mam98031 • Volunteer Community Member • Buyer/Seller since 1999
@dhbookds wrote:@Anonymous
is it correct that on remorse returns, where a seller does NOT refund shipping, that a seller must request a refund of the shipping fees? why wouldn't it be automatic?
Personally I think the better question is why a seller would think Ebay needs to refund them the FVF on a portion of the transaction they did NOT refund!
@prettywoman-2012 wrote:
@vintage-car-magazines wrote: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?
Thank you for your question. Several other posters asked similar questions, so instead of replying to them all, I chose you (yes, you are a chosen one, hahaha!) to explain. It is beside the point whether the seller returned the shipping cost to the buyer upon refund - because of what I posted in post number 55, citing again below:
"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 [for buyer's remorse]. 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."
I only added here the words [for buyer's remorse] - to be absolutely clear. I did not need to return the original shipping cost to the buyer, as neither of those cases were INADs. Some people are desperately trying to press there is a difference on FVF refund on shipping depending on whether the seller returned the shipping cost to the buyer with the refund, or not.
Additionally, why should the seller return the shipping cost to buyer that was already spent on getting the merchandise to the buyer?
In reality, this makes no difference. In all cases of non-INAD, the final value fees (the 40 cents I am talking about in my OP) should be (and have been) returned to the seller IF THE SELLER CALLED EBAY CUSTOMER SERVICE OR EMAILED THEM. If not, then eBay kept it. This is the core issue here, and I hope this clarifies things.
Aabout 1/3 of all responses on this thread include erroneous information, endless citing and re-citing of LONG and INCORRECT information in quotes, and then about 1/4 of the other responses try to silence other posters who are expressing relevant and important opinions. It takes a paratrooper to comb through all of this, and this is, indeed, the intended outcome planned and executed by a few people who want to make sure this thread is quickly becoming way too long and complicated to follow. Please also note how those posters selectively address issues while ignoring other points, because they have none, or little to say to the actual matters at hand. Assuming we are all adults here, there should be a more efficient way to conduct a discussion, I think.
Happy Sunday
PW 🐿
Would you please clarify for all of us how FVFs that get returned to a seller on a Buyer Remorse return works.
To my knowledge it is driven by what is refunded by the seller to the buyer. If the seller refunds the product price, then they get a FVF refund for the appropriate amount.
If the seller does not refund the original shipping [if separately stated, not a free shipping listing], then the seller does not get the FVF refunded because the seller DID NOT refund the buyer. So no FVF refund is due by Ebay.
I get it that this OP expects the refund of the FVFs, but that doesn't mean it is actually owed to them. It simply means they feel, for whatever reasons they may have, that they are entitled to have that fee returned to them even though they did not refund the buyer.
- The FVF on original shipping is one strategy to encourage free shipping. If it sold with free shipping, you'd get the whole FVF back.
There should be no difference between the two, the FVF should be paid back to the seller in either case. As for the misleading and unlawful practice of encouraging the shipping cost be embedded into the selling price, please see my opening paragraph.
But there is a difference, a big one. On an order with free shipping, when the seller processes the refund it is for everything. Which is why the entire FVF is refunded.
When a transaction that has separately stated shipping is refunded on a BR return, the seller may choose NOT to refund the original shipping charge. Since the seller did not refund this amount, Ebay doesn't refund the FVF amount for the shipping charges.
It is a simple process. I respect that you don't agree with it. But for some it sounds perfectly logical and reasonable. If you refund you get the FVF back, if you don't, you don't get the FVF back.
@prettywoman-2012 wrote:
@vintage-car-magazines wrote:
@prettywoman-2012 :We can agree to disagree on this...that's ok.
- The FVF is charged on all money received.
- The postage charge was received and kept, therefore a FVF is owed.
- When you called, you got refunds out of courtesy, not because it's owed.
- The FVF on original shipping is one strategy to encourage free shipping. If it sold with free shipping, you'd get the whole FVF back.
- If you choose to charge shipping separate, then one of the costs of doing business is the FVF on original shipping.
To me, arguing that eBay isn't "entitled" to the FVF on original shipping is no different than questioning why a seller's prices aren't lower. Those who set the price and those who agree to it, both get to choose.
Again, we can agree to disagree.
Wo-wo-wo...let's just stay focused on FVF on shipping - nothing on this thread is about setting the item price, and there is no connection between the two, although I'd like to point out that offering a service for FREE (in this case a shipping service) is a VIOLATION OF THE CONSUMER LAWS and equals deceptive practices, as in false advertising (please check out the FTC site discussing this). The fact that this and other sites want us to embed the shipping cost into the advertised selling price has nothing to do with it being legitimate. These online marketplaces (and eBay is not the only one, think Etsy, etc.) literally set up their sellers to be accomplices to fraudulent selling practices. Congress is looking into this.
But, in order to stick with the matter at hand, you wrote
- When you called, you got refunds out of courtesy, not because it's owed.
Nope. That is not correct.
- The FVF on original shipping is one strategy to encourage free shipping. If it sold with free shipping, you'd get the whole FVF back.
There should be no difference between the two, the FVF should be paid back to the seller in either case. As for the misleading and unlawful practice of encouraging the shipping cost be embedded into the selling price, please see my opening paragraph.
- If you choose to charge shipping separate, then one of the costs of doing business is the FVF on original shipping.
Again, this practice would be discriminatory and even eBay is not THAT silly to do that and risk lawsuits. Alas, as you stated, we can all agree to disagree (though it never hurts to look up applicable laws).
PW
It is about setting price. eBay has set the FVF PRICE. You can choose to buy or not.
I find it comical that you say "let's just stay focused on FVF on shipping" and then follow it up by taking the conversation in a different direction with an absurd assertion that free shipping is illegal.
I'm out.
@prettywoman-2012 wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:
@prettywoman-2012 wrote:
@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.
It is all part of a larger scheme - striving to achieve world power, while enslaving the rest. Ever asked yourself, why the CDC never mentioned official and valid research results which indicate the SAFE distance to keep is NOT 6 but 13 feet apart? Or, why they never published a recommendation for you to wear eye-protection, when it is proven fact that this and other Corona-type viruses attack people via the mucous membrane in the eyes? Sure, just let everybody wear a completely inefficient, home-made clothes mask for nose and mouth then walk into a store and pick up the air droplets from the air which linger for up to 8 mins after someone coughed.
Then look at who is working at the CDC, who are the bankers, the CEOs, etc. They are no ordinary folks, neither is their agenda.
PW🐿
You may just need to spend a little more time with the recommendations of the CDC to better understand the reasons for wearing fabric face masks.
Fabric face mask are NOT going to protect us so much from contracting the virus. Meaning the masks themselves will only keep out so much from the droplets we all create when we talk, breath, cough, etc.
The fabric masks are VERY effective when a person is asymptomatic [they aren't having symptoms] and they are infected with the virus. The fabric face masks will help to prevent their droplets from getting released into the air to potentially infect those close by. This is the main benefit of the fabric face masks.
@ mam98031 As I also have mentioned several times: we can continue to discuss this once we are on level ground in terms of researching healthcare matters. I do not see any reason to continue to engage in this debate as it is currently, because the factual scientific evidence contradicts what you are saying and it would not be fair from me to take advantage of the insight my profession allows me to maintain, into these matters. I do recommend, however, to look into thread-counts of fabric. The issue at hand is not which direction the protection is supposed to work when it does not work in either direction.
What WOULD work is the N95 masks and anything else with a respiratory filter disc. But aye, there's the rub: those are not available to the average Jim and Joe, and even hospital etc. workers can find it difficult to replenish their supplies.
PW🐿
Interesting. You originally made the comments about masks, to which I responded to. You then responded pretty much telling me as you are here that I don't know what I'm talking about. I didn't bring it back up but apparently you still want to discuss it. I'm not sure why.
I leave it with the following link. Which supports what I originally said. And not bringing more aspects into the conversation as you are in your post above.
Excerpt from the CDC Website. There is lots more info on the site regarding fabric face masks as well.
Cloth face coverings may slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/about-face-coverings.html
How cloth face coverings work
Cloth face coverings may prevent the person wearing the mask from spreading respiratory
droplets when talking, sneezing, or coughing. If everyone wears a cloth face covering when out
in public, such as going to the grocery store, the risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 can be reduced
for the community. Since people may spread the virus before symptoms start, or even if people
never have symptoms, wearing a cloth face covering may protect others around you. Face
coverings worn by others may protect you from getting the virus from people carrying the virus.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/cloth-face-coverings-information.pdf
