You are right that eBay does not explicitly state “sellers are not required to refund used/consumed items” in that exact sentence. That wording is my summary of what several different eBay policies imply when taken together.
To clarify my point more precisely:
Used/consumed items returned under INAD are not eligible for MBG refunds
eBay’s own pages on INAD specify that:
Buyers must return the item in the same condition they received it, and
“Items that have been altered, damaged, or consumed” may be exempt from MBG.
( eBay Money Back Guarantee → “Return requirements”)
In other words:
The INAD claim should not override the seller’s right to decline a refund if the buyer has consumed or altered the item.
This is especially relevant for consumables, which cannot be “tested” without being used up or rendered unsellable (filters, cosmetics, supplements, cleaning cartridges, etc).
eBay (should) explicitly protect sellers when buyers make false INAD claims
You quoted the correct section of Seller Protections:
“When a buyer falsely claims an item was not as described
… The return won't be counted in your 'Not as described' rate…
… We may give you up to £3.50 to help cover return postage…”
This is exactly what I was referring to — the enhancement exists because eBay recognises that a false INAD claim can force the seller into an unfair position.
In my case:
The listing did NOT state a 30-day lifespan
The buyer claimed it did
The buyer changed reasons multiple times
One item was returned in different packaging
The filters were fully used/exhausted
So from my perspective, that is a false INAD claim, and I expected those protections to apply.
3. On the “Seller Protections Team”
You may be right that there is no officially named “Seller Protections Team” and i might have been mislead by charactarising it as such. But higher CS can escalate cases internally, and I’ve had cases reviewed by those teams in the past.
On the process when a buyer returns the wrong item
You are correct — there is a workflow. And that’s exactly why I’m surprised this return wasn’t flagged. One filter was returned in packaging I did not ship ; Both filters were consumed ; The buyer’s reasons shifted multiple times ; The listing never claimed what the buyer said it did. This is why I expected the return to fall under either wrong item returned or Consumable no longer in original condition …and therefore expected support to take a closer look.
On “buyers are permitted to return used items under INAD”
This is true in general. But it does NOT apply cleanly to consumables. As an example, If someone returns perfume after 20 sprays, or filters after 3 weeks of use, or toothpaste partially squeezed — the item is fundamentally consumed and cannot be resold or verified in any meaningful way.
The MBG rules and UK consumer law both recognise the distinction between Testing an item
vs Consuming the item in a way that destroys resale value
My argument is simply that this case clearly fell into the second category.
I’m not arguing the policy doesn’t allow used items to be returned under INAD in general — my concern is that in this specific case (used consumables, mismatched packaging, shifting reasons, claims not supported by the listing), I expected a more thorough review than a standard automated INAD refund. I appreciate your insight, though.
Kind regards,
Alex
