Seller avoids refunding returns by creating shipping labels that won't get tracked when delivered

[macman4623]

Check this out. Take an old label going to a different city. Fax/copy it several times. Erase the destination address and put your own back in. Now when someone wants to return something, send them that label. 

The tracking number is going to Duncan, OK, but the recipient is in Spring TX. The USPS will send it to Duncan, get rejected and keep bouncing back and forth. Someone will finally black out the tracking number, the item will finally get delivered in Spring,  but no longer has a tracking number attached to it. Seller will claim it never arrived and deny refunding the buyer.

[funfactorychannel]

wouldnt the easiest way is to send eBay the provided label and also ask them to check the actual return label address if it is different, that seller is also ban as well as you should get refund.

[macman4623]

It was a low cost item. I couldn't figure out why they would pay half the cost to have it shipped back. I couldn't figure out why they went the extra effort to create their own label, but apparently its to avoid refunding.

[ittybitnot]

@macman4623 

Interesting to be sure. 

[bashort]

---

@macman4623 wrote:

It was a low cost item. I couldn't figure out why they would pay half the cost to have it shipped back. I couldn't figure out why they went the extra effort to create their own label, but apparently its to avoid refunding.

---

I would just open a case that the seller has not refunded, I believe that on a lost return the seller is responsible.

[gurlcat]

I'm a bit confused.  So you were the BUYER in this transaction?  And how did the seller get the label to you?   Was it a file that they emailed to you, or a physical label that they snail-mailed to you?  And when you saw it, didn't it look suspicious, like tampered-with and probably not functional? 

[macman4623]

Yes, I was the buyer. I opened a return after the seller ignored me when one of the antennas jacks was misshapen and wouldn't fit on my radio. After the last possible day to confirm the return, they attached this label to the return through ebay. I bought it to the post office, my only concern was that the barcode would be unscannable, with a high chance of not scanning at delivery. I even had them test it with the POS scanner and a handheld scanner. I had requested they made a new barcode, but didn't think it was needed. I didn't think that the problem was the barcode was a different destination.

[iamalwaysright]

What's the point of copying/faxing it a few times?

Also doesn't ebay just force the refund once the package scans as delivered to anywhere?

[macman4623]

>>copying/faxing it a few times

More likely to get lost in the mail - less likely to have to refund.

>>package scans as delivered

It won't show as delivered. At the post office they said they will black out part of the barcode so it stops getting sent to the wrong city. Carrier will see the blacked out barcode and won't bother scanning it. As it didn't get scanned, it won't show as delivered. Won't have to refund.

[autotechlighting]

Wrong. Sellers take the loss on lost packages if the seller provided the label. If the buyer uses their own label and it gets lost, the buyer takes the loss. If it's an Ebay label and it gets lost....Ebay normally funds these. Thus, buyers should only use labels provided by seller or Ebay in order to truly be protected.

This has been policy forever.

[mam98031]

---

@bashort wrote:

---

@macman4623 wrote:

It was a low cost item. I couldn't figure out why they would pay half the cost to have it shipped back. I couldn't figure out why they went the extra effort to create their own label, but apparently its to avoid refunding.

---

I would just open a case that the seller has not refunded, I believe that on a lost return the seller is responsible.

---

You are correct.  The issuer of the shipping label is responsible for the package.  So all the buyer @macman4623  would need to do is contact Ebay and let them know the package is lost.  Ebay should step in and inform the seller to refund or force the refund.

[lacemaker3]

---

@iamalwaysright wrote:

What's the point of copying/faxing it a few times?

...

---

I suspect that the label's print quality was deliberately degraded, and then it was sent as a .jpg. This might have been intended to make sure the bar code was so badly printed that it was unscannable. As far as I can tell, that bar code will not scan. It looks like the seller photoshopped the label and changed the delivery address so they could reuse a label.

You have to manually enter the tracking number to get the tracking information. That label was first scanned from Superior, WI (OP's location) on Feb 20, and was last scanned in Duncan, OK on Feb 26, 2025. You can just enter the tracking number into a google search to track it.

I think the originating post office may have entered it manually and generated a small sticker with a readable bar code.

The last tracking activity was on Feb 26, a week and a half ago. The post office may have flagged it as postage-unpaid, since even if the label had postage paid, it would have been for a short distance within Texas. But it looks like the seller photoshopped the label and changed the delivery address so they could reuse a label, as well as degrading the print quality to prevent scans.

---

@iamalwaysright wrote:

...

Also doesn't ebay just force the refund once the package scans as delivered to anywhere?

---

eBay's policy in the MBG is that whoever pays for the label, is liable if it is lost or damaged.

But in this case, the seller did not pay for the label through eBay (or at all), so would eBay assume that the buyer used their own label for the return? If so, then eBay would consider the buyer to be liable, and would not give the refund under the MBG policy.

@macman4623,

I would suggest that you contact eBay customer service on social media, and ask them to review the messages between you and the seller, and to check out the label that the seller provided (was it a printable file, like a .jpg?) Make sure you explain that it was the seller who provided the bad return shipping label. Send a private message here:

https://facebook.com/ebay

Otherwise, I think if this case is decided by AI, or by a regular customer service agent, then they will probably deny the refund.

[macman4623]

>>But in this case, the seller did not pay for the label through eBay (or at all), so would eBay assume that the buyer used their own label for the return?

You know when a buyer opens a return and you have two options

"Purchase a label from ebay"

"upload your own label"

They chose the 2nd one, and thats where that label came from.

The tracking number goes to an unknown address in Duncan, OK. The TO: address is in spring, TX. The mail system is automated so it has no idea where its going. I do have a physical receipt showing acceptance of the package.

And yes, however bad it looks, I printed it on a laser printer and they post office confirmed it scanned with more than 1 scanner.

[lacemaker3]

OK, if the seller sent you the label through eBay, then you may be OK to get a refund, because if the seller was responsible for paying for the return shipping, then the risk during shipping is one  the seller as well.

I would still advise you to contact eBay on social media, in order to get your refund and a defect on the seller.

The catch here, is if the seller tricks the buyer into paying for the return shipping, then the risk is on the buyer if it gets lost.

In this case, it looks to me as if the seller faked, reused or counterfeited the label. I could not scan either of the barcodes using an online scanner. It also doesn't have either of the two small Intelligent Mail Matrix Barcode (IMmb), which I thought were now required on all USPS labels. One to the left of the delivery address, and one in the bottom right corner of the label.

(Edit: as of Dec 2024, at least one IMmb is required on USPS parcel shipping labels, in the address section. https://postalpro.usps.com/parcellabelingguide section 6.0.)

That label did get some scans for the first few days, but those could have been done by manually entering the number, or someone might have added an additional label with a reprinted bar code on it. But there is no "Shipping Label Created, USPS Awaiting Item" scan; which is generated when the seller purchases the label. The first scan is "USPS in possession of item  SUPERIOR, WI  February 20, 2025".

I suspect that, even if the bar code was scannable, if the label was reused or edited, then the postage was never paid for, and the post office won't deliver it because of that. The scanning could just stop, which looks like it's what happened here. It made it as far as Duncan, OK, where the scanning stopped. That doesn't mean it was being sent to Duncan, OK.

Edit: I just looked at the tracking history again, and I see that the package was scanned "out for delivery" on Feb 24, in Duncan OK. So I guess it was being sent to a delivery address there. But was never actually delivered, just sent back to the local sorting station.

[gurlcat]

---

@macman4623 wrote:

It was a low cost item. I couldn't figure out why they would pay half the cost to have it shipped back. I couldn't figure out why they went the extra effort to create their own label, but apparently its to avoid refunding.

---

Which makes me think if they'll do it for a low-cost item, they probably do it for every return.  It's such a convoluted trick that we seasoned Community members are having trouble sussing it, so just imagine how unlikely the average buyer would be to do so. 

Because of this I second @lacemaker3 suggestion that you inquire about it via the social media route, as opposed to the regular in-site pathyways.  The social media employees are fluent-English Americans and have more access to your account and more individual discretion (power).  In other words, they are way more likely to know a scam when they see it, and act accordingly.  They might even go into this seller's history and see if they have a pattern of returns they didn't have to refund, due to "missent" packages.