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.

[sandypurins]

---

@knaak24 wrote:

Same thing with me. I let the seller know immediately that the item was not as described. I sent it back and all they refuned was my return shipping costs! You are right, it's not the $10.00 it the principle of the matter. I followed there return policy exactly as they explained and they sided with the seller? Can't believe it. I've read that people want to use checks and wait 7 days, old school, but works. Some mention google check out and I don't know how to do that, any ideas? Oh, and thanks for the rant too.

---

PayPal doesn't reimburse the buyer for return shipping. Are you meaning to say that the SELLER reimbursed you for return shipping? Why didn't the seller refund your payment?

Why did PayPal side with the seller? Did you provide PayPal with online viewable proof of return... USPS Delivery Confirmation or UPS tracking or Fedex tracking?

[FyUaaCaaKaaED]

what a joke!

Paypal helps buyers steal money from honest sellers EVERY STINKIN DAY!!

[CapnMorganne]

We actually had our first dishonest buyer this week out of 800 transactions.  Buyer never contacted us, posted negative on Ebay and filed with Paypal that item was not as described. Claimed it wasn't new.  Item was new in box sealed from the factory and never opened. We sold many and no complaints.  We offered a refund upon return of the item. Seems fair to me, not like I can go to Walmart and demand money back for an item that I say doesn't work but refuse to return it.

Had the buyer contacted us without the claims we would have happily paid return shipping to have a happy customer.

Item came yesterday, out of original box stuffed in a  small flat rate box, no instructions that were originally with it.  I put batteries in it and it works perfectly no issues at all.

What the heck is that about?  and what kind of investigation did Paypal do that found the  buyer to be in the right? over 700+ in positive feedback  and now a glaring negative from some PITA customer with a whole 30 in feedback.

So I as the seller am now out the cost of the item, the original shipping, a 100% feedback score plus I can't return the item for credit because the entire thing was out of the packaging which I requested it be returned in.

Unfair.

Cap'n Morganne

[ijuinkun]

What I think we really need is to split the "Significantly Not As Described" complaint category into two categories. The first one would keep the SNAD name, and would remain for products that fail to meet the customer's expectations. The new category would be for out-and-out fradulent sales, such as computer parts that report false specifications to your operating system when you install them (e.g. the memory stick that has been labeled as being larger than it is, with all of the proper markings, and that tells Windows/Linux/MacOSX that it is the fake size).

The test for which category a complaint would belong to would be whether there is evidence of deception on the part of the seller. If the seller has pulled a clear deception, then the entire cost of the refund and the return shipping should be levied against the seller. If, however, the case is one of the customer misinterpreting the description (e.g. complaining that the item did not function even when the description explicitly states that the device is non-functional), then the customer should bear the return shipping cost.

[marcos10]

Alot of the problem that you see is fake merchandise. This is a ongoing problem that the government is foever trying to address itself. There is so many people selling fake merchandise that it is hard to police. People do not mind buying these fakes because they are cheap. There is also people buying things that are supposed to be real that peole do not care  as long as they have lables from fashion designers or whatever. It is a ongoing problem.  

[lovethesun]

I don't think any buyer wants to buy a fake, no matter how cheap, if they think they are getting the real thing.  We go to ebay for deals.  Sellers should NEVER sell fake items, unless they clearly state it is a fake or reproduction.

[Invadergsx]

I also agree on the fake items.  Shipping should be refunded.  But when you buy items like this the feedback should show you whether or not the person is legitimate.  There is an fake resolution part in the ebay resolutions now.  The problem now is there is so many different ways to file a complaint now.  Through ebay, through Pay Pal or chargeback.  Regardless of the situation Pay Pal instantly takes the funds out of the account until the situation is cleared.  From the seller point of view I believe history should play a role in the way Pay Pal or ebay determines who is right and who is wrong.  In my situation I am mainly a seller.  I sell a lot of used items and trust me I describe the items with great detail compared to other sellers that I see selling the same items with pictures.  It's funny how the same exact item gets returned to me and I just relist it the same exact way and the next person who buys it is extremely happy.  I should just sell the item for more money and give a return policy from now on because most of the time I put NO RETURNS, No REFUNDS, bid accordingly and sell it cheaper just to move the item and not deal with picky buyers, but now with the new policies the buyer can make up anything to get the full refund back with shipping.  Sellers also have to be real careful because the way the resolution process is you have to make sure you click the correct option or you will be refunding buyers without requiring them to return the item which I did with a $300 laptop.  I had to basically fight really hard to get it back and in the end the buyer could have **bleep**ed me over the way it is setup.  It's funny how Pay Pal can always take the money back from the seller, but cannot take the money back from the buyer under any circumstance.  Once you refund, it's over.  You lose all rights.  Buyers can also just ship back a brick and once the tracking number shows it is returned the money gets credited back.  You can try to appeal it, but in reality the appeals process is fake and non existant as of 3 months ago.  They make you believe their is an appeal department, but I figured out that their really isn't.  Trust me.  I sold a camera as broken.  Buy for parts.  Sold as is.   Buy accordingly.  No returns.  Guess what?  A buyer filed a complaint and I got **bleep**ed.  The person could have swapped parts from it because it looks like they attempted to fix it, but made it worse.  They could have bought it to fix their camera and got the good parts from it.  Pay Pal sided with them.  Now how is that fair?  I tried to appeal it and there is no such department.  I even had pictures to prove it was not in the same condition compared to the pics in the auction.  They made up some crap how they could not accept pictures via email.  I can go on and on.....

[BINOVC]

ijuinkun - I think SNAD should remain defined as it is.  However, being SNAD, the buyer should simply not be held accountable for any cost associated with the transaction.  Also SNAD is not always a fraudulent scenario.  Sometimes the seller actually makes a mistake.  This is not to say they should be relieved of their responsibility to accurately and correctly describe the item however, including having to pay the shipping for the return if they do **bleep** up.  A "buyers remorse" situation presumes that the seller DID do their job to adequately describe the item, and the buyer simply didn't like what they received.  This could happen due to the seller omitting a complete description, but if that were the case the buyer must ask questions before committing to the purchase.  If the description is for "a pretty green dress" and nothing else, one might want to ask a few questions first.

Fraud becomes a little tougher scenario.  How can you tell if the buyer damaged the item after receiving it, and wants to get a refund?  If I sell something, I will try to carefully document the item before I ship it - but there's only so much you can do to protect yourself.  If someone really wants to **bleep** you, they probably already know how to get away with it.

[ijuinkun]

I do feel that there is a need to distinguish between "imitation" merchandise (e.g. a knock-off of a brand name item that is still of decent quality) and "pig in a poke" merchandise (e.g. an item incapable of providing the advertised functionality, such as an electronic device that does not actually contain function-critical components such as a CPU, but instead is merely a shell). The latter does not quite fall under the existing category of  "customer ordered one item, but received an entirely different item", but still needs to be distinguished from the run-of-the-mill "not quite what I imagined" listings.

A prime example of such fraud would be the infamous USB Memory drives from China or Hong Kong. The drive is marketed as having a high capacity (32 GB to as high as 512 GB at present), and is shipped with all of the packaging and markings of the advertised capacity. When you plug it into your computer, it reports the advertised capacity. However, the drive is actually a clever fake, a much smaller drive that has had its file system rewritten to report that it has several times its actual capacity. When you attempt to fill it to the advertised capacity, you find that it is not capable of holding even a tenth of the expected amount. The fact that the drive has been altered (both internally and with the false markings) to mis-report its capacity is what makes it a clear attempt to defraud the customer.

[lovethesun]

AGREE!!!