Significantly Not As Described return for refund....if buyer pays for return shipping

[namestreetcity]

According to the Paypal process when you file a claim for an item that is significantly not as described, you must return the item at your cost in order for Paypal to issue a refund for the amount you paid, not the return shipping costs. You have 10 days to provide Paypal with a tracking number. Paypal doesn't allow you to post a reply. You send the item back or in 10 days the claim is closed.

Buyers are being forced to pay to received goods the seller didn't described accurately, and in some cases, honestly.

I think that is wrong.

When you can prove that an item is significantly not as described, then Paypal should refund your entire costs of the item including shipping both ways. Sellers can take advantage of Paypal's forcing buyers to pay for return shipping.

If a buyer doesn't like something or changes their mind, and wants to return it, then the return shipping should be paid by the buyer.

[Geo37135]

It's just great for buyers.  I had a laptop computer returned to me because the buyer didn't like it because it was too slow.  It's a Pentium II, how fast are they suppose to be?  Anyway, they shipped it back to me in a USPS box that's 12 15/16 in X 3 in X 15 1/4 in. That's right 3 in deep.  Would you ship a laptop in a 3 inch deep box without any packing to your customers?  Guess what would happen?  Yep, it did!!  THE COVER WAS CRACKED, THE BASE WAS CRACKED!!  Now I have to repair the damage and I'm being threatened with the funds for the sale being withdrawn from my account!!  EBay haqs rules on how to ship an item and this buyer also sells there.  He knows the shipping rules.  Where's the justice???

[shadowstreaker]

I would agree with you that this other person (a eBay buyer and also a eBay seller) shouldn't have been allowed to file a claim for such a reason.  A PC being too slow is subjective and obvious to most users as a issue with the configurations and the software they add to the PC.

The buyer didn't package the return properly and since it got damaged in the return process this alone should mean the buyer better have purchased insurance to protect himself - it shouldn't be your issue for his neglect and failure to pack properly.  As a buyer, he has responsibilities as well and was completely wrong in this issue unless he can demonstrate that the PC failed to perform based on speed performance tests for that model's CPU.

I will disagree with you that eBay is great for buyers - at least from mine and many other buyers viewpoints and I've bought and sold on eBay.  The real problem is that many eBay/PayPal claims reviewers aren't following their own policies and applying at least some common sense to determining if there is a definite issue and which party bears responsibility for the issue.  After the common sense component, the reviewer needs to review the buyer and seller's history for trends of dishonesty or lack of proper posting descriptions or for buyer remorse or failure to read the auction listing for problems identified by the seller with the item.

While there are good and bad buyers/sellers on eBay, there are also good/bad eBay/PayPal employees that either aren't doing their jobs properly in applying policy or else eBay/PayPal has really gone astray and such misapplication of stated policies will **bleep** off more and more buyers and sellers and they will avoid using eBay and instead turn to Amazon and elsewhere.

Now addressing the central topic of this thread - let's say the item you sent the buyer truly had an issue that wasn't stated in the listing and resulted in it being significantly not as described.  Should the buyer bear the responsibility of paying for the return shipping costs and not being reimbursed for this added cost along with his original refund for the item price and S/H to the buyer?

[Geo37135]

I agree with the premise that the seller should be responsible for the return freight.  I believe the sellers that set a freight charge are doing just that.  To have something shipped for a cost of $20.00 when the going rate is $8.00 shows me that sellers are already covering return shipping costs.

[shadowstreaker]

You bring up an interesting point - which is another longstanding big complaint amongst buyers.  Too many sellers are ignoring the posted policy regarding S/H fees and are either seeking extra profit while also avoiding Final Value Fee and/or including an amount in case a SNAD is filed. 

However, I don't think this return cost factor is what they're doing since currently under eBay/PayPal policy, the sellers aren't paying or reimbursing buyers for the return shipping (unless they willingly do so, which most good eBay sellers do when they realize they had a error or problem with their item as sent to a good buyer.  Instead, some are seeking to offset the excessive eBay/PayPal fees that are way too high and some are just plain gouging and making money on both the listing and with the excessive S/H. 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. 

[maninthedark30]

Hi all, I recently sold an item that I believe was in near-mint condition as decribed (dvd-audio discs) and the buyer wrote me back saying two of the four discs were scratched and wouldn't play. I know this was not the case as I've sold dozens of these and always inspect them prior to listing them. Not to mention, I am the original owner and have always taken immaculate care of my hi-def audio collection. 

Since I'm not one to argue, I agreed to accept a return (even though I specified no returns in the listing) and issue a refund. The buyer says he mailed the discs back to me the week of January 4th using a postage label supplied by Ebay (is that how it works?). While waiting to receive the item back, a full refund including shipping was automatically deducted from my PayPal account on January 11th, even though the message I got from Ebay stated that a refund would take place once they had confirmation from me that I received the item back! It's been 5 more days and I still have not received my item back. 

What do I do in a situation like this? I get the "buyer's remorse" thing, but even if it's not that and it's legitimate, I at least want to get my items back! I feel like something fishy is going on and I wrote Ebay back, but got the standard reply message of "you have responsed to closed case that we've already made a decision on, but we'll review it and contact you soon". 

[shadowstreaker]

You feel the buyer may have had buyers remorse but that usually doesn't happen with low priced CDs, DVD's unless it's a high value set such as software or exercise programs, etc.

I understand what your saying about the condition of what you sent and I'd like to point out something that many sellers seem to forget about.  The shipment would be transported by some carrier to the seller.  Carriers offer insurance to cover damage while it's in transit, and it hardly seems fair to have to buy insurance to protect your shipment when the carrier should be responsible for taking good care that the item doesn't get damaged as they route it through their handling and deliver it, does it. 

But that's the way the system works and unless the package shows signs of being damaged on the outside they get a pass on any damage they cause internally unless the package was insured.  Many packages usually get to their destination okay but then there are those that don't and for that reason, insurance is an option to be weighed as to whether you want to risk not being covered.

Something that I've often asked of sellers to do when shipping USED CDs, DVDs is to add a piece of bubble wrap inside the disc case to prevent its possible damage if the disc pops off the center retaining ring where it's then free to slide around and get scuffed and scratched as it's being transported.  I've had a number of discs where pieces of the plastic retainer ring got broken off and scratched the disc as it slide around loose in the case.  You probably sent the discs as you say in mint condition, however, you didn't personally deliver them to the seller and so they probably got damaged in the mail.  Not your fault, not the sellers fault but the carriers although they escape blame and responsibility (unless you purchased insurance).

This bubble wrap protection can't necessarily be done since you can't put something inside NEW sealed disc cases of course, although it's usually a good thing to press down on the case around the center to attempt to ensure the disc(s) inside the case is securely snapped in place by the retainer ring although, again, as it goes through a mail handling process, the case can get bumped in such a way that it causes the retainer ring to either pop the disc loose or even break the retainer ring.  Just no absolute way to secure NEW discs in a sealed wrapped case.

Sorry if this isn't what you want to hear but I think you will recognize that even though you did send mint discs, because of the carrier and the inherent nature of CD & DVD cases not having built in padding protection, the buyer got them damaged. 

As for the issue of eBay/PayPal providing the buyer a refund before you received the return, I'd suggest you CALL and ask for a supervisor, then a manager, etc, if the agent you first get ahold of is unable or unwilling to address this breach of their stated return policy.  Keep in mind, a buyer expects (and rightly so) to get the item in the condition listed and it's on the seller to ensure it's packed properly to prevent damage during shipping.  Perhaps, this is what eBay/PayPal believes occurred since it is a frequent problem when shipping discs and they'll side with the buyer regarding such damage to discs.

[honestseller]

I will only say about the Post Office that they are a significant part of the problem. You can insure anything you want, but it is nearly impossible to get your money from the post office if an item is lost or damaged. They flat out tell you that they MAY send you the claim form after jumping through their hoops for months, & if they don't, you have to call again & beg for it & then they MAY send you the claim form - on & on. UPS is great, but for most sellers with low weight items, no buyer will pay the UPS rates. Too expensive. We stopped shipping internationally because the only trackable method is international priority mail & it's very expensive. Otherwise, many international buyers have figured out that all they have to do is say they didn't receive it to get a refund through paypal. We do everything we can, but for the most part, we are the ones who lose.

[norbetusedbooks]

Hi! I am a seller on many sights including ebay and I agree with the paypal policy as 99% of the other sights I sell on require the buyer to pay return shipping.I add that "buyer pays return shipping if disastisfied"to all my listings which the buyer can read before buying.Very rarely do I have a return but the seller also needs some type of protection .

Thanks>

[shadowstreaker]

I congratulate you for always satisfying your customers, however, the question concerning buyers about the eBay/Paypal policy regarding SNAD items is very simple:  Why should a buyer have to pay to return something that the seller (regardless of whether a good or a bad seller) either failed to properly describe or test or take care to package properly (not talking about the shipping carrier damage to a properly packaged item).

WHY?  The buyer, upon returning the item is now out money that is due, whether unintentionally or not, to an issue stemming from a issue caused by the seller.  No way a buyer should be out anything -- note, I have stated in previous posts, that if a seller completely fulfills their responsibilities (again, accurately testing, describing and properly packaged)  that a buyer shouldn't be able to have remorse or a claim.  If the item  arrives damaged by the shipping carrier then either they file a claim with the carrier (provided they requested insurance) or if they had Paypal protection then they have a claim under Paypal but that should be paid by PayPal not the seller as Paypal includes such a guarantee as part of the fees that they charge.

You probably disagree with me since you indicate you are a seller but you need to look at the issue also as if you were a buyer.  If you got a SNAD item from a seller would you be happy at not only failing to get what was listed/presented but then have to pay to return the SNAD item?  You say that's just how it is and that the seller has to have some type of protection.  Just what type of protection is the seller due in such a case?  Does the buyer have any protection except to bite the bullet and pay the return costs and not have anything to show for the order?  Sellers can make honest SNAD mistakes, but when they do, they are the ones that made the mistake and should willingly (and it should be policy) to pay for the return S/H costs as well in the refund.  As you say regarding "if disatisfied", buyer remorse should absolutely be the buyers responsibility.  What we are talking about here is the SNAD issue.

Just because other sites don't address this aspect and just state that return shipping costs are the buyers concern, doesn't make it right nor a policy that shouldn't be addressed and changed.

[BINOVC]

I do a bit of buying, not much selling.  I have had to file 2 SNAD claims (both in my favor, and legit claims - not buyers remorse).  A 3rd issue was resolved by the seller refunding my money and not wanting the item returned (a cheap am/fm radio that was DOA).  On both SNAD claims, paypal did not require the sellers to reimburse my return shipping cost, but paypal reimbursed me anyway.  I don't know if pp later went back to the sellers or not, probably not.  Both sellers seemed totally unable to comprehend my viewpoint that I should not have to pay for their mistakes.

I currently am involved with yet another SNAD.  I purchased a GPS that was was listed as one model, and they sent me a significantly less capable model.  The described model (Garmin Quest 2) comes fully pre-loaded with detail mapping of the entire USA.  The lesser model that I received (Garmin Quest) has NO pre-loaded detail maps, and only has enough internal memory for the user to store about 3 or 4 states at a time.  That's a huge difference in internal memory.  I've done my research, and would not have purchased it had I any suspicion that it was the lesser model.

I emailed them immediately about the mistake, explained the difference, and requested that they reimburse me for return shipping cost since the mistake was entirely theirs.  4 days later they reply with return instructions, never mentioning my request.  I replied back, somewhat more forcefully, asking that they not hide behind their "fine print" and to take responsibility for their own mistakes.  No reply yet. 

Yes, the auction page does state that they do not pay return shipping - but I trusted them to send me what was listed.  They should make allowances for a mistake that was clearly their fault.  I advised them that if they don't do the right thing, I will file a claim.  I know that pp policy does not reimburse buyer for return shipping cost, but I must make the attempt.  I will definitely complain to pp (again) about this policy, and will give the seller a neg (if they don't come through), even though technically they are following their printed procedure.

I realize there is a small difference between the names of these two models, but there is a big difference in the functionality.  It's up to the seller however to get it right.

There is another seller currently doing the exact same thing.  This one has an actual photo unlike the "stock image" of the one I bought.  I have repeatedly emailed this seller to confirm which model this is because it appears that the picture is a Quest, not a Quest 2.  He seems unable to figure it out, even though the name "Quest" or "Quest 2" is printed right on the face of the unit (the picture is only of the box).  I have asked him to be sure of which model so as to avoid having an irate buyer.  He thanked me, yet the auction continues (250573306760)...

I would like to see a website dedicated to listing buyers and sellers - like the Better Business Bureau - with details about both the good but especially the bad experiences, with the ability to include email exchanges, rebuttals, etc.  I suppose that would be corrupted and abused into worthlessness as well however.  Too bad the ebay feedback area does not allow much room to write in details.

I also sympathize with sellers that must deal with bad buyers.  Too bad we can't all just get along and be responsible.