Crystal Damaged in Simple Delivery - How are we going to prove it was packed correctly?

[jennysue_1]

Sometimes I sell very old fragile crystal and although I pack them very well, on occasion unfortunately, some have arrived damaged but this is quite rare.  If using "Simple Delivery" how are we going to prove to ebay that the order was packed according to their guidelines?  From what I have found out, they do not accept photos or visual evidence, so how are we supposed to prove it?  I cannot see how this is going to work, providing the buyer with security and the seller with confidence to send.....Without photographic evidence, then it's a minefield of disputes and challenges and some very unhappy buyers and sellers

[andha-21]

Unless they do a complete turnaround in the way they work, claim wise, it won't work.

Why I refer to it as one of the Simple Delivery TRAPS.

[lucy_farmer]

Try tapping in 'exclusion list' on the 'content' of this forum! : 

The answer to your  question, currently, is nobody knows......

[andha-21]

@lucy_farmer 

In the new newsletter the condition for Fragile items is stated as following eBay's packaging guidance.

But how do you prove that?

To your knowledge have they ever accepted photos or video as proof of adequate packing?

So the truth is, we probably do KNOW but we don't like the answer we see.

[aphystykqa]

---

@jennysue_1 wrote:

Sometimes I sell very old fragile crystal and although I pack them very well, on occasion unfortunately, some have arrived damaged but this is quite rare.  If using "Simple Delivery" how are we going to prove to ebay that the order was packed according to their guidelines?  From what I have found out, they do not accept photos or visual evidence, so how are we supposed to prove it?  I cannot see how this is going to work, providing the buyer with security and the seller with confidence to send.....Without photographic evidence, then it's a minefield of disputes and challenges and some very unhappy buyers and sellers

---

If you intend to use the 'Evri postal service '  through Ebay's MANDATORY Simple Delivery, then it's best to read the large list of All  their Exemptions of what they Refuse to pay out any compensation for, which you can read here - https://www.evri.com/send/what-i-can-and-cannot-send

When you scroll down the page to the list, you shall see in 4th position it states -

'Glass Items or fragile items that contain glass parts'

So that means that Evri shall give you NOTHING if it gets damaged/smashed upon arrival. So, will Ebay step in and pay you out of their own money, because Evri is an incompetent postal service ?? - Well, I certainly wish to bank on that. 

In fact, if you type into the Ebay Search bar for 'Glass Vase' - and use the drop-down-menu for Sort: Highest Priced items first - You will see Vases valued in the Twenty Thousands of pounds (including) a 

Rene Lalique Topaz Glass Bacchantes Vase at £22,550.00 from a UK buyer. So, let's say that when Simple Delivery becomes Mandatory from April 15th 2025 - and the seller used Evri, and it arrived smashed, then it's Impossible to believe that Ebay would then fork out £22,550.00 to compensate the Seller. Not a chance.

So, that leaves just The Royal Mail as the Only option. Royal Mail Special Delivery which I generally used to use when posting parcels to Ebay Buyers by simply posting it over the Counter at the Post Office (which was the Easiest way, as they do all the work for me) - and never needed any Smart Phone, QR Code or Printer, or to work out Weights and Lengths and how much I could get in compensation, as Special Delivery with the Royal Mail insures it up to £2,500 (maximum) for the UK, and for abroad, it's £250 (maximum) with Royal Mail's International Tracked or Tracked and Signed For service - although, it's never as simple as that, as you would still have to be able to offer '100% Proof' - that the item was really worth that amount of money, as naturally both the Seller and Buyer could be working some 'Scam' to try and defraud the Royal Mail.

I think though for Smaller less valuable Glass items though, that with Royal Mail you should be okay - whether it's 'Before' or 'After' the Mandatory Simple Delivery Service kicks in. But don't for one second trust Evri, and I am not even sure whether an Ebay buyer can request one service over another service when buying items from Ebay when Simple Delivery becomes Mandatory or not. If Buyers can Dictate how they wish an item to be sent to them, then that can cause even extra problems. But, as we can see by the sheer volume of people complaining over this tragic Mandatory move Ebay has now FORCED upon all us Private sellers, then Ebay is more than happy to create more Problems for Ebay sellers - which is why I had to quit and sell elsewhere, as I certainly shouldn't be placed in this position in the first place. Also, many have said that Post Offices are Refusing parcels, as the weight and size is being Estimated by Ebay's Artificial Intelligence System, and that AI machine often gets it wrong, so the Post Office/Royal Mail ends up losing money.

[podlingsmum2007]

" I am not even sure whether an Ebay buyer can request one service over another service when buying items from Ebay when Simple Delivery becomes Mandatory or not. "

EBAY phoned me today on my request and I asked that question and they said yes, the buyer can see which carrier is which and the next update may include sellers being able to see which is the standard and express carrier on their own listings. But they may have told me garbage to get me off the phone.

[vinylscot]

This is one of dozens of things eBay needs to clarify.

Evri does not say you can not send fragile glass items. It only advises that they will not pay any compensation for damage to, or loss of, such items. So you can still send them.

eBay's t's and c's for SD seem to state that they will cover any damage or loss to parcels sent through SD. They don't exclude items for which the courier themselves won't pay compensation, but will agree to carry.

At the moment, I believe that's how they intend to operate, although it is wide open to abuse in so many ways...

Of course,  once it's up and running, who knows what will actually happen.

I am in no way in favour of any aspects of SD, either a a buyer or a seller (I also have a small private account), but I do think some of the constant doom-mongering has been a bit over the top, verging on paranoia. I don't expect to be converted, but I don't believe it will turn out half as bad as some are predicting.

[aphystykqa]

---

@podlingsmum2007 wrote:

" I am not even sure whether an Ebay buyer can request one service over another service when buying items from Ebay when Simple Delivery becomes Mandatory or not. "

EBAY phoned me today on my request and I asked that question and they said yes, the buyer can see which carrier is which and the next update may include sellers being able to see which is the standard and express carrier on their own listings. But they may have told me garbage to get me off the phone.

---

Okay thanks. So, if what Ebay has told you is the 'Truth', then a buyer through Mandatory Simple Delivery can request that they would like the Evri Delivery service to be used for the Glass item they have purchased from a UK seller - even though if it arrives broken, then Evri will not compensate - so that leaves the seller wondering whether Ebay shall compensate the seller or the seller gets nothing because Evri won't compensate - as Glass items is on their large exclusion list ??

Of course, the Buyer will get compensated - regardless.

I sell Vinyl records on Ebay (or should I say) 'I used to' - before the announcement came concerning Mandatory Simple Delivery - and I soon found out that Evri also does not compensate over Vinyl records, so naturally I could not risk advertising them - especially as all the records I sell are valuable records - normally ranging between £80 to £700 

[suelel1968]

I read this the same way as you V scot. Sd overrules the delivery serviice t&cs. Plus, as the buyer is paying for the postage, not the seller, it would seem to me that the contract is with the buyer, plus the buyer pays  BPF so would be covered under that too.

[aphystykqa]

---

@vinylscot wrote:

This is one of dozens of things eBay needs to clarify.

Evri does not say you can not send fragile glass items. It only advises that they will not pay any compensation for damage to, or loss of, such items. So you can still send them.

eBay's t's and c's for SD seem to state that they will cover any damage or loss to parcels sent through SD. They don't exclude items for which the courier themselves won't pay compensation, but will agree to carry.

At the moment, I believe that's how they intend to operate, although it is wide open to abuse in so many ways...

Of course,  once it's up and running, who knows what will actually happen.

I am in no way in favour of any aspects of SD, either a a buyer or a seller (I also have a small private account), but I do think some of the constant doom-mongering has been a bit over the top, verging on paranoia. I don't expect to be converted, but I don't believe it will turn out half as bad as some are predicting.

---

There is a well known famous quote :-

' Fool Me Once, Shame On You. Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me '

AI Overview states that it's meaning is as follows - 'if someone deceives you once, it's their fault, but if they deceive you a second time, it's your fault for not learning from the first experience'

So, the moral of that vinylscot, is, that if you sold a Vinyl Record for a £100 to a customer who made the decision to have it delivered by SD's Evri Service and it arrived broken, and you ended up losing ALL your money as a Seller - because Ebay refused to compensate, then would you be the fool the 'Second' time around ?? - or would you instead REMOVE the Vinyl Record from Ebay and move to Discogs or another 'Decent' Selling sites who doesn't make ANY Vinyl/Glass Sellers - or - Other type sellers who fall foul to that criteria of Evri's Compensation Large Exemption list.

Ebay created this MESS, and nobody else did that but them.

Oh. by the way. I am fully aware that Ebay and Evri allow us all to sell items on Ebay and take the Risks which They are both happy for all us sellers to take - whilst giving the Buyers 100% compensation (of course)..

Yes, I know a lot of us are being very pessimistic and adding plenty of doom and gloom to what Ebay has enforced on all us UK Private Sellers with Mandatory Simple Delivery, but to be honest, I can't see anything Optimistic about it. Especially after so much which has been said in this Ebay Community and on Reddit site and 'Other' places.

This is the only time in the past 22 years I have advertised on Ebay, that I have ever been PUSHED into Leaving Ebay insofar as Selling is concerned, so naturally Myself as well as so many others are FURIOUS !!

It's Vinted site which first caused Ebay to have to retaliate by firstly offering ZERO selling fees on second hand clothes, as that what Vinted did, but then when Vinted started to diversify - then Ebay retaliated again by offering ALL Private sellers ZERO selling fees. But of-course, that backfired upon Ebay, so that's when they came swiftly in with this punishment of making every buyer who bought from Private sellers an extra 4% fee which they chose to sugar-coat as being Buyer Protection. But, that bothered Buyers a lot, as why should they pay 4% more, when they already had buyer protection ??? - But, that also meant that all us Private sellers had to wait until (at least) 2 to 3 days AFTER the buyer has received their items - for us sellers to get paid. Well, isn't that the main gripe most sellers had when the Managed Payments system came to replace Paypal a few years ago, because that caused Delays to being paid - well, yes that was the main complaint, which Ebay then speeded up. Well, they sure went in the Opposite direction when adding that 4% Fee for Buyer Protection which hurt both the Sellers and the Buyers. So after all of that, we then get FORCED to hand over our National Insurance Number, and then the next punishment is Mandatory Simple Delivery, with all the Problems that has now created !!! - Well, that sure was the Straw that broke the Camel's Back !!!

[andha-21]

@suelel1968 

In the new newsletter they say you can send fragile items and you will be covered by eBay as long as you adhere to their packaging guidance.

That's the only condition they stated for fragile items.

But how do you prove that?

Going by post history here (all threads I've read) eBay do not accept photos or video as proof of adequate packaging.

So are they just going to take our word for it and suddenly full switch and start siding with sellers over buyers?

Or maybe they just forgot that they don't accept photos and videos as proof and they fully intend to reverse that policy at the nearest opportunity?

[plpmr]

At a guess simple delivery has simple conditions, so -

If it got broken that proves the seller could not have packaged it correctly.

[lucy_farmer]

'If it got broken that proves the seller could not have packaged it correctly.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep. I've had this argument with a shipper (several years ago ,TBH!) that an item I sent was packaged 'incorrectly'.

 The package had tyre marks on it.

What did they want it to be packaged in?... a nuclear flask??

[lucy_farmer]

'eBay's t's and c's for SD seem to state that they will cover any damage or loss to parcels sent through SD. They don't exclude items for which the courier themselves won't pay compensation, but will agree to carry.'

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ebay''s T's and C's state : ebay will cover items , sent through S.D, for loss and damage, provided those items conform to ebay's terms for S.D. and the carriers terms. 

The carriers terms include the exclusion list.

We need an unambigous statement from ebay about whether they will pay for loss and damage  to S.D. items.

EVEN when those items are on the carriers' exclusion list.

A yes or no answer,  please ebay.....?

[vinylscot]

The point is that with many things which are not on Evri's exclusion list.

I think it would be fair enough for eBay not to pay compensation for items on that list, although they should be more proactive on that - exempting entire categories, etc..

The uncertainty arises from Evri's second list. Items which are not excluded, and which Evri will carry, but will pay no compensation if the packages are lost or damaged.

It looks like eBay will provide cover for these, but it's not been made clear.

[lucy_farmer]

'The uncertainty arises from Evri's second list. Items which are not excluded'

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, no the 'excluded list' *is* the second list!   i.e. excluded from compensation; not from carriage.

(the first list is the 'prohibited list'; stuff that carriers refuse to deliver at all. Explosive or decomposing things and the like...)

'It looks like eBay will provide cover for these, but it's not been made clear.'

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it hasn't! This is why I would love an unambiguous yes or no.

I do understand that may be awkward :

A definite 'yes' would mean ebay coughing up for delicate items sent stuffed in an un-padded evelope.

A definite 'no' would mean sellers having no choice about sending things un-insured.

So there would have to be some 'packaging' rules... but how on earth would they be enforced?

You're an expert at packaging vinyl so it arrives undamaged (it being one of the items on the 'exclusion from compensation' list) but I'll bet not everybody selling a vinyl record is....

[vinylscot]

I take your point. Overall though, I think it is just semantics, and eBay could, and should, clarify all of this before inflicting SD on anyone.

[andha-21]

Knowledge is power! Right?

Well if they don't explain things clearly then the only ones with knowledge are them.

This is deliberate.

It's like as long as you follow packaging guidance fragile items are covered.

What, did they forget they don't accept photos or video as proof of adequate packing?

Did they forget to announce they would from now?

Yeah, sure they did.

More likely they wanted to tell people something they wanted to hear knowing the vast majority will latch on to that and not think it through.

This is predator Vs prey in action.