So now we are responsible if the package is

[mg152]

Stolen from the buyers porch, mailbox, car trunk etc.....

I will certainly be leaving as a seller as soon as I sell all my junk and get my money 

[everything-from-trinkets-to-treasures]

---

@fern*wood wrote:

Since my tracking only shows the city/state/zip (the old requirement), does ebay now delve deeper into my tracking to find more than that in order for me to be covered or am I just not covered now?  Do you have to contact the PO to get more details with USPS?   I can't see any delving happening by a bot.

---

You are covered if you uploaded the tracking on time and it shows delivery to the buyer.
The only change for some sellers is they need to upload the tracking within the handling time.
There is no real change as far as most sellers are concerned. We, most of us, already upload the tracking within the handling time to avoid the ding for late shipping anyway or  if you use ebay labels and ship on time it is automatically uploaded anyway.
There is no more to it...there is nothing else to read into it.
This is really a non issue that some are just trying really hard to make into an issue.

[muttlymob]

---

@paulhua3 wrote:

That is not true.  Over the last year or so I have had about 5 buyers claim they did not get their item when tracking showed delivered and I was not forced to refund any of them.  I believe in one case eBay refunded a buyer out of their pocket.

---

What the OP is referring to is wording in the new Fall 2018 Seller Update information (link provided in a previous post). 

So what happened over the last year is meaningless.  The Update suggests that things are going to change and eBay may start to enforce the wording in the policy that states seller must have tracking showing delivery to the buyer's ADDRESS - full address - not just the city/state/zip that shows on current USPS delivery status.

[hillbillymedia]

---

@coffeebean832 wrote:

I have a suspicion that city/state or zip is still acceptable for seller protection but that part of the text has been moved into the hidden policies.

I think they may make case-by-case decisions based on past seller and buyer behavior. Like if a seller gets a high number of INRs despite tracking they will look at that more closely, and vice versa if a buyer files a high number of INRs despite tracking they will look at that more closely.

Of course this is all speculation and I will not be surprised if they change things down the line to say that sellers are responsible for all missing packages even if it's the fault of the buyer for not providing a safe delivery location. They did change all the wording in the policies to support this kind of change so this is when we should consider ourselves warned...

---

Trust me....ebay doesn`t want to do a case by case. They want it automated. So the seller will be held responsible like everything else initially and then the seller can "appeal" afterward. Shoot first and ask questions later. When the seller looses their 1st appeal they`ll never bother to try again.

So now I`m guessing if the buyer provides the wrong address, the carrier loses the package, the package gets stolen, the buyer lies etc. the seller will be on the hook even though they printed the label thru ebay with the info. ebay provided. If that isn`t the case now....it will be in a future update. It looks to me that very soon Ebay is NOT going to take responsibility for anything and the USPS NEVER has unless you use their insurance.

[muttlymob]

---

@themayqueen wrote:

There's one glimmer of hope. At least now usps has the online photos and tracking, etc of all the mail you receive. It might be useful for some, to refer to that record.

---

Informed Delivery only captures images of letter mail that passes through USPS automated processing machinery.

Not packages.  Not flats.  Not nonmachinable letters.

That may be coming in the future but not available now.

[muttlymob]

---

@everything-from-trinkets-to-treasures wrote:

---

The tracking has to be for the correct address which is what most sellers to anyway. It is all there automatically and recorded by the carrier under the tracking number in their systems.

---

The full address is not viewable online.  USPS still only furnishes the city/state/zip of delivery.

The information eBay requires (tracking showing delivery to the address) is not there.

[hillbillymedia]

---

@missjen831 wrote:

---

@coffeebean832 wrote:

I have a suspicion that city/state or zip is still acceptable for seller protection but that part of the text has been moved into the hidden policies.

I think they may make case-by-case decisions based on past seller and buyer behavior. Like if a seller gets a high number of INRs despite tracking they will look at that more closely, and vice versa if a buyer files a high number of INRs despite tracking they will look at that more closely.

Of course this is all speculation and I will not be surprised if they change things down the line to say that sellers are responsible for all missing packages even if it's the fault of the buyer for not providing a safe delivery location. They did change all the wording in the policies to support this kind of change so this is when we should consider ourselves warned...

---

I agree with you there, even if it is speculation.

to be honest I didn’t care for the tone of the blues replies on the other thread and.....never mind, shouldn’t say what I want to say. I will say that my head spun when they said that the seller should choose a carrier that displays the address on the tracking history. What carrier in the USA displays the address? ontrac maybe? Ontrac is one of the most unreliable if not the most unreliable carriers! 

---

One thing about our speculation....it`s educated speculation. We have all read enough ebay speak to know ebay is as slippery as a politician covered in oil. I`m definatly a "glass is half empty" guy when it comes to ebay and for good reason.

[coffeebean832]

---

@hillbillymedia wrote:

---

@coffeebean832 wrote:

I have a suspicion that city/state or zip is still acceptable for seller protection but that part of the text has been moved into the hidden policies.

I think they may make case-by-case decisions based on past seller and buyer behavior. Like if a seller gets a high number of INRs despite tracking they will look at that more closely, and vice versa if a buyer files a high number of INRs despite tracking they will look at that more closely.

Of course this is all speculation and I will not be surprised if they change things down the line to say that sellers are responsible for all missing packages even if it's the fault of the buyer for not providing a safe delivery location. They did change all the wording in the policies to support this kind of change so this is when we should consider ourselves warned...

---

Trust me....ebay doesn`t want to do a case by case. They want it automated. So the seller will be held responsible like everything else initially and then the seller can "appeal" afterward. Shoot first and ask questions later. When the seller looses their 1st appeal they`ll never bother to try again.

---

My case-by-case comment was mainly referring to appeals, sorry I didn't make that clear. If tracking shows delivery and the buyer appeals eBay could look at buyer and seller history of INR claims before they make any kind of ruling or courtesy refund.

[hillbillymedia]

---

@gramophone-georg wrote:

This is just notice to sellers being given by eBay that eBay is done coddling buyers who claim they did not get packages showing as "delivered" on their dime.

Now they'll coddle these buyers on YOUR dime.

Simple.

---

Exactly! It`s all going to be on our dime.

[fern*wood]

---

@everything-from-trinkets-to-treasures wrote:

---

@fern*wood wrote:

Since my tracking only shows the city/state/zip (the old requirement), does ebay now delve deeper into my tracking to find more than that in order for me to be covered or am I just not covered now?  Do you have to contact the PO to get more details with USPS?   I can't see any delving happening by a bot.

---

You are covered if you uploaded the tracking on time and it shows delivery to the buyer.
The only change for some sellers is they need to upload the tracking within the handling time.
There is no real change as far as most sellers are concerned. We, most of us, already upload the tracking within the handling time to avoid the ding for late shipping anyway or  if you use ebay labels and ship on time it is automatically uploaded anyway.
There is no more to it...there is nothing else to read into it.
This is really a non issue that some are just trying really hard to make into an issue.

---

If this is true, I would like rep to clearly state that.  They need to clarify that city/state/zip is sufficient, and not just say 'address'---which can be interpreted to mean full address.   Also, from what someone posted earlier, it appeared that ebay removed the wording in the policy pages which stated city/state/zip---thus my confusion.  Why remove that wording unless that isn't enough now?

[coffeebean832]

---

@muttlymob wrote:

---

@themayqueen wrote:

There's one glimmer of hope. At least now usps has the online photos and tracking, etc of all the mail you receive. It might be useful for some, to refer to that record.

---

Informed Delivery only captures images of letter mail that passes through USPS automated processing machinery.

Not packages.  Not flats.  Not nonmachinable letters.

That may be coming in the future but not available now.

---

USPS has that data on their internal system. I guess it could be useful if you need USPS to print out that info and they cooperate, but I don't see the point @themayqueen was trying to make.

I receive a daily e-mail with photos of letter mail coming my way. So what if that also included packages in the future - how is that helpful to the seller? A seller would not have access to images of mail coming to my address.

[hillbillymedia]

---

@coffeebean832 wrote:

---

@hillbillymedia wrote:

---

@coffeebean832 wrote:

I have a suspicion that city/state or zip is still acceptable for seller protection but that part of the text has been moved into the hidden policies.

I think they may make case-by-case decisions based on past seller and buyer behavior. Like if a seller gets a high number of INRs despite tracking they will look at that more closely, and vice versa if a buyer files a high number of INRs despite tracking they will look at that more closely.

Of course this is all speculation and I will not be surprised if they change things down the line to say that sellers are responsible for all missing packages even if it's the fault of the buyer for not providing a safe delivery location. They did change all the wording in the policies to support this kind of change so this is when we should consider ourselves warned...

---

Trust me....ebay doesn`t want to do a case by case. They want it automated. So the seller will be held responsible like everything else initially and then the seller can "appeal" afterward. Shoot first and ask questions later. When the seller looses their 1st appeal they`ll never bother to try again.

---

My case-by-case comment was mainly referring to appeals, sorry I didn't make that clear. If tracking shows delivery and the buyer appeals eBay could look at buyer and seller history of INR claims before they make any kind of ruling or courtesy refund.

---

I sure hope that will be how they handle it. If the tracking shows delivered and the label was printed thru ebay and the buyer claims they didn`t get it.....someone messed up somewhere and it darn sure wasn`t the seller.

[hillbillymedia]

---

@everything-from-trinkets-to-treasures wrote:

---

@mg152 wrote:

Stolen from the buyers porch, mailbox, car trunk etc.....

I will certainly be leaving as a seller as soon as I sell all my junk and get my money 

---

You will only be repsonible if the tracking has not been uploaded on time, and tracking shows it was not shipped/delivered to the correct address.
If an item was lost int he mail you will still need to have insurance to cover yourself for that
Nothing has really changed other than the scam some sellers were using to circumvent an INR claim will no longer work.
And this has already been clarified by an ebay blue in another thread too.

---

I wish I had a dollar for everytime a blue or customer service rep has clarified wrong information.

[muttlymob]

---

@coffeebean832 wrote:

I receive a daily e-mail with photos of letter mail coming my way. So what if that also included packages in the future - how is that helpful to the seller? A seller would not have access to images of mail coming to my address.

---

Correct.  It would not be helpful to the seller.  It wouldn't be helpful to the buyer either. 

Even if the USPS were to post those images in the tracking status (not gonna happen, privacy issues and all), it would be meaningless.  The images are captured in the processing center.  It's not proof of delivery.

[gew6463]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and maybe Trinkets&Treasures is right on her explanation. But in the other thread (linked at top of this thread) I felt the Blue there was skirting the issue. It was like He answered, but didn't really answer the question. Which made me suspicious.. Why can't they just come out and say that USPS tracking fulfills the requirement? Why let us wonder if it does or doesn't? Surely they know we will be discussing it amongst ourselves, trying to figure out if there is going to be yet another hoop to jump through? Who knows..maybe they've clarified it by now. But it shouldn't be this hard to get a straightforward answer. 

[everything-from-trinkets-to-treasures]

---

@gew6463 wrote:

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and maybe Trinkets&Treasures is right on her explanation. But in the other thread (linked at top of this thread) I felt the Blue there was skirting the issue. It was like He answered, but didn't really answer the question. Which made me suspicious.. Why can't they just come out and say that USPS tracking fulfills the requirement? Why let us wonder if it does or doesn't? Surely they know we will be discussing it amongst ourselves, trying to figure out if there is going to be yet another hoop to jump through? Who knows..maybe they've clarified it by now. But it shouldn't be this hard to get a straightforward answer. 

---

It seems more the reality is that some people will not accept what ebay says anyway in anything....and they never do. There is just not a lot to clarify that hasn't already been clarified by a blue also already. Nothing has really changed and that was confirmed by a blue and yet didn't stop some from continuing to add things into this to make it more than what it is....and that is what is really confusing some others. It is not the policy that is confusing at all as it really hasn't changed and sellers are still pretty much doing what they have been doing all along.