@roger_roger_over_and_nowt wrote:
That's beside the point.
As far as the seller is concerned ,dealing with you was not a positive experience hence they didn't wish to possibly have another one.
If you went out for a meal somewhere and contracted food poisoning would you ever go back ?.
You would want the restaurant closed down pending investigation and action, and you would get it. it.is very uncommon for an ebay dispute to cost anyone a lot more than the price or expected gratification of the meal.
The OP's seller is a very large one and his many negatives give him a score of 99.6%. That isn't terrible, but it is usual for a large business seller in a non-controversial category to do quite a bit better.
What is more relevant, therefore, is that a while back that feedback was for all the usual reasons, but recently the overwhelming majority of those negs were for late delivery, and most of the rest were for non-deliveries which might have been eventually-deliveries. It is also on a downward slide, six months well over hald twelve-month, and one-month well over a sixth of six-month.
The seller has a delivery estimate of the 10th November for purchases made today. He hasn't failed to meet it in the OP's case, but it is very exceptopmal, and easily overlooked by people used to dealomg with large booksellers,
It is, I suppose, possible that the seller has a rogue local delivery office, who also handle sispatched items. But he had the buying power (for .postal services are bought) to do something about. No, he is not obliged to use Royal Mail.
If the OP read that feedback before leaving his, he is under no obligation to hide resentment of a descent into poor service. With all ebay says and does on impermissible feedback, they omitted its having to be for a breach of feedback or seller's terms.
A seller can block you for any reason or none, although it may be unreasonable or wrong. A buyer can decide to never again buy from a particular seller for any reason or none, which may be unreasonable or wrong - as I consider the OP part-way to being. The only difference is that one gets time to make the decision, and the other gets something else unstead. It is about time, not a licence to persecute.Oh, and only the former having a slim chance of knowing.
If we propose analogies, they shouldn't be contrived and misleafding ones. How do you like the sound of a restaurant with a small notice, easily overlooked in a restaurant of that type, saying that on lots of evenings you will have to wait a couple of hours for the food?
The OP's response was polite, but had no effect on the seller's ability get other buyers' money. Still, can anyone suggest what feedback is for, if not to reduce a seller's ability to sell?
What I remember about ebay's change in feedback rules of 2008 was that they had found an alarming rate of feedback for feedback. They meant the party of the first part being negged [prely for negging, whan only the party of the second part had done anything to deserve it. They found sellers did this fu=ive times as often as buyers.. Bad sellers sold the right to neg out from under the good ones.
Q~~_7.JPG "plpmr"){kind=avatar}
