[Since the topic is Simple Delivery, when I say "sellers" in this post, I am referring to private sellers]
I think that eBay would be on very shaky ground if they used the "generally" get-out card for such a case (which isn't to say that I'd put it past them to try!). With Simple Delivery, it will be eBay - not the seller - who presents the range of delivery options to the buyer. It will therefore be eBay's responsibility - not the seller's - to ensure that the buyer is only presented with delivery options appropriate for the item to be sent (in terms of compensation levels, and, indeed, ensuring in the first place that the options available to the buyer do not include carriers whose exemption lists include the type of item being sold - unless, of course, this is somehow accounted for, and factored into, whatever deals they make).
As much as eBay would like to have its cake and eat it, they cannot (logically, and, I suspect, legally) both assume responsibility for the delivery process and hold the seller liable; that's totally self-contradictory!
eBay's assumption of responsibility for the delivery process has as its corollary the absence of responsibility on the seller's part - it is precisely this aspect that is being pitched by eBay as a 'benefit' of SD. 'With Simple Delivery, we [eBay] assume responsibility for items lost, delayed or damaged in transit - you [the seller] will not have to worry about dealing with such occurences, nor will you be financially liable for compensating/refunding the buyer' (this is my wording, not eBay's).
However, I completely agree that the word "generally" that eBay has casually yet deliberately put into their wording is very disconcerting, especially in the (predictable) absence of any examples of cases where the seller would be held responsible. Despite the lack of context or examples, that word is still very telling in that it shows that eBay wishes to allow itself as much wriggle room as possible. Of course, without any actual scenarios to go by yet, it remains to be seen just if and how eBay may determine that an incident falls outside of that "generally", holding the seller responsible, even though the latter has had no input, choice or agency whatsoever regarding the options made available to the buyer. At present, it's all speculation and inference on our part. On this thread alone there's a lot of doubt, uncertainty, anxiety and confusion. I've been quite surprised by how confused certain posters are getting, even about the fundamental aspects of SD - people I generally regard (on the basis of their contributions to other threads) as being experienced eBayers. This isn't to denigrate those individuals in any way, but it does serve as an illustration of just how much disruption and anxiety (one could even say "panic") is being caused by eBay's customary vagueness and failure to communicate adequately.
A previous poster brought up yet another complicating factor, that of the possibility of a seller intentionally posting a damaged item (but obviously showing an undamaged one in their listing), perhaps also 'doctoring' the package in the appropriate area to make it look as though the damage did indeed occur in transit. I'd like to think that only a very small percentage of sellers would even contemplate trying to abuse the system in this way, let alone actually go through with it, but blimey, what an opportunity - list an undamaged item, send out an identical but damaged one, get paid for it, and leave eBay to cough up the refund to the buyer! Gaining entry to Scammers Paradise has rarely been so easy!
How could eBay mitigate against such foul play? How would they ascertain that here is a case where the seller is outside of the scope of whatever boundary "generally" goes up to? Surely, this would only be feasible if the carrier, at the point of taking the item into their system (not during transit, or upon delivery), took photos of the damaged package and alerted eBay, so that eBay could then - should the buyer raise a claim for receiving a damaged item (which they would, 99% of the time) - hold the seller responsible.
Who knows, perhaps eBay are making this an explicit condition of whatever deals they are negotiating with carriers: 'If damage is evident on the packaging at the point of entry into your system, you must notify us and supply photographic evidence'. How workable would that be in practice? Not very, methinks. Okay, if, for example, the seller hands over the damaged package at a quiet village Post Office, the nice man or lady at the counter
might remember to point it out when the postie comes to collect the mail*, but what about a busy Post Office taking hundreds of items a day, or a stressed and under-pressure courier driver collecting from a drop-off shop or parcel locker?
* And that's yet another thing, the person collecting might not even notice the damage - would eBay, even if they made it a condition, really think that all employees collecting mail for delivery are going to carefully examine every single item for damage, and have the time and/or inclination to go through whatever procedures are necessary to ensure that eBay are informed? Unless there was an obvious indication on the item, like an eBay tracking code or a label supplied by eBay with its logo on, how would the person collecting it even know that it was a package posted by an eBay seller?
What about an undamaged item in a slightly damaged package (where the damage to the package has no adverse effect on the physical integrity of the contained item, e.g. something wrapped in inches of bubble wrap in a box with a small but noticeable dent)? Many sellers, myself included, re-use packaging for financial and environmental reasons. This packaging may (and should) be perfectly serviceable as regards protective qualities, but may have seen better days.
Perhaps (only "perhaps"?) I've gone way too far down this particular rabbit hole. Such occurences would (one hopes) be extremely rare, and eBay might - as others have suggested - simply offfset any losses from such cases against the far greater gains they'll get from SD. The 'system' I've speculated about above is so complicated, onerous and full of potential pitfalls that even the decision-making fantasists at eBay Towers could surely not fail to see how unworkable it would be in the real world. But then we kind of come full circle: why "generally", and what would constitute an exception? eBay keeps me guessing all the time, as well as making me question the validity of any conclusions I come to, or inferences I draw. After all, many past and imminent changes introduced by eBay do make me (and others) wonder about the extent to which the decision-makers have their heads in the clouds, so even when I make a remark like the one above (i.e. that surely eBay would see the unworkability of a 'damage to packaging reporting system'), I do so with no high degree of certainty or confidence!
Wouldn't it be lovely if, following the introduction (read: mandated implementation) of Simple Delivery, all of us who are currently getting our knickers (or Y-fronts, boxer shorts, thongs, etc.) in a twist could look back and think "What on earth were we getting so worked up about? It turned out to be fine in the end."? Now, I'm the first to admit that I'm not always the most positive person in the world (ahem), and that I'm somewhat prone to catastrophisation, but I really do think that SD is going to be highly problematic on many, many levels. I don't believe that it will be much of a problem for buyers, but for sellers... well, just look at these boards! I think that it will also cause a multitude of problems for eBay, not only in terms of rolling it out, but also in terms of reputational damage (which eBay has already been subject to on account of other changes such as payment holds and the BPF). Yes, a proportion of those disgruntled private sellers making noises about leaving the platform (both for buying and selling) will stick around despite their present feelings and words - it's human nature to have a bit of a strop-on when we're feeling hard done by - but many will jump ship. Others, unless they're lying (and why would they?) already have. And others will be putting their selling activity on hold while they wait to see what devastation is wrought by the coming storm. Others still will just knuckle down and get on with it, especially those who already offer a variety of delivery services on their listings - for those who do (or potentially could) easily and happily accommodate a range of different services with various carriers, SD could very well be the good thing that eBay claims it to be. But, as has already been pointed out several times by numerous sellers in a multitude of posts (ooh, look at how many ways I can say "lots of"!), not everyone has easy access to Post Offices, postboxes, drop-off points and parcel lockers. Out of those who do, not all of them are prepared to traipse around from one to the other, perhaps because of limited time, perhaps because of physical barriers such as poor mobility, perhaps due to social anxiety or agorophobia, perhaps because they enjoy the convenience of having a postie come to their home with a label to collect the package, or perhaps simply (but not trivially) because they are understandably aggrieved at eBay wresting control of the postage and dispatch process from them.
Within a remarkably short space of time, eBay has alienated a huge number of sellers, both business and private. How many buyers they are set to alienate with the BPF remains to be seen, given that it has only recently started, and has so far only been applied to the Electronics category (but, even then, I've seen listings from private sellers in this category within the last couple of days that haven't had the BPF added to the price, so it looks like even within Electronics it's being rolled out gradually, which seems unfair to those who have had it applied compared to those who haven't yet). In terms of reputation alone, eBay really does seem intent on stubbornly refusing to deviate from its destructive and self-destructive trajectory. If things turn out okay, well, all good (kind of), but many of us will not forget the stress, uncertainty, etc. that we're feeling right now, the time we're spending and the mental energy we're expending trying to figure out how this is all going to work and fit together, thanks to eBay's apparent blanket policy of minimal-to-zero communication. To say that eBay is keeping its cards (all jokers, no doubt) close to its chest is something of an understatement. It's coming to be regarded, even by former diehards, as greedy, deceptive, inconsistent, indifferent to user sentiment, deliberately opaque, and generally untrustworthy.
Can some force, internal or external, reverse this descent into the reputational abyss? Or will eBay continue to plummet until it discovers that there is indeed a bottom, and that it is oblivion? Tune in next week...
Lastly, and re-focussing on the topic at hand, a previous poster in this thread mentioned that an Evri drop-off point near them closed ages ago, but still appears as 'active' on Google. I've seen similar things on Google, e.g. outdated opening times for shops, etc. That's yet another worry, as though there weren't enough already: what source(s) will eBay be drawing its information from, and how accurate/reliable are those sources? I can easily imagine eBay including Evri as an option on a listing for the aforementioned seller, and all the hassle that could ensue:
eBay: Why have you cancelled this sale?
Seller: Because the buyer selected Evri, and the nearest drop-off is too far away for me to get to.
eBay: There's a parcel shop 0.2 miles away from your home.
Seller: No, there isn't.
eBay: Yes, there is. Google says so.
Seller: There used to be, but it closed two years ago.
eBay: So why does Google say there is?
Seller: I don't know, you'd have to ask Google. I guess they just haven't updated their information.
eBay: Hmm, not good enough. Even if you're right, there's another Evril drop-off point 4.7 miles from your home. You could have gone there.
Seller: I've already told you, it's too far away.
eBay: Well, sorry, but the buyer chose Evri, and under the terms of Simple Delivery, you are obliged to use the carrier and service selected by the buyer. We're applying a defect to your account.
Seller: I've had enough of this. I'm going to move my sales to another platform.
eBay: Whatever. Plenty more where you came from. In fact, the mugs are queueing round the block!
A rather fancilful exchange, admittedly, but I hope that it conveys my point. In order for SD to work, not only do sellers need to be willing and able to fulfill the buyer's requirements, but eBay needs to do a lot of due diligence, not just initially, but on an ongoing basis, maintaining up-to-date records of all Post Offices and other drop-off points (perhaps even postboxes).
Yet again, I'm depriving myself of sleep typing on these boards (I confess that I'm quite addicted to them at the moment). At least reading this may help others get to sleep! So, what's an addict to do? Why, catch up on recent posts on this thread, then read through a load of other threads, of course!
jBQw8yPVRi!~~60_7.JPG "lucy_farmer"){kind=avatar}
