Buyer asked to change address and I did, address was off by one number and now being returned.

[stemaje_25]

The buyer asked me to change the shipping address and provided a new one, on the 12th the buyer messaged me because they noticed the tracking said return to sender invalid address. They again provided their address and turns out the address they gave me was off by one number. I called USPS and they said once it is "return to sender" there is nothing they can do. My question is do I have to refund the full amount once I get the package back and eat the cost I paid for shipping it because I changed the original address. Or do I send the refund for the cost of the item only. From what I read it is the latter which really kind of ticks me off but lesson learned. It is impossible to talk with an eBay Rep these days but if I could speak to a manager they could clearly see the message from the buyer to change the address and the fact that it was one number off.

[kensgiftshop]

You can refund and deduct the shipping cost from the refund.

[stemaje_25]

I was under the impression that because it did not go to the address on the order that I no longer had seller protection and had to refund in full. Thank you for your response, I appreciate it.

[klhmdg]

The 1st mistake was changing the address per the message.

Sellers, to be covered, are to use the shipping address supplied on the purchase.

Once you changed the address you lost your seller protection.

The thing to do if a buyer wants to change the address is to cancel the order and the buyer can repurchase with the correct address.

Hopefully when this is returned you dont have to pay return shipping.

USPS Gound can have a shipping fee when "returned to sender"

I would refund in full and eat the shipping costs.

Some lessons cost a little. 

Then I would add the buyer to the BBL.

[stemaje_25]

why even offer the option of changing the address when asked to by the buyer, it is just asking for item not received cases to go in the buyers favor and scammers! I mean is it not "in writing" in the message history that they did so and therefore a sort of verbal contract?