Be Aware! Offer prices INCLUDE the Buyer Protection Fee

[meditative-moods]

I made a sale on my personal account this morning for a set of headphones that I had listed at £59.95 with it set to auto accept offers over £50.00.

A buyer made an offer 10% below asking price, so £54.00 and as I have it set to auto-accept above £50.00 this was accepted, however, when the email for the order came through, I only receive £51.23 as the Buyer Protection Fee of £2.77 is INCLUDED in the offer price.

In my opinion, if the buyer has offer £54.00, I should receive the £54.00 and the BPF should be added to that.

Just be aware if you have offers, particularly on lower value items, as this change will make most low value offers pointless to sellers.

eBay seem to be on a path to self destruction, not giving a thought as to how their imbecilic changes affect real people 🤷‍♂️

[meditative-moods]

It’s semantics and how the individual perceives it…. I for one, feel that I paid the BPF on the sale that caused me to start this thread. Ergo, as far as I’m concerned, the seller pays the BPF on offers.

[papso22]

---

@meditative-moods wrote:

It’s semantics and how the individual perceives it…. I for one, feel that I paid the BPF on the sale that caused me to start this thread. Ergo, as far as I’m concerned, the seller pays the BPF on offers.

---

While I prefer to stick to the contractual and legal position.

[*vyolla*]

---

@lazyfoxinteriors wrote:

Yes. Really annoying. On the app no mention of this (said offer of £50 with no mention of deduction for protection fee) I only knew because of the email which said a lower amount. Does this mean that if someone 'buys it now' they pay the fee and if they offer 1p less and you accept, you pay? If this is the case, where is the incentive to 'buy it now'? When I looked at this new buyer protection fee on ebay's policies, I could not see anywhere that a seller would ever have to pay. I'm fuming. It's a mess. I honestly would rather just go back to the old seller fees. At least you knew where you stood with that. Whoever is running Ebay-stop trying to fix things that aren't broken. I'm sure they just pull ideas out of a hat when they are at a long boozy meeting..

---

It appears to me that this was something that wasn't considered when setting up this new system, and why it has resulted in the seller paying the Buyer Protection Fee. 

On one of my accounts I use fixed price Buy It Now listings with Best Offer and, as they are relatively expensive items I've had to end those listings whilst I try to work out best way forward here.  There's no point trying to explain to the buyer that I'll be paying the 4% + 75p on top of their offer so they need to offer XXXX more, it just alienates them.

Bit of a mess, really. 

[ruby*ryan]

I found the easiest way to deal with offers is just send offers when it's an option, that way it's clear the price I will get if the buyer accepts. I used to have Best Offer on nearly everything, as I just want to get rid of things. It worked really well, but it seems too much of a pain now to look at an offer, work out the BPF and subtract it.  As I said, I just want to get rid of things, and I want to do it quickly and easily, the way I used to before all the changes.

On  the hold side I now only have 6 days to wait for the 99p item I sent on 24 Feb to be paid to me 😞  I would bin these low value Large Letter items, but I still have 100 LL stamps to use up.

[andha-21]

@papso22 

I know where you are coming from, but if a buyer sent me an offer of £10 before BPF I was expecting £10. Not £8.81 or whatever it is. That game has been going on for at least as long as I have been using eBay, so it generates expectations and this is what we are all seeing in responses now.

"If I agree to £10 then that's what I'm expecting".

But now the new system plays differently, because it is a different game. Before it was simple Draughts, now it's Chess and eBay have brought the tricky Knights straight into the game.

Most of the userbase, based on my experience of humanity in real life will find that hard/impossible to deal with.

eBay switched games on them, mid game and people are now in *bleep* mode.

On one side they say a confused enemy is easily played, but parasitic corporations like eBay should have enough wisdom to know that's the wrong strategy to employ with a food source that is mobile. One that doesn't have to stay here. There are other fields with far more grass.

As you said before, you can't reconcile your beliefs with eBay's idiotic behaviour.

They have *bleep*ed up, in truly epic proportions.

I know you know that but you have a stubborn streak.

[*devils.advocate*]

Different sites have different ways of showing any fee they charge but, as the buyer, I must always see the total end price up-front, one way or another.

The way eBay has decided to go forward with this is, well, just plain stupid.

IMHO, I think it should be shown separately - item price + fee - two separate amounts no matter the situation - and let buyers, who aren’t daft, work out the amount they’ll have to pay (they have to do this on other sites).

But that’s eBay all over, isn’t it - if there’s a cack-handed complicated way to do things …………………..

[meditative-moods]

@papso22 

There is in English law a push towards more transparency, hence the advent of the “Plain English” campaign with regards to contract and T&C’s. I would put it you, that in this instance, eBay have done the opposite and that rather than using “Plain English” they have sought to deliberately obfuscate the facts and have indeed, shifted the responsibility for the payment of said BPF from the buyer to the seller, thereby applying a charge that at the very least is misrepresented, being as it is called BUYER protection fee. 

if, as you seem to assert, this is a contractual obligation, then eBay should have made 100% clear what it means for all sellers and buyers in every possible scenario, as it is eBay that have changed the terms of business, part way through my dealings with them. Only by making the new reality completely clear and transparent, can one expect users to fully grasp the changes and the financial implications thereof.

Furthermore, I would suggest that the general responses on this thread provide a clear indication that not only I, but many others had no idea this would be the case and are rightly unhappy at the poor implementation and communication of the new BPF.

if you’d like to engage in further discussion about the legal position etc, please let me know.

[papso22]

I don't argue that the communication by ebay, and the implementation of these new arrangements leaves something to be desired.  But it is clear that ebay have called it a buyer protection fee, charged to the buyer, in return for something, and that the payment for it goes to ebay.   

So there is a published contract for a supply by ebay to buyers, where the consideration for the supply is the BPF, and where the buyer signifies acceptance of the contract by buying on ebay after the 4th February.

It is not a contract with sellers, unless they are also buyers, so it is not contractually necessary to make the ramifications clear to sellers in respect of their selling activities at all, although it might have been  helpful if they had made more of an effort in this respect. 

For buyers, it is my view that ebay have made it sufficiently clear what it is and what it costs to form a contract between them and the buyer,  even though I think it could be clearer (like most of ebay's communications).

I do not accept that it is a 'sellers fee', that's just how people want to describe it.  Perhaps there might be an argument that the economic reality is that it is a seller's fee but case law on contracts vs economic reality makes it clear that the contracts are the starting point and you only resile from them when they are completely at odds with what is actually happening.  I don't think we are there with the BPF.

[*vyolla*]

---

@papso22 wrote:

I do not accept that it is a 'sellers fee', that's just how people want to describe it.  Perhaps there might be an argument that the economic reality is that it is a seller's fee but case law on contracts vs economic reality makes it clear that the contracts are the starting point and you only resile from them when they are completely at odds with what is actually happening.  I don't think we are there with the BPF.

---

 I'm calling it a sellers fee because, as a seller, I'm paying it.

It's poor programming and I don't believe that it was intended to work in this manner because, either way you look at it, the fact is that the seller is paying the buyer protection fee element. 

If a buyer sends me an offer for £10 I'm not getting £10, hence I'm paying the BPF in that circumstance, which is just wrong. It should be programmed that the buyer offers £10, BPF is immediately added to that so they can see the total price they're offering for the item, and the seller sees either the amount they'll get without the BPF showing or the amount they'll get including the BPF with a separate breakdown of the two components, depending which way eBay want to programme it, either way works the same. 

I can't believe that I've had to remove all of my listings from a private account because it's no longer viable for me to list in fixed price Buy It Now with Best Offer added without upsetting potential buyers who just don't get why I'm not accepting their offer price (when I normally would). 

[meditative-moods]

@papso22

---

@papso22 wrote:

It is not a contract with sellers, unless they are also buyers, so it is not contractually necessary to make the ramifications clear to sellers in respect of their selling activities at all, although it might have been  helpful if they had made more of an effort in this respect.

I'm not sure what version of law you are using to determine that it isn't contractually necessary to make the ramifications clear to sellers, when they receive offers that don't reflect the relatity of the financial gain they make by enetering into the transaction. Please explain, because that is contrary to everything I know....

Please go back to my first post, which explains a specific situation, how it worked and why I was unhappy, then come back here and make a legal argument to support yours and eBay's position - I'll give you advanced warning....you won't be able to.

---

---

[vintique*violet]

Lack of clear communication or not... It is not a buyer protection fee, everything they state proves as there is nothing new (ly) " protective " about it and sellers who send offers are having the BPF taken off their offer price instead of added to it, which does then make it a sellers fee. eBay are tying their " customers" in knots with their polices of contract and yet not being transparent and misconstruing, I would even go as to far as to say " mis-representating"... ebay have stated they are a only a " venue" a " third party" for sellers to sell and buyers to buy and yet they are making it more than difficult with many restrictions on so many levels - their active " buyers" are the same as in approx 2018...  7years ago and that should tell them ( and us) at least something is amiss. The platform is no longer user - friendly or safe; particularly with the holding of funds, restrictions on postal choice, A.I, favouring buyers and more - opening it up to be a scammers paradise!  

As another poster said, have a look at Trust Pilot reviews... it is not just the " community board" commentators who are expressing distrust and frustration. 

Sad!

[papso22]

I have made all the 'legal argument' I intend to, I really don't care if others don't agree with me! 

[meditative-moods]

@papso22 

Thank you for confirming that you don't have a legal argument as I stated.

Perhaps in future, instead of making cocky snide comments on other peoples posts, you should consider the possibility that the individual concerned may be more knowledgable than you on the topic.

Enjoy the rest of your day 😊

[papso22]

I stated nothing of the kind, and I think that your reply is rather rude. 

You haven't provided any legal vires for your comments either.  So in that way your arguments, and demonstrated knowledge, are only as valid as mine, not more so.

Presumably you are familiar with Chitty on Contracts?

[meditative-moods]

---

@papso22 wrote:

---

---

"While I prefer to stick to the contractual and legal position."

Arrogance my friend, is one of humanity's worst traits.

---

[papso22]

---

@meditative-moods wrote:

---

@papso22 wrote:

---

---

"While I prefer to stick to the contractual and legal position."

Arrogance my friend, is one of humanity's worst traits.

---

---

Just making a statement. 

Yet more rudeness from you, have you read the rules regarding posting on these boards?

[meditative-moods]

I'm also just making a statement, for which there is ample evidence.

[papso22]

I am not playing your game.

[meditative-moods]

I agree with you regarding the apparent lack of improved protections, as we all know that eBay has always favoured the buyer in any dispute. 

You would think an organisation the size of eBay could come up with software that’s capable of showing the true position on any offer received and to work correctly when the auto accept function is used.

I do wonder if their ultimate aim is to become another Temu or Aliexpress full of Chinese sellers that will pay to promote listings in a way that few private sellers can do.

Whatever their aim is, I think they should perfect new processes etc before rolling them out to users.

[vintique*violet]

Wondering the same myself @meditative-moods