not the only one that remembers a day where eBay would actually take a loss to prevent unfair situations from harming sellers financially. So I'm not sure why their current actions should be justified. Just because it's the "current policy" doesn't make it fair.

mam98031 · ‎06-04-2020

@zamo-zuan wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:
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.

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?

No. My opinion is that the problems start way before the refunds happen. The problems are in terms of protection and responsibility. Shouldn't the financial responsibility be determined by who's at fault?

Are you of the opinion that sellers should have financial responsibility when they did their job properly?

What the heck are you talking about? The BUYER paid return shipping. The BUYER was NOT refunded for the original shipping. That happened because the BUYER was HONEST and opened a Buyer's Remorse Return Request.

What is dishonest about a buyer that files a proper Buyer's Remorse return?

Now you're getting closer to my point. Why should a seller have to assume financial responsibility in the case of a proper Buyers Remorse return?

Should sellers have to pay for a buyers remorse?

Should eBay be making FVF's off of a buyers remorse?

What "financial responsibility" did the seller "assume". The buyer paid for return shipping not the seller. The seller kept the original shipping it was not refunded to the buyer. The seller got their product back. The seller got refunded for their FVF on the amount they refunded the buyer, which was for the product.

I'm not seeing yours or the OP's point. There is no reason that you or the OP should think that Ebay should refund a FVF on an amount that was NOT REFUNDED to the buyer.

I don't know how much more honest the buyer could be.

EBay's honesty, integrity, and fairness is what's in question here. They don't even vet a buyers honesty, so the determination of honest or not isn't even part of the equation.

I see this a bit differently. I think you and the OP are being unreasonable in thinking Ebay should refund FVF on something that was NOT REFUNDED to the buyer. You may expect it, but it is completely unreasonable.

It is NOT "a two-fold problem resulting from the lack of protections."

I disagree. Protection and returns are inherently related. Can we honestly say the OP was protected in terms of financial responsibility for a mistake that the buyer made?

You can disagree all you want, it won't however change the facts. Other than some time by the seller, which is important I'm not at all dismissing that, what did it cost the seller to process this return? What financial impact was felt by the seller??

@pjcdn2005 wrote:
Are you saying that eBay should refund fees on items that were not refunded? That would mean that whether or not a seller refunded the original shipping on buyers remorse returns, they would get their fees back.
Nope. I'm saying that if we were trying to make a policy in the interest of fairness, or integrity, the financial responsibility would not be on a seller who is not at fault. Why shouldn't a seller who makes no mistake get their fees back? They're already at a loss for money. Is eBay or the buyer at a loss at all? How come all the responsibility is held on the seller?

Regarding no returns vs remorse returns, etc. That's all part of the problem. Let's be real; neither route you go offers sufficient protection. Either choice you make will leave you vulnerable. Even if you, as a seller, do everything right, you won't be protected. You will still be at a loss, while buyers and eBay take no losses and only potential gains.

I know I'm not the only one that remembers a day where eBay would actually take a loss to prevent unfair situations from harming sellers financially. So I'm not sure why their current actions should be justified. Just because it's the "current policy" doesn't make it fair.

My comments above on your reaction to my post is in purple.

As to your comments to @pjcdn2005 I agree with PJ. You are trying to make this thread about something it is NOT about. The OP came here with their perceived wrong doing by Ebay on a BUYER REMORSE return. You are trying to make this about the return system as a whole. That is NOT the discussion here. I get it that you want to make it about that, but that is simply not what this thread is about.

Trying to change the thread to a different subject just adds confusion and unnecessary discussion on this thread that only muddies up the issues the OP came here to discuss.

@zamo-zuan

mam98031 • Volunteer Community Member • Buyer/Seller since 1999

brites7214 · ‎06-04-2020

They rob us blind and pay 57 million dollars to an employee. This is the problem with all the companies and the banks. This is why people like us can't make a living. It's sad when one person makes that kind of money but there website has been down over and over again and caused there sellers so much extra work and never once did they give us a credit.

mam98031 · ‎06-04-2020

@brites7214 wrote:
They rob us blind and pay 57 million dollars to an employee. This is the problem with all the companies and the banks. This is why people like us can't make a living. It's sad when one person makes that kind of money but there website has been down over and over again and caused there sellers so much extra work and never once did they give us a credit.

@brites7214

Now posters are just getting on the "Ebay stealing" bandwagon without any regards to the facts of what the OP's return entailed.

mam98031 • Volunteer Community Member • Buyer/Seller since 1999

zamo-zuan · ‎06-04-2020

@mam98031 wrote:
@zamo-zuan wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:
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.

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?

No. My opinion is that the problems start way before the refunds happen. The problems are in terms of protection and responsibility. Shouldn't the financial responsibility be determined by who's at fault?

Are you of the opinion that sellers should have financial responsibility when they did their job properly?

What the heck are you talking about? The BUYER paid return shipping. The BUYER was NOT refunded for the original shipping. That happened because the BUYER was HONEST and opened a Buyer's Remorse Return Request.

What is dishonest about a buyer that files a proper Buyer's Remorse return?

Now you're getting closer to my point. Why should a seller have to assume financial responsibility in the case of a proper Buyers Remorse return?

Should sellers have to pay for a buyers remorse?

Should eBay be making FVF's off of a buyers remorse?

What "financial responsibility" did the seller "assume". The buyer paid for return shipping not the seller. The seller kept the original shipping it was not refunded to the buyer. The seller got their product back. The seller got refunded for their FVF on the amount they refunded the buyer, which was for the product.

I'm not seeing yours or the OP's point. There is no reason that you or the OP should think that Ebay should refund a FVF on an amount that was NOT REFUNDED to the buyer.

I don't know how much more honest the buyer could be.

EBay's honesty, integrity, and fairness is what's in question here. They don't even vet a buyers honesty, so the determination of honest or not isn't even part of the equation.

I see this a bit differently. I think you and the OP are being unreasonable in thinking Ebay should refund FVF on something that was NOT REFUNDED to the buyer. You may expect it, but it is completely unreasonable.

It is NOT "a two-fold problem resulting from the lack of protections."

I disagree. Protection and returns are inherently related. Can we honestly say the OP was protected in terms of financial responsibility for a mistake that the buyer made?

You can disagree all you want, it won't however change the facts. Other than some time by the seller, which is important I'm not at all dismissing that, what did it cost the seller to process this return? What financial impact was felt by the seller??

@pjcdn2005 wrote:
Are you saying that eBay should refund fees on items that were not refunded? That would mean that whether or not a seller refunded the original shipping on buyers remorse returns, they would get their fees back.
Nope. I'm saying that if we were trying to make a policy in the interest of fairness, or integrity, the financial responsibility would not be on a seller who is not at fault. Why shouldn't a seller who makes no mistake get their fees back? They're already at a loss for money. Is eBay or the buyer at a loss at all? How come all the responsibility is held on the seller?

Regarding no returns vs remorse returns, etc. That's all part of the problem. Let's be real; neither route you go offers sufficient protection. Either choice you make will leave you vulnerable. Even if you, as a seller, do everything right, you won't be protected. You will still be at a loss, while buyers and eBay take no losses and only potential gains.

I know I'm not the only one that remembers a day where eBay would actually take a loss to prevent unfair situations from harming sellers financially. So I'm not sure why their current actions should be justified. Just because it's the "current policy" doesn't make it fair.
My comments above on your reaction to my post is in purple.

As to your comments to @pjcdn2005 I agree with PJ. You are trying to make this thread about something it is NOT about. The OP came here with their perceived wrong doing by Ebay on a BUYER REMORSE return. You are trying to make this about the return system as a whole. That is NOT the discussion here. I get it that you want to make it about that, but that is simply not what this thread is about.

Trying to change the thread to a different subject just adds confusion and unnecessary discussion on this thread that only muddies up the issues the OP came here to discuss.
@zamo-zuan

What the heck are you talking about? The BUYER paid return shipping. The BUYER was NOT refunded for the original shipping. That happened because the BUYER was HONEST and opened a Buyer's Remorse Return Request.

Again, if you refer to the OP, it has been stated that even if it's just a loss of cents rather than dollars, it's still a loss. That is the financial responsibility on topic with this thread. That is the financial responsibility being referred to.

I hadn't mentioned original shipping or any such thing. It's hard to tell if you truly don't understand what's being said, or if you're intentionally bringing these things up to try to misrepresent what I'm saying.

What "financial responsibility" did the seller "assume". The buyer paid for return shipping not the seller. The seller kept the original shipping it was not refunded to the buyer. The seller got their product back. The seller got refunded for their FVF on the amount they refunded the buyer, which was for the product.

I'm not seeing yours or the OP's point. There is no reason that you or the OP should think that Ebay should refund a FVF on an amount that was NOT REFUNDED to the buyer.

Again, as said in the OP, even if it's just 40 cents, why should the seller assume responsibility for those fees when they did everything right? As if the loss wasn't enough to begin with?

Is it really fair that eBay collects fees even when a seller is at a loss for buyers remorse, rather than their own remorse? Specifically when the buyers remorse was due to their own actions of not reading the listing? Wouldn't it be fair for any additional fees incurred to who was at responsibility or fault?

If you don't see the point of the OP or myself, isn't it a better idea to try to get a grasp of what we're saying before arguing the point?

I see this a bit differently. I think you and the OP are being unreasonable in thinking Ebay should refund FVF on something that was NOT REFUNDED to the buyer

Likewise, I think it's unreasonable for eBay to collect fees on transactions that were never completed, while holding the buyers at no fault for losses, and at the same time thinking the losses are acceptable for businesses while they take no losses or responsibility at all.

You can disagree all you want, it won't however change the facts. Other than some time by the seller, which is important I'm not at all dismissing that, what did it cost the seller to process this return? What financial impact was felt by the seller??

I notice that again you ignore the question, and return to policies. Which returns me to the what I said at the end of my last post: Just because it's the current policy does not mean it is fair. That's what this thread is about.

Regarding what financial impact was felt by the seller, we have that in the OP.

Trying to change the thread to a different subject just adds confusion and unnecessary discussion on this thread that only muddies up the issues the OP came here to discuss.

I find it ironic that I'm commenting on the financial impact that was literally mentioned in the OP and being accused "muddying up the issues". Meanwhile in the post I'm replying to you, had brought a list of things I had never mentioned in to this thread to accuse me of muddying up the issues. Especially when you have just said you don't even understand the point me and the OP were talking about.

mam98031 · ‎06-04-2020

@zamo-zuan wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:
@zamo-zuan wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:
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.

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?

No. My opinion is that the problems start way before the refunds happen. The problems are in terms of protection and responsibility. Shouldn't the financial responsibility be determined by who's at fault?

Are you of the opinion that sellers should have financial responsibility when they did their job properly?

What the heck are you talking about? The BUYER paid return shipping. The BUYER was NOT refunded for the original shipping. That happened because the BUYER was HONEST and opened a Buyer's Remorse Return Request.

What is dishonest about a buyer that files a proper Buyer's Remorse return?

Now you're getting closer to my point. Why should a seller have to assume financial responsibility in the case of a proper Buyers Remorse return?

Should sellers have to pay for a buyers remorse?

Should eBay be making FVF's off of a buyers remorse?

What "financial responsibility" did the seller "assume". The buyer paid for return shipping not the seller. The seller kept the original shipping it was not refunded to the buyer. The seller got their product back. The seller got refunded for their FVF on the amount they refunded the buyer, which was for the product.

I'm not seeing yours or the OP's point. There is no reason that you or the OP should think that Ebay should refund a FVF on an amount that was NOT REFUNDED to the buyer.

I don't know how much more honest the buyer could be.

EBay's honesty, integrity, and fairness is what's in question here. They don't even vet a buyers honesty, so the determination of honest or not isn't even part of the equation.

I see this a bit differently. I think you and the OP are being unreasonable in thinking Ebay should refund FVF on something that was NOT REFUNDED to the buyer. You may expect it, but it is completely unreasonable.

It is NOT "a two-fold problem resulting from the lack of protections."

I disagree. Protection and returns are inherently related. Can we honestly say the OP was protected in terms of financial responsibility for a mistake that the buyer made?

You can disagree all you want, it won't however change the facts. Other than some time by the seller, which is important I'm not at all dismissing that, what did it cost the seller to process this return? What financial impact was felt by the seller??

@pjcdn2005 wrote:
Are you saying that eBay should refund fees on items that were not refunded? That would mean that whether or not a seller refunded the original shipping on buyers remorse returns, they would get their fees back.
Nope. I'm saying that if we were trying to make a policy in the interest of fairness, or integrity, the financial responsibility would not be on a seller who is not at fault. Why shouldn't a seller who makes no mistake get their fees back? They're already at a loss for money. Is eBay or the buyer at a loss at all? How come all the responsibility is held on the seller?

Regarding no returns vs remorse returns, etc. That's all part of the problem. Let's be real; neither route you go offers sufficient protection. Either choice you make will leave you vulnerable. Even if you, as a seller, do everything right, you won't be protected. You will still be at a loss, while buyers and eBay take no losses and only potential gains.

I know I'm not the only one that remembers a day where eBay would actually take a loss to prevent unfair situations from harming sellers financially. So I'm not sure why their current actions should be justified. Just because it's the "current policy" doesn't make it fair.
My comments above on your reaction to my post is in purple.

As to your comments to @pjcdn2005 I agree with PJ. You are trying to make this thread about something it is NOT about. The OP came here with their perceived wrong doing by Ebay on a BUYER REMORSE return. You are trying to make this about the return system as a whole. That is NOT the discussion here. I get it that you want to make it about that, but that is simply not what this thread is about.

Trying to change the thread to a different subject just adds confusion and unnecessary discussion on this thread that only muddies up the issues the OP came here to discuss.
@zamo-zuan
What the heck are you talking about? The BUYER paid return shipping. The BUYER was NOT refunded for the original shipping. That happened because the BUYER was HONEST and opened a Buyer's Remorse Return Request.

Again, if you refer to the OP, it has been stated that even if it's just a loss of cents rather than dollars, it's still a loss. That is the financial responsibility on topic with this thread. That is the financial responsibility being referred to.

I hadn't mentioned original shipping or any such thing. It's hard to tell if you truly don't understand what's being said, or if you're intentionally bringing these things up to try to misrepresent what I'm saying.

What "financial responsibility" did the seller "assume". The buyer paid for return shipping not the seller. The seller kept the original shipping it was not refunded to the buyer. The seller got their product back. The seller got refunded for their FVF on the amount they refunded the buyer, which was for the product.

I'm not seeing yours or the OP's point. There is no reason that you or the OP should think that Ebay should refund a FVF on an amount that was NOT REFUNDED to the buyer.

Again, as said in the OP, even if it's just 40 cents, why should the seller assume responsibility for those fees when they did everything right? As if the loss wasn't enough to begin with?

Is it really fair that eBay collects fees even when a seller is at a loss for buyers remorse, rather than their own remorse? Specifically when the buyers remorse was due to their own actions of not reading the listing? Wouldn't it be fair for any additional fees incurred to who was at responsibility or fault?

If you don't see the point of the OP or myself, isn't it a better idea to try to get a grasp of what we're saying before arguing the point?

I see this a bit differently. I think you and the OP are being unreasonable in thinking Ebay should refund FVF on something that was NOT REFUNDED to the buyer

Likewise, I think it's unreasonable for eBay to collect fees on transactions that were never completed, while holding the buyers at no fault for losses, and at the same time thinking the losses are acceptable for businesses while they take no losses or responsibility at all.

You can disagree all you want, it won't however change the facts. Other than some time by the seller, which is important I'm not at all dismissing that, what did it cost the seller to process this return? What financial impact was felt by the seller??

I notice that again you ignore the question, and return to policies. Which returns me to the what I said at the end of my last post: Just because it's the current policy does not mean it is fair. That's what this thread is about.

Regarding what financial impact was felt by the seller, we have that in the OP.

Trying to change the thread to a different subject just adds confusion and unnecessary discussion on this thread that only muddies up the issues the OP came here to discuss.

I find it ironic that I'm commenting on the financial impact that was literally mentioned in the OP and being accused "muddying up the issues". Meanwhile in the post I'm replying to you, had brought a list of things I had never mentioned in to this thread to accuse me of muddying up the issues. Especially when you have just said you don't even understand the point me and the OP were talking about.

You darn determined to bringing other things into this that has nothing at all to do with the OP's issues on a BUYER REMORSE return. The lost NO MONEY in fees to Ebay or in shipping charges. NONE. You said in part "...if it's just a loss of cents rather than dollars..." But that isn't true at all. The OP lost no money not even a penny to Ebay or their buyer. The buyer paid for the shipping to them originally and they paid for the return of the item.

The seller KEPT the money for the original shipping which is why they did not get their FVF refunded on the shipping. For such a simple process you are sure trying to add complication to it.

"Is it really fair that eBay collects fees even when a seller is at a loss for buyers remorse..." What loss? The buyer paid for return shipping, the buyer paid for original shipping to the seller. The buyer returned the item, so the seller has that. When the seller refunded for the product ONLY, they got their FVF back on the product price. So where did the seller lose money to Ebay on this transaction? Again, setting aside seller's labor in processing a return.

So where was it that Ebay kept money they should not have exactly? Be specific.

Much of what you are speaking to has to do with the processing of an INAD/SNAD, but this thread isn't about that. And I think we could both go on forever about the inadequacies of Ebay's process for INAD/SNADs.

mam98031 • Volunteer Community Member • Buyer/Seller since 1999

prettywoman-2012 · ‎06-05-2020

@zamo-zuan wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:
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.

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?

No. My opinion is that the problems start way before the refunds happen. The problems are in terms of protection and responsibility. Shouldn't the financial responsibility be determined by who's at fault?

Are you of the opinion that sellers should have financial responsibility when they did their job properly?

What is dishonest about a buyer that files a proper Buyer's Remorse return?

Now you're getting closer to my point. Why should a seller have to assume financial responsibility in the case of a proper Buyers Remorse return?

Should sellers have to pay for a buyers remorse?

Should eBay be making FVF's off of a buyers remorse?

I don't know how much more honest the buyer could be.

EBay's honesty, integrity, and fairness is what's in question here. They don't even vet a buyers honesty, so the determination of honest or not isn't even part of the equation.

It is NOT "a two-fold problem resulting from the lack of protections."

I disagree. Protection and returns are inherently related. Can we honestly say the OP was protected in terms of financial responsibility for a mistake that the buyer made?

@pjcdn2005 wrote:
Are you saying that eBay should refund fees on items that were not refunded? That would mean that whether or not a seller refunded the original shipping on buyers remorse returns, they would get their fees back.
Nope. I'm saying that if we were trying to make a policy in the interest of fairness, or integrity, the financial responsibility would not be on a seller who is not at fault. Why shouldn't a seller who makes no mistake get their fees back? They're already at a loss for money. Is eBay or the buyer at a loss at all? How come all the responsibility is held on the seller?

Regarding no returns vs remorse returns, etc. That's all part of the problem. Let's be real; neither route you go offers sufficient protection. Either choice you make will leave you vulnerable. Even if you, as a seller, do everything right, you won't be protected. You will still be at a loss, while buyers and eBay take no losses and only potential gains.

I know I'm not the only one that remembers a day where eBay would actually take a loss to prevent unfair situations from harming sellers financially. So I'm not sure why their current actions should be justified. Just because it's the "current policy" doesn't make it fair.

Hi Zamo Zoom Zoom (my nickname for you, love it because it relates to cars)...

I agree with all your points. It is just too frustrating to argue with some people who cannot see the forest because a tree is blocking their view.

They fail to see, among others, that the refunding of fees taken by eBay on a transaction that is non-existent (as was in the case in my opening post) is unethical. But what is even worse, they do not seem to comprehend that it is totally irrelevant what the seller refunds to the buyer (in this case, the full purchase price).

There are two different relationships in a return case.

(1) The relationship between the buyer and the seller (this is taken care of once the purchase price is refunded for the unwanted merchandise. The seller only owes anything beyond that amount to the buyer, if the seller failed to properly describe his or her item - which is not the case here).

(2) The relationship between the seller and eBay. This is at stake here - the finak value fees charged on a transaction that had to be cancelled from record due to the buyer returning the item (thus making the sale null and void) are fees the seller should receive back from eBay - as correctly noted by you and others. As a matter of fact, this is even acknowledged by eBay IF YOU CONTACT THEM AND REQUEST THE FVF ON SHIPPING. On at least two occasions within the past 12 months I did so, and CS refunded the FVF on shipping, on orders that were later returned. But a seller should not be required to take extra steps to get the money that is rightfully his or hers - it should be done per default. IT IS BECAUSE MANY SELLERS do not know this, that eBay has been keeping a substantial amount of money that is not rightfully its to keep.

Because many eBay sellers - unlike you, me and others who have been here for decades - may be new to eBay and inexperienced, too busy or preoccupied with the terrible things that have been happening across the country or to their family lately (e.g. Covid-19, unrests, destruction and devastation), but even prior to Covid-19 may not have seen any warning or explanation of their fees written in plain English - they do not look into these issues closely, or they may not know WHERE to look.

The deception and dishonesty does not stop here. As I pointed out in my last post before this one: there is another thread for which I provided the link, in which buyers complain that they, too, did not get their refund of the taxes. To those concerns, eBay employee Trinton responded that there are two ways for issuing a refund for the tax portion on a cancelled sale:
(1) via eBay (to which Trinton noted, in this case the refund will correctly include the tax portion of buyer's original payment), or

(2) via PayPal (to which he noted that, should the seller elect to do a refund to buyer via PayPal, the tax portion will not be included, and the buyer has to request it from eBay Customer Support.

There are two things to mention here. If there is anything positive about the upcoming Managed Payment system into which sellers are being now forced, then that is that hopefully, sellers can only issue refunds to buyers via Managed Payment (eBay) without involving PayPal, and this will eliminate the need for buyers having to jump through loops to separately have to request tax refunds from eBay on returns. I am not - and will not be - in Managed Payments, so I can only hope this is going to be simplified for buyers.

Another thing about the return process I wish to point out here is, seller protection (as you mentioned) was thrown out of the window, when the button of "Return this item" was placed onto the Purchase History page beside each item the buyer purchased. On one hand, it is great that buyers can find a simple way to return things - on the other hand, eBay eliminated an important part of seller protection by forgetting to embed an important step into the Return software: the mandate that the buyer has to make at least one attempt to contact the seller and give the seller a chance to remedy the issue. Instead, eBay turned the table completely against sellers, literally strong-arming and blackmailing them into issuing refunds in clear cases of false INAD. Not only that, but if you look at the Return this item page, eBay has already conveniently checked the box for "Refund the buyer " and "Buyer can keep product" before the seller even comprehended what exactly was the reason for the return.

Dishonesty, misleading and mind-gaming practices have completely permeated this site to a point of aiding and abetting fraud. And the culture is nowhere more visibly than the very first step of conducting business here: the Log-in page. How many people will scroll down to un-check that box, "Stay logged in", which eBay placed on the login page and kindly checked per default for you? That would not be in eBay's interest, because as long as you forget to un-check it, their cookies and other software will follow you EVERYWHERE you go online, and collect even more data they can benefit from.

Or how about the genial survey I received last night, with some phony title like, "Help eBay understand your seller concerns?" It started quite innocently with some demographic questions like, "What is your age," What is your gender," and "Are you or have you ever operated an account that can be considered that of a social influencer?" And it got even more wild: "Which other platforms or marketplaces are you selling on?" [eBay would really LOVE to know that, now, wouldn't IT]. Then the next question was: "How much was your total income from online selling in the year of 2019." Uhmmm....one of the reasons people prefer to answer this question for the IRS only is, (a) they have to, and (b) it is confidential. Yet, our big bold friend, eBay, would love to know it! Suggestion: ask the IRS.

I backed out of this survey then and there, not because I have anything to hide, but because it has absolutely nothing to do with my Seller experience on eBay. Now, if they would like to know that, all they have to do is, (1) read my post, and (2) answer the question why I only sold 1 item here since May 18th (until yesterday), as it coincidentally happens to overlap with the date of my first critical post on these boards since my return to eBay end of 2019. Since then, the traffic to my listings was cut by 65% and the views plumitted accordingly.

Why would I wish to disclose to eBay where else I am selling, and for how much?

They never fail to amaze me with how much they underestimate the intelligence of their sellers.

Stay safe, my good one

PW🐿

prettywoman-2012 · ‎06-05-2020

@dietaryconsultant wrote:
I only recently found out about the hoops. Since I started working from home I have had more time to spend on improving my record keeping. I only just realized I wasn't reimbursed any fvf on any of the items I refunded. I don't refund the initial shipping so they all say partially refunded which doesn't trigger an automatic credit. Has this always been the policy? Shame on me for not noticing this sooner. I have had several buyers contact me recently to cancel items they bought by accident and paypal doesn't reimburse the transaction fee anymore. Overtime all these fees on items that are return or cancelled start to add up.

It aches my heart to say this, but there is a lot new or relatively new sellers need to find out as they go. I truly hope you will thrive as a seller.

PW🐿

prettywoman-2012 · ‎06-05-2020

@mam98031 wrote:
@zamo-zuan wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:
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.

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?

No. My opinion is that the problems start way before the refunds happen. The problems are in terms of protection and responsibility. Shouldn't the financial responsibility be determined by who's at fault?

Are you of the opinion that sellers should have financial responsibility when they did their job properly?

What the heck are you talking about? The BUYER paid return shipping. The BUYER was NOT refunded for the original shipping. That happened because the BUYER was HONEST and opened a Buyer's Remorse Return Request.

What is dishonest about a buyer that files a proper Buyer's Remorse return?

Now you're getting closer to my point. Why should a seller have to assume financial responsibility in the case of a proper Buyers Remorse return?

Should sellers have to pay for a buyers remorse?

Should eBay be making FVF's off of a buyers remorse?

What "financial responsibility" did the seller "assume". The buyer paid for return shipping not the seller. The seller kept the original shipping it was not refunded to the buyer. The seller got their product back. The seller got refunded for their FVF on the amount they refunded the buyer, which was for the product.

I'm not seeing yours or the OP's point. There is no reason that you or the OP should think that Ebay should refund a FVF on an amount that was NOT REFUNDED to the buyer.

I don't know how much more honest the buyer could be.

EBay's honesty, integrity, and fairness is what's in question here. They don't even vet a buyers honesty, so the determination of honest or not isn't even part of the equation.

I see this a bit differently. I think you and the OP are being unreasonable in thinking Ebay should refund FVF on something that was NOT REFUNDED to the buyer. You may expect it, but it is completely unreasonable.

It is NOT "a two-fold problem resulting from the lack of protections."

I disagree. Protection and returns are inherently related. Can we honestly say the OP was protected in terms of financial responsibility for a mistake that the buyer made?

You can disagree all you want, it won't however change the facts. Other than some time by the seller, which is important I'm not at all dismissing that, what did it cost the seller to process this return? What financial impact was felt by the seller??

@pjcdn2005 wrote:
Are you saying that eBay should refund fees on items that were not refunded? That would mean that whether or not a seller refunded the original shipping on buyers remorse returns, they would get their fees back.
Nope. I'm saying that if we were trying to make a policy in the interest of fairness, or integrity, the financial responsibility would not be on a seller who is not at fault. Why shouldn't a seller who makes no mistake get their fees back? They're already at a loss for money. Is eBay or the buyer at a loss at all? How come all the responsibility is held on the seller?

Regarding no returns vs remorse returns, etc. That's all part of the problem. Let's be real; neither route you go offers sufficient protection. Either choice you make will leave you vulnerable. Even if you, as a seller, do everything right, you won't be protected. You will still be at a loss, while buyers and eBay take no losses and only potential gains.

I know I'm not the only one that remembers a day where eBay would actually take a loss to prevent unfair situations from harming sellers financially. So I'm not sure why their current actions should be justified. Just because it's the "current policy" doesn't make it fair.
My comments above on your reaction to my post is in purple.

As to your comments to @pjcdn2005 I agree with PJ. You are trying to make this thread about something it is NOT about. The OP came here with their perceived wrong doing by Ebay on a BUYER REMORSE return. You are trying to make this about the return system as a whole. That is NOT the discussion here. I get it that you want to make it about that, but that is simply not what this thread is about.

Trying to change the thread to a different subject just adds confusion and unnecessary discussion on this thread that only muddies up the issues the OP came here to discuss.
@zamo-zuan

@mam98031

Actually, weird, but I think the same way about your points.

Whereas, I believe that zamo's points are highly relevant to this discussion, and at least help many others who may be confused about some points, see more clear.

The return process as concocted by eBay is only the tip of an iceberg and sellers were assigned the role of the Titanic, by a criminally masterminded entity that cases nothing about rights and ethical principles. The problem is, in their arrogance they believe they and only they have an intelligent bulb at the end of their neck.

But we are all entitled to think differently.

PW🐿

prettywoman-2012 · ‎06-05-2020

Correction: "....entity that cares nothing about..."

P.s. Will one ever get at least 2 minutes to correct a typo?

PW🐿

vintage-car-magazines · ‎06-05-2020

@coffeebean832 wrote:
@prettywoman-2012 wrote:
I had a return a few days ago, because someone did not carefully read the length description. The buyer selected, "Item does not fit," so that, the way I understand, is not the seller's fault when all measurements were provided in the listing text. The item price was 34.99 but as we all know, eBay charges 10% Final value fee (FVF) currently on jewelry (for those not enrolled in Managed Paymore). INCLUDING the 10% of the shipping cost the buyer paid for.

Just checked my eBay account fees and charges. Sure enough, eBay returned to me the item price Final value fee - 3.49 - as a credit - but not the 10% of the shipping cost it also took from me at the time point of the order. In this case, the shipping was 4.00 bucks and I am entitled to the 40 cents eBay confiscated by charging a FVF on the shipping part of the buyer's payment.
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?

I didn't see this addressed in the replies and seems to be the crux of the FVF issue. Some of the replies got pretty long and I started to skim them so I may have just missed it.

Was the original shipping refunded to the buyer?

mam98031 · ‎06-05-2020

@prettywoman-2012 wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:
@zamo-zuan wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:
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.

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?

No. My opinion is that the problems start way before the refunds happen. The problems are in terms of protection and responsibility. Shouldn't the financial responsibility be determined by who's at fault?

Are you of the opinion that sellers should have financial responsibility when they did their job properly?

What the heck are you talking about? The BUYER paid return shipping. The BUYER was NOT refunded for the original shipping. That happened because the BUYER was HONEST and opened a Buyer's Remorse Return Request.

What is dishonest about a buyer that files a proper Buyer's Remorse return?

Now you're getting closer to my point. Why should a seller have to assume financial responsibility in the case of a proper Buyers Remorse return?

Should sellers have to pay for a buyers remorse?

Should eBay be making FVF's off of a buyers remorse?

What "financial responsibility" did the seller "assume". The buyer paid for return shipping not the seller. The seller kept the original shipping it was not refunded to the buyer. The seller got their product back. The seller got refunded for their FVF on the amount they refunded the buyer, which was for the product.

I'm not seeing yours or the OP's point. There is no reason that you or the OP should think that Ebay should refund a FVF on an amount that was NOT REFUNDED to the buyer.

I don't know how much more honest the buyer could be.

EBay's honesty, integrity, and fairness is what's in question here. They don't even vet a buyers honesty, so the determination of honest or not isn't even part of the equation.

I see this a bit differently. I think you and the OP are being unreasonable in thinking Ebay should refund FVF on something that was NOT REFUNDED to the buyer. You may expect it, but it is completely unreasonable.

It is NOT "a two-fold problem resulting from the lack of protections."

I disagree. Protection and returns are inherently related. Can we honestly say the OP was protected in terms of financial responsibility for a mistake that the buyer made?

You can disagree all you want, it won't however change the facts. Other than some time by the seller, which is important I'm not at all dismissing that, what did it cost the seller to process this return? What financial impact was felt by the seller??

@pjcdn2005 wrote:
Are you saying that eBay should refund fees on items that were not refunded? That would mean that whether or not a seller refunded the original shipping on buyers remorse returns, they would get their fees back.
Nope. I'm saying that if we were trying to make a policy in the interest of fairness, or integrity, the financial responsibility would not be on a seller who is not at fault. Why shouldn't a seller who makes no mistake get their fees back? They're already at a loss for money. Is eBay or the buyer at a loss at all? How come all the responsibility is held on the seller?

Regarding no returns vs remorse returns, etc. That's all part of the problem. Let's be real; neither route you go offers sufficient protection. Either choice you make will leave you vulnerable. Even if you, as a seller, do everything right, you won't be protected. You will still be at a loss, while buyers and eBay take no losses and only potential gains.

I know I'm not the only one that remembers a day where eBay would actually take a loss to prevent unfair situations from harming sellers financially. So I'm not sure why their current actions should be justified. Just because it's the "current policy" doesn't make it fair.
My comments above on your reaction to my post is in purple.

As to your comments to @pjcdn2005 I agree with PJ. You are trying to make this thread about something it is NOT about. The OP came here with their perceived wrong doing by Ebay on a BUYER REMORSE return. You are trying to make this about the return system as a whole. That is NOT the discussion here. I get it that you want to make it about that, but that is simply not what this thread is about.

Trying to change the thread to a different subject just adds confusion and unnecessary discussion on this thread that only muddies up the issues the OP came here to discuss.
@zamo-zuan
@mam98031
Actually, weird, but I think the same way about your points.
Whereas, I believe that zamo's points are highly relevant to this discussion, and at least help many others who may be confused about some points, see more clear.
The return process as concocted by eBay is only the tip of an iceberg and sellers were assigned the role of the Titanic, by a criminally masterminded entity that cases nothing about rights and ethical principles. The problem is, in their arrogance they believe they and only they have an intelligent bulb at the end of their neck.

But we are all entitled to think differently.
PW🐿

Odd since all my posts are on point with how a Buyer's Remorse return request is processed and what is above by Zamo is about INADs. And according to you, the buyer filed a Buyer's Remorse return.

So how an INAD is processed doesn't apply here.

What I described in regards to the processing of a BR claim is not my opinion, it is how they work on this site.

As to the return process on Ebay for INADs, I completely agree with you and have stated many times all over these threads that Ebay has a outrageously unfair process currently called Simplified Returns that they started in October of 2018. That has always been my opinion and one I've stated many times.

But your issues were with a Buyer's Remorse return request. Which are just not the same nor are they handled the same.

mam98031 • Volunteer Community Member • Buyer/Seller since 1999