Sellers MUST use a tracked service if they want a refund of an unused SD label fee (er, "probably")

[irt303]

Well, we kept Kat, Dave & Marco busy today, didn't we? I got a reply to my post nearly an hour after the session had ended! Not a definitive one, mind you, but a reply nonetheless - I guess I should at least be thankful for that when some are having their posts ignored or even deleted.

I asked whether a seller would be successful in getting an unused SD label fee refunded in the following scenario:

A Simple Delivery-eligible item sells (listed with 'Seller pays postage'). Seller doesn't use SD label, and sends item with their own choice of courier and service - but does not use a tracked service. Within 14 days of the sale, the seller requests (or tries to request) a refund of the fee they paid for the unused SD label.

One of the four conditions listed on the refund request page is that a tracked service was used to send the item. Because I've not tried to request a label refund myself (not listing anything due to the current state of affairs), or read any posts from sellers that might offer some kind of example or precedent, I wanted to ascertain whether this was a genuine requirement, or a bit of a red herring (i.e. the refund request would actually be accepted despite no tracking number, and the only real downside for the seller would be having to wait longer for the funds from their sale).

I also asked (because another member's comment a while back had piqued my interest) if the system would accept the number/code you get when sending RM 1st/2nd Class Signed For as a tracking number (again, for the purpose of requesting a refund of the fee for an unused SD label).

The response was: "Based on that scenario, if you don't send the item with a tracked service, you will probably not get a refund for the Simple Delivery label as per the refund policies. Same answer would apply for both questions in this case." [My bold]

I was hoping for a straight 'yes' or 'no', a definitive answer to a very specific question. Was Marco not entirely certain himself, hence the "probably"? Or was it intentionally vague, so that eBay could later say "We only said 'probably', not 'definitely'"? Did he consult with the Shipping team (which would explain the delay in replying), and that was their response? Pretty worrying if he did, and even Shipping don't know for sure...

(Arguably academic, but I did also ask if the seller would even be able to complete the refund request form in the absence of a new tracking number to enter. That went unanswered, but I presume the answer to that is 'no', too; the box to enter the tracking number would be a required field.)

I'm taking Marco's reply as a definite 'no' - eBay would not refund the unused SD label fee in that scenario, no "probably" about it. Which means that sellers listing SD-eligible items (as 'Seller pays postage') have to use a tracked service, even if they bypass SD (assuming they wish to get a refund of the label fee). Yet another way in which Simple Delivery takes away private sellers' control, choice and agency.

My last glimmer of hope was that, once I resumed selling (a can that keeps getting kicked down the road), I would be able to use up my stamps (for items where the £20 compensation limit would be adequate) and still be able to reclaim the unused SD label fee (having opted for 'Seller pays postage' in the listing). [Three lots of parentheses in one sentence - I surpass myself!] However, this clearly doesn't align with eBay's system, and, putting on my devil's advocate hat, why would it? Apart from some minimal engagement at the fringes of the SD system (downloading the label to see the buyer's address, and completing the refund request form), the seller would effectively be bypassing SD entirely, with no financial loss (just the prospect of having to wait longer for the sale proceeds).

You can't have your cake and eat it.

What worries me - and I wouldn't put it past them - is that eBay may tighten the noose even more, and remove the facility to request refunds for unused SD labels, perhaps as (or if) they 'improve' SD with more options. They might carry over the 'model' for buyers to sellers, so a seller would no longer need to manually request refunds for unused SD labels, and would instead receive those refunds automatically within a specified time-frame - but only if they had used a tracked service to send the items for which the unused labels were generated. Perhaps the refund request form is only there while eBay try to figure out how to bring all private sales - regardless of item type, selling price, size and weight - under SD (I very much doubt that this would be achievable in the real world, but I'm sure that eBay would like it to be). Another action that they might take could be to do away with the current exclusions for sub-£10, sub-100g items in certain subcategories. These exclusions are themselves proving to be problematic and inconsistent, see for example the post about a knitting pattern and a rug design pattern on today's chat session.

I understand eBay's stance on using tracked services. I understand the reasons for that stance, and I understand why they are keen to encourage and promote the use of tracked services (basically, increased buyer satisfaction - I'll ignore the profit motive). In many cases, I would agree that a tracked service is the most appropriate way to send an item. But now they are all but mandating it (if you want to carry on using the platform, and if you want to claim refunds for unused SD labels), and that really sticks in my craw.

Let the seller (and the buyer) decide! Say I list a DVD for, I dunno, £16 including BPF (I know that, in reality, such a round figure would be hard, if not impossible, to achieve with the BPF ). I offer 'free' delivery with an untracked service. The buyer can make their own decision as to whether they are happy with that, or whether they'd rather purchase the same item from another seller who offers a tracked service. Or they could contact me and ask if I'd consider sending the item with tracking. As the seller, I've already made a reasoned decision that my choice of service provides an adequate level of cover in the unlikely event that I'd need to make a claim. I understand the potential risks of sending the item untracked (the greatest risk being a buyer falsely claiming INR, against which I would have no comeback), and accept those risks.

Oh look, I've just described how it used to be in the relatively brief period that I was selling (prior to payment holds, BPF and SD), and 99% of the time it went smoothly - the buyer got their item, appreciated the care I took in packing it, and (usually) left feedback reflecting their satisfaction. I was happy with the amount I got (having factored in P&P and seller fees), and was pleased to see another star in my rating. And eBay got their fees (including their cut of the element of 'free' postage that I had factored into my price). Now? SD (and, to a degree, the BPF) have put me right off listing anything. I'm not de-cluttering, my items (many of which are rare and/or collectable) sit gathering dust when they could be finding appreciative new owners, and eBay are making diddley-squit out of me. Yes, I know that I'm a speck within the eBay 'ecosystem' (and that the empire is hardly going to collapse because of one disgruntled person), but so is every other private seller, and I think that if you added all of us disgruntled specks together you'd have quite a sizeable blob. A sizeable disgruntled blob.

Few members can be in any doubt - especially if they read the CEO's remarks about it being an additional revenue stream - that SD serves eBay's interests first and foremost (specifically those of the executive team and the shareholders), yet part of me is prepared to believe that it was also introduced with the good (albeit secondary) intention of making things, well, simpler. And, indeed, some private sellers (and possibly buyers) do appreciate some aspects of the system; even I, with my level of antipathy towards it, can see that it's not all negative.

I can see how certain aspects of it might benefit inexperienced sellers, e.g. they don't need to look up various RM/courier rates, decide on an adequate level of cover, etc. (the sort of thing that I was nervous and unsure about when I first started listing). Some sellers see that as a hassle, and appreciate the reduced brainache of being presented with a fairly narrow (to them, 'manageable') range of options. Buyer pays or seller pays? Simple. RM or Evri, or both? Simple (well, apart from the fact that eBay increases the cost of one if the other is de-selected. And the fact that, in many cases, the cost is more than it would be if postage was purchased directly. And the fact that eBay reserves the right to over-ride the choice of courier.). 24 or 48 hour? Simple.

But many of us want that 'hassle'. Rather, we want to retain the ability to choose as we see fit, and to be free to explore other options/methods if we see that our choices aren't translating into sales. Even the most experienced sellers can make mistakes occasionally, but many of us neither need nor want eBay holding our hand (or, rather, shoving us roughly) through the entire despatch process for every single sale. It smacks of over-reach, and, similar to the way that the term 'Buyer Protection Fee' implies that private sellers are collectively a bit shady, the impression given is that eBay does not trust the majority of private sellers to make sound choices in the despatch process, or to act responsibly vis-a-vis handling times, etc. It's no surprise that many are up in arms; it isn't just the changes in themselves (bad enough though they are), it's the implied message behind them, along with the recognition of the fact that the officially-stated reasons are often unconvincing and disingenuous.

So, I do think that eBay brought in SD at least partly (but certainly not primarily) to reduce the number of cases arising from mistakes made by inexperienced sellers, and not just mistakes, but also poor practice such as not despatching within the handling time.

But good grief, what a huge, stinking, flailing mess it all is! It was rolled out with apparently no kind of prior testing, accompanied by sparse and scattered communication (which kept changing, and still is changing) from eBay Towers, and with 'fluid' dates for roll-out completion being given. Many sellers found, when they checked - or worse, when they made a sale - that their existing listings had been changed (sometimes with bizarre, unworkable options applied), necessitating hours of poring over their listings, and, in some cases, cancellation of sales. Months later, here we are, still experiencing problems, still scouring the boards and the announcements for scraps of information, still trying to make it work for us, still trying to get our heads around it while at the same time seeing that eBay themselves aren't necessarily in full possession of the facts (see that reply from Marco above for just one tiny example), which doesn't exactly instil confidence!

I know that I'm just echoing other posters' comments here, but why oh why couldn't eBay have just made SD optional (on an ongoing per listing basis)? Those sellers attracted by its its purported benefits would use it, even if only as a trial initially, and, if it lived up to the hype, word would quickly spread, and increasing numbers would try it out, then stick with it. If it was as good as we were told it was, we would be able to see that for ourselves. I could see myself using it (subject to certain improvements) once I'd used up my blimmin' stamps! We wouldn't need to be dragged into it kicking and screaming; we would 'onboard' ourselves, and quite willingly. The whole 'programme' would gain traction, and would become a roaring success for eBay on account of its own merits. But, critically, those of us who - for a variety of good reasons - might not wish to use it (at least for specific sales) would still be at liberty to make our own arrangements. There would be no cause for resentment. eBay would make less money from the non-SD sales compared to the SD ones, but it would still be getting a percentage of something versus a percentage of nowt. This is where the tipping point comes in, I suppose: at what point do the various costs involved in hosting a listing (and all the post-sale administration) outweigh, or at least render negligible, the revenue gained therefrom? We on the outside can only wonder and speculate, but to my non-specialist eyes, eBay are being daft in losing revenue by alienating private sellers. As *bleep* Jones says in RoboCop, "Good business is where you find it!"

Sadly, eBay didn't see it like that, and made SD compulsory across the board for private sellers. The irony is that something introduced to forestall problems (as well as the 'prime directive' of getting extra revenue) has created a veritable Hydra of new ones. They may have performed some mixture of calculation and predictive wizardry to show that it would still be worth all the collateral damage and deep gashes in their reputation as far as their bottom line was concerned, but I'd be surprised if they had anticipated the level of discontent expressed on these boards, in the weekly chat, on social media, on review sites etc. They could have saved themselves from all this ire and ridicule if they had made it optional, or made it mandatory but also fit for purpose. I would also say "reasonably priced", but that was probably never going to happen in this universe or any alternate one. By "reasonably priced", I mean the same as, or ideally even less than, the cost of buying postage direct - or, possibly, slightly more, but not a great deal.

That's the end of another somewhat lengthy post by yours truly, and it does not escape me that it could be summed up by just the subject heading! The intention was to report the answer I was given by Marco, but of course, I couldn't just leave it there! In fact, I typed a lot more, but I've cut that out to form the basis of a separate post, as I'd totally veered away from SD and gone into my thoughts about eBay in a much more general sense. I hope that this has been of benefit to somebody, whether you had the same questions about SD label fee refunds as I did, or whether you just needed some help getting to sleep. I'm off to order new '9' and '0' keys for my laptop. The brackets are barely visible, although by this stage I think that the muscle memory in my fingers would suffice...

[xyz307xyz]

I read about half of it. There are some scenarios where SD can't be used; but ebay don't currently provide any other way of setting postage. So the refund mechanism is mainly for that, in my opinion. Last time I looked at it there were some options like "I didn't know I had to use SD" etc. as it is new.

I don't think it's there for people to avoid SD, so they can use something else. As you say, they may make tighten the process for refunds.

Maybe the second half of your post makes the above redundant or irrelevant but I have something else to do!

[edwardian-dreams]

Why would it matter to eBay if the alternative service chosen was tracked or untracked 

if anythng untracked would favour them financially as they get to keep sellers money for longer 

end of the day someone’s getting paid for a service they haven’t provided here

not to mention seller paying for postage twice