Payment dispute- CHARGEBACK SCAM.....SELLERS BEWARE!!!!!!

[vallybyone]

Sellers Beware of the latest scam!!! 'Payment dispute- Chargebacks ', the buyer purchases your item, then files a chargeback against the pay-pal or credit card company . The money is then taken out of your account, plus fees and you have NO recourse!!! The buyer will come up with a lame excuse, item significantly not as described, not received, etc. more of the scammers are using this payment dispute scam to get the  item and the money back , is not safe to sale on eBay anymore as eBay and PayPal are in conflict and scammers know that so they use PayPal for payment dispute and eBay can’t do  anything for you but to chargeback your account this is happening more and more. BEWARE!!!!! We will start to see a trend...

[plpmr]

I'm very pleased that it worked out for you, but it has not been so for others.

When giving advice on the boards one must go by, for example, eBay T&C etc, even though they are not always followed.

Even though eBay paid you [and maybe others] out of 'their' funds, the system leaves the door open for the scammers.

[bobandcharlies]

ebay's policy is to apply seller protection to all chargebacks - therefore if you comply with seller protection requirements - whether the bank finds against you or not- ebay will cover you.

This is the same for everyone - not just ourselves 

The same protection exists with any sale on ebay - comply and get protection - don't comply and don't get protection - it is simple in reality

The OP in this thread received full protection because his sale complied to protection requirements - yet still made a sweeping statement against ebay 

Many  member complaints are when a customer claims Item not as described -  this reason is handled the same by ebay as it is with the banks and with paypal

If ebay force a return and refund with an ebay sale - everyone complains about ebay

If the financial institution or Paypal make a chargeback - everyone complains about ebay

Historically Paypal would handle a chargeback in the same way  - somehow some members seem to think this was better than ebay - 

I think selective memory with Paypal springs to mind - a chargeback can be opened at anytime after payment at the discretion of the financial institution -

If a third party postal confirmation is uploaded from the third party - you have seller protection - 

So if a chargeback for non delivery is started 1 minute after posting (before that it is a simple cancellation as no loss would be incurred)  you are protected in the same manner as you would be for an INR dispute 

ebay  apply the timescale for delivery - in the same way as an INR case - however both paypal and the financial institutions do not have to apply the timescale that ebay do under seller protection - this is not ebay's fault nor does it make ebay any more vulnerable to chargebacks than anyone else

I 

[rightgrand]

There seems to be an acceptance among some that chargeback=refund.  This isn't the case, paypal or ebay can and does defend them.  E.g. if the customer claims the item is not received then pass the tracking number to the bank and the buyer will not get a refund, also the bank charges will be refunded too.

It may be possible that ebay takes a mathematical approach though - if, for a £5 item, the buyer claims not received then it may not even be worth anyone's time to copy and paste the tracking details to the bank.  They could decide to not challenge it, let the buyer have a refund and, if the seller asks, pay them out of ebay's own money.  This may work out more cost-effective in some cases.  It would probably set a really stupid precedent, but that's ebay's choice.

The point I'm making is that, as pointed out by bobandcharlies, the outcome of the claim between the buyer and ebay may not be the same as the outcome of the claim between the seller and ebay.  They can decide to absorb the cost if that makes sense for them.

[the-nutwood-collection]

'This is a sellers choice usually to save a few pennies on postage by not having tracking'

Hardly a 'few pennies'!! 

Most of my packets are Large Letter costing £1.53.  If I sent tracked, the cost would be £2.93 - an extra cost of £1.40.

This is why I don't use tracked unless it's higher value order to a first-time customer.  The extra compensation is no lure because I've found from experience that if I claim for INR, all I get is a book of stamps.

[rightgrand]

I think RM business account users do get some kind of delivery acknowledgement with large letters these days.  I've never tried myself, I use good old fashioned stamps these days, since switching parcels from RM to Hermes there really wasn't enough to justify mucking about with an account.  Plus the post office is miles away but the postbox is a very pleasant walk away.

[sasdrivesuk]

---

@the-nutwood-collection wrote:

'This is a sellers choice usually to save a few pennies on postage by not having tracking'

Hardly a 'few pennies'!! 

Most of my packets are Large Letter costing £1.53.  If I sent tracked, the cost would be £2.93 - an extra cost of £1.40.

---

This is almost a price for Small Parcel on Business C&D BPL2 - £3'ish - which more or less requires postman to scan on delivery anyway 😉

[sasdrivesuk]

---

@rightgrand wrote:

I think RM business account users do get some kind of delivery acknowledgement with large letters these days.

---

CRL24/48 codes - RM24/48.

And also average the weight 🙂 which can significantly lower the overall postage costs 🙂

[rightgrand]

Often, but I used to get the odd day when it could increase prices if you're not careful!  I sometimes had to play games to separate a heavy one out, to stop it dragging the average for the whole lot over a price band.

E.g. if your average is just under 100g then one not that much over can tip the whole lot into the 250g price band.

I've really gone back to basics now though, stamps are the future!  It would cost me a lot more to drive to the post office than I'd save from using a business account.  But they'd tell me to go away anyway, as all parcels go with Hermes these days and I wouldn't switch back to RM.

[sasdrivesuk]

---

@rightgrand wrote:

Often, but I used to get the odd day when it could increase prices if you're not careful!  I sometimes had to play games to separate a heavy one out, to stop it dragging the average for the whole lot over a price band.

E.g. if your average is just under 100g then one not that much over can tip the whole lot into the 250g price band.

---

Yeah 🙂 But you can save a lot if you know what you are doing 😄

---

I've really gone back to basics now though, stamps are the future! 

---

As long as you can buy them brand new, unused, at heavily discounted price - which isn't that hard.

I was using stamps as well - few years back, got great local suppliers - but, for me, time saved on just sticking the label was quite substantial over the Christmas 😉 and my old place - from the last year - offered free mail collections, so it was just a trip to the elevator 😉 now, at the new place, I sometimes need to drive to the PostOffice - when I have more mail than my friend 😉

[rightgrand]

I definitely don't get stamps from ebay, it's absolutely riddled with fakes, many even have disclaimers saying "Not for posting, just for collecting" and rubbish like that.  I don't get why RM don't get all these listings shut down.  Actually I do, they get to stick £2 surcharge stickers on when they see them!

[rightgrand]

E.g. 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/353619751398

66 1st Class Large Letter for £17.95, that's 27p per 100g package!

Fake fake fake, but 21 sold in 24 hours.

Claiming they're somehow used, utter rubbish they're just fakes.

Chuckaway selling account with 4 buying feedback.

Anyone who sends their goods using these will have their feedback trashed by angry customers.

E.g.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=1887415

[bobandcharlies]

I think you need to investigate RM24 and RM48 - both are accepted as tracked delivery 2D tracking  - 

We send all items with tracking at a fraction of the costs you are quoting - we sell items between £1.80  including tracked delivery and £20 including tracked delivery - 

Maybe you need to look  at your postage choices rather than take the blinkered approach that you cannot send tracked because of the cost 

RM24 and 48 are a lot less expensive (depending on volume ) and conform to ebay tracking requirements - the spin off is you can only reclaim postage not item cost if an item is lost - 

As you have stated this does not bother you - so get on it and get seller protection ! It really is that simple !

[bobandcharlies]

Thanks for pointing that bit of dishonesty out - would never have believed that so many used stamps could be re-sheeted, glued and cleaned to look like such good photocopies that sellers queue up to buy them for their stamp albums - Amazing

[badgecave]

This happened to me. Buyer opened a "not recieved case" .. Tried to look into it, they escalcted it and won.

I got a nice £14.00 chargeback fee.

This doesn't happen on any site. Ebay just attracts scammers .

[rightgrand]

Do ebay still have an appeals process on cases?

As far as I know, you need to use this to make ebay step in and pay a refund themselves.  The case itself is usually just automated.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@rightgrand wrote:

There seems to be an acceptance among some that chargeback=refund. 

---

A chargeback is - quite literally - a reversal of the original transaction. There are two types; Section 75 and "standard" chargebacks. Section 75 protection is an automatic legal protection that applies to credit card purchases over £100 whilst standard chargeback protection is provided by the card issuers under their scheme rules.

If either type of chargeback has been filed the transaction has been reversed. However, as the payment was made to eBay (and not directly to the seller) it is eBay that is immediately out of pocket. eBay pass the claim to the seller and forward whatever proof the seller provides to defend the claim to the buyer's bank. For example; if the buyer files a claim stating the item wasn't received but the seller subsequently provides tracking that proves delivery the chargeback will typically be reversed.

The thing that really stinks is eBay passing on the burden of proof for "transaction not recognised" and "transaction not authorised" claims to sellers. When a buyer raises a chargeback for one of these reasons they are saying "I don't recognise (or I didn't authorise) this payment to eBay"; their dispute is therefore with eBay and not the seller. If the seller provides tracking (and therefore demonstrates a loss) eBay can reverse the chargeback. However, if the seller cannot provide tracking then they lose the claim by default.

The reason this is so egregious is that eBay should be able to defend such claims themselves. In unauthorised/fraudulent use cases the card issuers stipulate a liability shift from the merchant to the card issuer provided a 3D Secure (or 3D Secure 2) check was carried out during the transaction. All eBay need to do is provide the result of this check - via their merchant account with Adyen - and not bother the seller at all.

[rightgrand]

Do ebay use 3D secure though?  I don't think I've ever seen it, despite paying directly with a card since long before the MP change.

In fact I don't even have to type in the 3 digits from the back of the card.  It appears that they may be prioritising ease of payment over security just as Amazon do, presumably in the hope that people buy more stuff.

[sasdrivesuk]

---

@rightgrand wrote:

In fact I don't even have to type in the 3 digits from the back of the card.  It appears that they may be prioritising ease of payment over security just as Amazon do, presumably in the hope that people buy more stuff.

---

In that case - THEY should be liable for the loss - THEY made the decision to authorise payment without doing full security check ...

[sasdrivesuk]

Thank you for that info 🙂 In the event of chargeback and "unauthorised transaction" - eBay will have to pay it - not me 🙂 🙂

[rightgrand]

---

@sasdrivesuk wrote:

---

@rightgrand wrote:

In fact I don't even have to type in the 3 digits from the back of the card.  It appears that they may be prioritising ease of payment over security just as Amazon do, presumably in the hope that people buy more stuff.

---

In that case - THEY should be liable for the loss - THEY made the decision to authorise payment without doing full security check ...

---

That would be the logical answer.  But I bet it's not their answer.