Ebay's new buyer protection scam

[wayne15071965]

So I have been a seller on and off her since June 2001, Over the years I have sent items recorded delivery that either never turn up , or arrive with no notification of delivery.  Now someone wants to charge a buyer a fee for safe delivery, when they would have been charged that in the P&P cost.  Frankly it sounds more like a scam than customer service and Ebay are also trying to force us to use their shipping option, So much for free enterprise, sound like trying to get the monopoly on delivery as well.  As for hanging on the sellers cash til 2 days after delivery, really so post office goes on strike and you don't get paid, Think I may start looking to leave. So much for eBay's loyalty to us .

[flyingmike43]

Previous, the seller paid a premium to sell. Now the buyer has to pay instead. And as for keeping your money until it suits them....

I think they have lost the plot and they are finished in their current form. 

Sad really, it's been great.

[twbc123]

Hi

All the items sold by private sellers, yes.

Business sellers still pay the sales commission themselves so if you buy
from a business seller you still only pay the item price plus postage.

to give you an example. I bought an old cine camera the other day from a
private seller for £322 plus £25 but when I went to pay , ebay wanted me
to pay £409. over £50 more. needless to say I canceled the order.

i have over 130 items on ebay and now because of this disgusting new
scheme, I don't expect to sell a thing now, which is why I'm in the process
of putting things up for sale on Facebook.

[andha-21]

I remember your example. You made a couple of other posts a day or so back with more details.

You may not care about your account but you are putting the seller in dangerous ground too. Maybe better to simply stop talking about it before the wrong person sees.

[dogrobinsnest]

Why ???

[vinylscot]

I think the poster stated earlier that an off-site deal was made with the seller, although I don't think there was ever any explanation for the £409 figure, which definitely doesn't look right. As with so many posts on this and similar threads recently, we are only getting part of the story.

[andha-21]

I'm not going to say. If you want to find out click their username and read their recent posts. 

They were saying far too much.

[dogrobinsnest]

Ok sorry I thought you were referring to my post.

[ripface]

Think I've had enough of this.  Time to kiss FleaBay goodbye.  I'll let my current auctions run, and relist until they're sold and then I'm off to Markeplace.  At least on that platform I get what I'm asking for items, and the buyer pays what they see!!

Best wishes to you all!

[christoalces]

Not according to the sales I made today on items listed weeks ago.

[christoalces]

I accepted an offfer for an item tonight that was presented as £10.  Once sold, eBay took £1.08 fee.  i tested this with making an offer on another item in the same category and it gave no indication the seller would have received less than my offer

[leighbayuk]

On the first offer screen, there is no mention of the protection fee. However, the deduction appears on the checkout screen in small grey print. Crucially, the fee is deducted rather than added. This is easily missed and there is no easy way for a buyer to enter the offer amount that they want the seller to receive. eBay think this is fine.

[goodibags]

The buyer and seller should always see different prices, the buyer WITH fees added and the seller without them. The offer sender may see a rounded price (e.g. £10) but the recipient will see a funny one, with odd pennies at the end.

But IF a seller is seeing the same price as the buyer and accepts an offer from them, with the buyer fees subsequently being deducted? Then it is arguably no longer 'FREE TO SELL' on Ebay.

[dls-online]

Apologies, but the whole BPF is simply plain on deception,  with ebay just trying to make less savvy sellers think there's no selling fees. Just take a step back and nothing's changed other than a layer of deception, inconvenience for the seller, and increased fees on a large chunk of items.

In a sale on ebay essentially three things have generally always happened on ebay, and they still do:

(i) Goods are supplied by the seller

(ii) The buyer's money pays for the transaction

(iii) Ebay take their slice of the buyer's money for facilitating the transaction

You can dress it up however you want, but that's all it's ever been, and all it still is. As such, it is not free to sell on ebay as (iii) from above still exists. It's just ebay trying to change perception on who's paying. But it's always the buyer who supplies the money...the seller supplies the goods...and Ebay supply the platform. It's still the same!

Therefore, as the buyers are still supplying all of the money in the transaction, what's happened is that ebay have simply tinkered with how the fees are presented to try to fool people. What's concerning therefore is why such a big commercial enterprise has suddenly stooped to levels of deception?!  Has there been a change in leadership for someone with less moral standards? Someone who doesn't believe in retaining a trusting relationship with its customers?! It's very underhanded and really quite sinister, as it takes advantage of those who maybe can't understand what's happened and how the sellers are not better off but worse off.

Sorry, rant over! LOLs.

[andha-21]

Not trying to argue but there is actually a major difference between the way transactions take place between consumers and private sellers. & this is the point many seem to be missing.

Before a buyer could just pay the agreed amount and the private seller sent it. eBay acting as an intermediary and depending on time of sale, taking fees from the seller or not.

Now a buyer cannot actually buy anything with BPF applied from a private seller without paying eBay. The entire transaction is reliant on that single thing. 

So eBay are changing their profile in this relationship. They are no longer the intermediary as their fee is the caveat for the entire transaction process.

So if we recognise the above how can we (more importantly why are we) still think(ing) of them the same way.

Before it was a buyer to private seller transaction.

Now it's a buyer to business and then business to private seller transaction.

& if that above is right, then eBay may be treading on very dodgy ground as consumers gain rights in a C2B transaction, which is ironic as eBay are charging for some of those very same rights within the BPF.

[dogrobinsnest]

Sorry you are not correct. It’s ok for Items over £10.00 but the charges applied now for items under this price is ridiculous. An item that under the old system before free to sell would be an Ebay fee of 16% approx not that fee Now nearer 80% and for an Item that is up for sale at £5.00 is a fee of over 27% this makes smaller items on ebay totally unsellable . So sorry its not the same.

[kath3735_wxmjn]

if you are so incensed why not go now instead of waiting?   Not being facetious genuinely would like to know. 

[andha-21]

Further to the above, the fact that they were kind enough to update their terms and conditions to specifically include "any attempt to circumvent the BPF fees ... blah blah" proves the above point.

[dls-online]

Dogrobinsnest - I love it when someone says "sorry you are not correct". Usually they then then make a fool out of themselves. Makes me smile every time : )

To quote my own message (only with the relevant bit highlighted):

" Just take a step back and nothing's changed other than a layer of deception, inconvenience for the seller, and increased fees on a large chunk of items."

I thought my message was quite clear. But there's always one who fails to understand the point...

[goodibags]

On that matter I'm looking forward to Ebay UK filing a lawsuit against Ebay Corporation for deliberately messing up their local UK-based 'initiative'. 😉

[andha-21]

I'm wondering if another big player could use it on anti competition grounds.

It would be bloody funny if they could. Getting caught for anti competition against your parent company.

I could imagine a fair amount of laughter from their competition if that played out.