eBay team, some help with this unusual return/refund issue please?

[gurlcat]

kyle@ebay 

Some of us have encountered (in other threads) an issue that we can't find any info about in eBay policy pages.  Here's my recent example:

Friday I refunded a buyer for their INAD return.  I did not deduct any percent of their item price but I did leave the original shipping option at its' default setting of 'off' (as in, don't refund it).   Ordinarily that option does not even appear for INAD refunds; original shipping is automatically included in the expected refund.  But it seems to be an option that occurs when the seller had reported the buyer for something prior to this point.  -In my case I had reported the buyer when they requested a partial refund, as per eBay abusive buyer policy.  


This is not my screenshot, but just to show how it looks.  



After completing this refund, I observed that eBay did not credit back my seller fees, even though I did not withhold any portion of the item price.  It seems to be only because I did not slide the original shipping option over to 'on'.  In other words, I INADVERTENTLY withheld the $7.25 in original shipping at the cost of losing my $33 in fee credit.   

The policy pages don't make this unique situation clear at all.  -Is reporting the buyer indeed what causes the original shipping an optional part of the refund?  If the default is to NOT refund that, why does leaving it that way forfeit the fee credits?  Why are neither of these stated in policy? 

@wastingtime101 

[wastingtime101]

Thanks for starting a new thread on this topic gurlcat. I know you, @robbie31415, and myself are all interested in hearing from eBay with some current policy info. @fern*wood was one of the sellers affected by loss of fees so I'm tagging her in case she has interest.

Here's some history kyle@ebay :

eBay launched seller protections for TRS towards the end of 2019. Before that it was not possible to withhold original (separate) ship cost on a SNAD. After TRS seller protections went into effect, Trinton (community team before your time) in early 2020 provided info on the new ability to withhold orig shipping on buyer abusive SNADs.

Seller: eBay is offering the ability to withhold original shipping in addition to withholding up to 50% of the item cost. Is this a new part of seller protections where you can withhold original shipping on a SNAD return when the buyer incorrectly files and has been reported for it, or is this a design flaw where the system can't recognize that sellers are supposed to refund shipping on any and all returns filed as SNAD?

Trinton: While original shipping can be retained in remorse returns, this is also an option in returns for not as described reasons if a seller who is eligible to issue less than a full refund has reported that the buyer returned the item in a different or damaged condition. It sounds like you've reported concerns like this and are being presented with the correct options when issuing a refund.

Seller: The deduction guidelines chart doesn't say anything about withholding shipping, so how do I know if I am following eBay's guidelines by withholding original shipping on the refund? According to guidelines [the extent of damage caused by this buyer] qualifies for withholding 50% of the item price. How do I know if it's also ok to withhold original shipping within eBay's guidelines?

Trinton: Our deduction guidelines are specifically for when you determine how much of the refund to withhold and do not apply to the checkbox for if you are going to keep original shipping. The refund deduction cannot include original shipping as a part of your calculations. The two components are separate and you know that you are following eBay's guidance regarding original shipping being withheld if the option is presented to you. You won't have the option if we do not allow you to keep original shipping for that transaction/refund.

---

It is clear orig shipping is to be treated 100% separate from the up-to-50% partial refund on abusive buyer returns when items come back altered/used/damaged/etc. The problem is the policy pages make no mention of orig shipping. Sellers do not realize that the setting defaulted to not refund buyers that orig shipping means sellers fees are forfeit because eBay considers that a "partial refund" even though Trinton made it clear orig shipping is separate from the item cost partial refund.

Based on my own experience, and that of other sellers, we know the option to withhold orig shipping on a SNAD appears when we report abusive buyer behavior.

Why does eBay's system default to not refund orig shipping when that means seller fees are forfeit? Over the years I've seen many sellers caught unaware by this.

While we're on the topic, it's backwards that eBay does not refund FVF when we sellers follow eBay's seller protection guidelines and issue a partial refund when an item is returned used/damaged/etc. It frequently defeats the purpose of having these protections and the ability to withhold part of the refund when fees are not credited. eBay must know they are doing a disservice to sellers. When the buyer is abusive and the seller follows eBay's guidelines for withholding, our FVF should be credited.

I'm sure when it comes to FVF on partials the most you'll be able to do is pass on our feedback. But when it comes to orig shipping there are real questions and holes in the policy pages and the default settings on the return. We'd also like to know if the information provided by Trinton in 2020 is in line with current policy.

Sorry for the length. Thanks in advance for taking the time to digest all of this info and doing what you can to advocate for sellers on this topic. I appreciate any efforts you can put in to help us with this.

[robbie31415]

kyle@ebay  (Yeah, we pinging you, SORRY for the ping spam.)

I am writing to seek clarification regarding your policies on fee credits for partial refunds, as I believe there are certain areas that are not clearly communicated to sellers. My primary concern revolves around eBay’s fee credits policy, and I would like to address a specific situation to illustrate the ambiguity.

According to eBay’s policy:

"When the buyer is issued a partial refund, your eligible fee credits will be proportional to the amount that the buyer is refunded. For example, if the buyer receives a 20% refund of the total amount of the sale, then you'll be credited 20% of the eligible fees that you were charged. See the detailed examples below."

Furthermore, there are exceptions where fee credits are not issued, outlined as follows:

"Refunds that don't qualify for seller fee credits We don't issue fee credits in any of the following situations:

1. You refunded the buyer outside of eBay (using PayPal to send money, for instance).

2. eBay stepped in to help with a return or item not received request, and the case was closed with a full or partial refund to the buyer.

3. You deduct a portion from the buyer's refund because they returned the item used or damaged (only applies to eligible sellers)."

In gurlcat's case, exceptions 1 and 2 do not apply as the refund was issued within eBay and no case was involved. The only remaining exception concerns deductions from the refund due to the item being used or damaged.

However, the deduction in question pertains to the original shipping costs. Given that eBay provides sellers the option to withhold original shipping costs, it is reasonable to assume that this practice is deemed acceptable by eBay under certain conditions.

The issue arises from the fact that the policy does not explicitly state that withholding original shipping costs will result in the forfeiture of fee credits. It appears that eBay's system treats the withholding of original shipping as part of the "altered condition" exception, thereby denying the fee credits.

I am not opposed to eBay’s decision to withhold fee credits in such situations. However, I believe it is essential for this policy to be clearly communicated to sellers. The current lack of clarity can lead to misunderstandings and unintended consequences for sellers who are acting in good faith.

I kindly request that this policy be reviewed and that clearer guidelines be provided to sellers regarding the impact of withholding original shipping costs on fee credits.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

[kyle@ebay]

Hey @gurlcat @wastingtime101 @robbie31415 , it looks like you're all pretty much on the same page with your questions, so I'm going to reply to all of them here to try to keep things concise.

Let's start with the FVF credits. The credit itself is based on two things: Type of return, (remorse/not as described), and type of refund (partial/full refund). If you are refunding a Remorse return, you can keep shipping and still get the FVF credit. If you are refunding on a Not As Described return, you cannot keep the shipping and still get the FVF credit. This link provides some more details on that part.

Then we have the question with the toggle appearing and defaulting. I can confirm that reporting the buyer is what causes the toggle to appear.

The reason it defaults to not include shipping is a little more simplistic than you might think though. The toggle needing to be on or off just depends on so many variables within a given situation, so it is often going to need to be changed by the user, regardless of which default it starts on.

@wastingtime101 with respect to the info you referenced from 2020, it has evolved a bit since then.  I grabbed a screenshot (pasted below) from the help page I referenced above. In here is where you'll find the distinction of whether shipping is included or not when determining FVF credits.  You'll notice that on a remorse return, the requirement states "you fully refund all items on the order", whereas the requirement on the Not As Described return states "you fully refund the buyer..". 

@robbie31415  (and gurlcat, and wastingtime too), it still seems pretty clear to me that we have work to do to get clearer guidelines on this, and that is definitely something I can gladly pass along!

[wastingtime101]

Thank you kyle@ebay for the thorough response. It is appreciated. May I suggest, since the orig shipping toggle has that default eBay doesn't plan to change, that eBay could add a "learn more" link under that setting that takes someone to the page you screenshotted above?

I know there's a link to see seller deduction guidelines under the item cost, so it shouldn't be much of a leap to link to info on fee credits under the shipping toggle. At least it's one path to consider in making the guidelines more clear, and giving sellers pause to review that setting.

[kyle@ebay]

---

@wastingtime101 wrote:

Thank you kyle@ebay for the thorough response. It is appreciated. May I suggest, since the orig shipping toggle has that default eBay doesn't plan to change, that eBay could add a "learn more" link under that setting that takes someone to the page you screenshotted above?

I know there's a link to see seller deduction guidelines under the item cost, so it shouldn't be much of a leap to link to info on fee credits under the shipping toggle. At least it's one path to consider in making the guidelines more clear, and giving sellers pause to review that setting.

---

@wastingtime101 that's a great suggestion!  It's almost exactly word-for-word what I recommended too!  Great minds and all...  😊

[robbie31415]

Thank you for your response.

On that page in the exceptions below can you add original shipping in the text ?

Everything is based on a single word 'fully'.

Or perhaps during the deduction process an alert that using seller protections is going to be harmful to the seller and they should refund when the system detects that the amount the seller will owe is higher than what they would owe during a full refund.

Seems kinda crazy that using a protection the seller may owe more.

Example if total is $10 and I withhold 1 penny, I will owe $9.99. If I fully refund I'll owe probably $8.60.

This puts us in the situation where gurlcat owed a lot more for a low deduction.

[gurlcat]

Thanks Kyle. 

Here's the part I still don't understand: "I can confirm that reporting the buyer is what causes the toggle to appear."

Okay, but why?  I would really like to know what the logic is for that.  What does a buyer's (alleged) bad behavior have to do with putting the seller in a vulnerable situation where they'll have even more stress because they trusted eBay's default setting on the refund page (I say "trusted" because I don't think it would be a stretch to say most people think of a default setting as equivalent to "recommended", therefore you shouldn't CHANGE it if you know what's good for you .... and there's nothing on that page, not even an 'i' link to a page, explaining whether it's good for you).   

I really don't want to dwell on the 'default off' thing too much though; honestly it shouldn't surprise me, considering the outcome, and eBay is a corporation after all.  But I really would appreciate some background on the logic behind creating this special scenario for sellers who reported the buyer.  

It's backwards if you ask me.  -If a seller ships an item worse than (or OTHER than) what they showed/described, or packs it poorly so it gets damaged or whatever, and the buyer does an INAD return, then the seller is presented with a refund page that can't make them accidentally forfeit their fee credits.  If a seller ships exactly what they showed/described, then buyer writes a private message requesting a partial refund based on untrue claims about the item, so the seller reports that abuse and instructs the buyer to initiate a return as per the MBG, then that seller gets the trap door refund screen.  

The result is a bad seller is more likely to get their fee credits than a good seller.  -Why? 

[wastingtime101]

For what it's worth @gurlcat , I think it's a good thing sellers are given the option to withhold orig shipping after reporting buyer abuse. I've certainly taken advantage of it in the past along with the up-to-50% discount, knowing my fees would be forfeit and the math made sense for me. I have no problem with the option existing. I'd be kind of annoyed if it didn't exist.

The part that's problematic, in my opinion, is because it defaults to not refund shipping it catches sellers unaware. Not every seller knows to look for it, they just robotically go through the motions and click submit. As established, the policy page could use a little bit more clarity on the topic by specifically referencing original shipping on the SNAD / fee credit page.

[gurlcat]

BTW I said "alleged" because a seller could falsely report a buyer and there are consequences for that stated in policy.  But in my case I made the report directly from the buyer's email to me (right on that screen), so I would think it could be instantly verifiable as abuse, as described by eBay. The buyer didn't just hint or anything; she requested a specific dollar amount. 

[gurlcat]

Yeah it makes sense in a situation like you had where you were also withholding part of the item price.  But a seller just trying to do the right thing because the buyer did return exactly what they received ... that's the worst case scenario.  

Now you wanna wig out for real for a moment? -THIS buyer also hit me up for a partial refund, and I reported them and informed them I would be happy to provide a free return.  Fortunately that ended the email volley like it normally does.  But if it hadn't, if they returned it in the same condition, and I got that same refund screen asking if I want to OPT IN to refunding their $5.45 shipping ........  oh and yes it sold via promotion, 9% if my memory serves me right. 

[wastingtime101]

Sadly you learned the hard way, but thank goodness you know what to look for now. My first experience with this was several years ago so I've been helping sellers as best I can ever since then. Sucky job though because I have to tell them they're not getting their fees back.

[gurlcat]

Well not as hard as it could have been (^obviously).  But that's what bugs me, I now know, but how many sellers won't if it isn't fixed, and how many already got zonked by it, for big money even, but they're not Community members so we just never heard about it.  

So it has been like this for YEARS??? 

[wastingtime101]

Were you absent when we discussed the 2020 quotes from Trinton? 😂

Just kidding, but the answer is yes. As far as I know, it's been like this since the end of 2019 when TRS protections took effect.

Edit: I did a quick check and the first time I encountered this was from a sale circa late Nov 2019.

[fern*wood]

I know I got caught due to forgetting about the fvf gotcha, but what annoys me is that it exists at all.  I know I've said it before, but I can't shake the feeling that ebay uses the ole carrot /stick approach here to discourage or punish us if we take them up on the offered protection.