NO LONGER SELLING DUE TO SIMPLE DELIVERY

[rugbyguy1960]

AS OF 15TH APRIL MY DAYS AS A PRIVATE EBAY SELLER WILL STOP AFTER 19 YEARS.

I AM FED UP OF THE GREED OF EBAY AND I HOPE OTHER EBAY SELLERS DECIDE TO NO LONGER LET THE EBAY CONTROL FREAKS HAVE THIS MUCH CONTROL OVER PRIVATE SELLERS.

[andyf117]

I'm wondering if they've confused Packlink with SD, as DPD and Yodel are both listed there...

[gmij1961]

That surprises me ,I guess we have to wait and see

Which is my current approach for everything with Ebay, I not  going to consider selling anything until after the summer now , but will remain an interested spectator 🙂

[andyf117]

As I said, it's not come from anywhere near the top of the food chain - but I have already had a response from another CS agent to my follow-up questions regarding that statement...

....they didn't directly answer those questions, of course - but interestingly, they did acknowledge that I have had to pay BPF on recent purchases without voluntarily consenting to do so (their wording)...

....wonder if thoughts of huge payouts resulting from PPI mis-selling are haunting someone somewhere...

[gmij1961]

A lot of sites are using the term Buyer Protection , and Ebay could draw them all in to further scrutiny

With VTD you would  not necessarily mind as their help pages  are  better written and are clearer on what expectations for both buyers and seller. The BPF amount is clearly displayed against the sellers ask price and its BIN and the cost is less than Ebay. However its still misleading if the buyer already has the same protection due to distant selling .

Ebay's explanation of BPF is laughable as nothing they state has value in terms of protecting the buyer , why does the buyer need a 24/7 helpline if they have a problem .  Holding on to someone else money when Ebay have the ability to charge back is suspect . 

If what was reported yesterday with a buyer getting 50% refund from Ebay ( without seller knowledge)   due to damage . If this  coerced on the buyer then BPF could be undermining the  the buyers right .   Given the way Ebay sell SD as soon as the packet is with courier anything that happens after that cannot be the sellers problem and Ebay will try to reduce any lose against themselves .  

It needs an expert to scrutinize it with a fine tooth comb and as individuals we not have that much leverage but the more complaints that come in from all directions and various parties the more likely someone will do that . 

[theelench]

I might be barking up the wrong tree but when the seller was responsible for refunding the buyer for a damaged item, wasn't ebay policy that the buyer opened a NAD case and got a FULL refund +P&P ?

So how is the buyer getting better protection by getting a 50% refund by paying ebay its BPF ?

💡  I think I might  start selling on ebay again !!!!!!!!!!!!

I sell glass, I'll take beautiful pictures of all those items that haven't sold for yonks, chip them and send them off to buyers (at a small discount).  I keep buyers cash, ebay talks buyer into accepting 50% of what they paid!!!! 🤣.  It might make ebay a paying proposition again for private sellers?

[gmij1961]

That's useful to know , I would have thought there must be some way of getting a refund from the Royal Mail

I would complain to the Royal Mail given the reason why you need to sell them

emma.gilthorpe@royalmail.com is CEO and you will get a response . I think RM are wary over the negative impacts of SD 

[wiganyankeeron]

IT'S A COMPLETE JOKE Buyers now paying 75p+4" for less coverage than they
had previously for FREE!!!!!!!!

RON,

[andyf117]

Again, it's a little off-topic for this SD thread, though as you suggested, the two could be inextricibly linked - but my basic argument is that:

I pay for all my eBay purchases with PayPal - who provide me with protection.

My PayPal account is funded by a credit card - they provide me with protection.

Whichever carrier is used to convey my purchases - they provide forms of protection.

As I already have more than adequate protection, the BPF provides me no benefit whatsoever.

Therefore, I neither want nor need BPF - however, eBay adds that unnecessary cost to my purchases.

eBay does not facilitate an option to 'opt out' of BPF - and I require eBay to provide me with that option.

[gmij1961]

I wouldn't jump it just yet 🙂  and as the seller wasn't involved there is more than a degree of supposition and we are only 2 days into the world of SD 

It was somewhere on this post. If I were the seller I would be tempted to contact the buyer to get their side of the story and whether they are happy . But it did strike me as strange  .  Both posts about refunds did indicate that the buyer was not out of pocket. 

It could be Ebay are  just doing this for some good PR post  full SD launch 

[lucy_farmer]

'Do do they mean you can click through to label, get the buyer's name and address, then ignore the label and use your own postage?  So if the buyer has already paid for the label, do they get refunded or does ebay keep it?'

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

If the buyer does get refunded for the unused label, how long do ebay sit on the money for, before giving it back? (They don't have a very good track record on speedy payments....)

And how long would the buyer be prepared to wait for that refund? (Before leaving a neg....)

[andyf117]

I believe I've seen 30 days previously mentioned somewhere

[comicscotty477]

Of the 2 recent changes (BPF and SD), BPF is the one that is driving down sales for private sellers (in my opinion).

I'm selling my LP collection. It's huge and will take me years to clear. I was clearing them at a moderate rate of 10-15 a week. When BPF came in that rate fell through the floor to almost zero and has not recovered. If I sell 3 LPs in a week - that's a good week.

I find SD to be fairly straightforward but I guess that's because I'm only selling LPs and they have a standard size and weight. SD is very easy to use and isn't an issue.

My hope is that ebay rescind the decision to bring in BPF and apply some sort of fees back on to the seller. Maybe not back to 10% but I'd be happy to be one paying fees if it meant my sales pick back up.

[infohelps]

Exactly.  Surely the only protection a buyer wants is to know that they get their money back if they don't get the item, it's damaged or not as described.  What else does a buyer need?       Now that buyers have to pay for 'protection', they seem to be getting the same kind of treatment that we get from certain overseas sellers, the "Hello Friend! We are pleased to offer you a 30% refund!" message.   This is the tactic that Temu use as well.   Some one on here (mentor?  business seller? not sure which but  seemingly pro eBay) said that the BPF had nothing to do with the Money Back Guarantee and therefore we could not compare like for like.  It seems obvious to anybody the paid for 'protection' is nowhere near as good as the free 'money back guarantee'.  I have put this in my report to the CMA.  

[andyf117]

"I have put this in my report to the CMA"

Good to see someone escalating to an official body - are you concentrating on the SD 'cartel' aspect, hence the CMA?

I'm still going through the motions of the 'complaining direct and subsequently not being offered a satisfactory solution' phase before contacting a statutory authority - however, regarding the BPF, it appears that the Financial Ombudsman is the direction I should take, as eBay's regulated by the FCA (already confirmed)...

[gmij1961]

I get what you are saying as BPF  has been crippling sales as the fee is very visible to the buyer 

Anything under £20 you are effectively putting on at least a 10% mark up and if its an auction and you take the traditional method of starting at 99p then its 75% mark up on your starting bid. It Simply Deters buyers 🙂

My refusal to sell due to SD is after BPF and delayed payments removing my ability to manage my postage was totally unacceptable . After 22 years my  postage  set-up was the best it had ever been , and object to Ebay breaking it. 

I do think Ebay got caught out with how unpopular SD was compared to other changes but I think for many it was a last straw type of change . All these changes are part of a bigger strategy to make Ebay more profitable . SD being a key change to finish off the Free to Sell stuff as creates a new revenue stream , and it needs to last as they can  say Sellers no longer pay any fees so they already have their carrot in the deal , however the reality is  sellers now  earn significantly less for what they sell.  Catch 22 and more !

[ducksplash]

What's interesting about the "protection" is that it seems to be taking buyers by surprise, and I have people complaining that "the price suddenly shot up by X pounds", but as far as the sale is concerned, I can see it before I click "List".

I am unsure if this is legit or just buyers trying it on.  In any case, both the buyer and the seller paying it is a bit cheeky on eBay's part, and it seems like a bucket to catch the loss from the Listing Fees going away from Buy It Nows.

[lucy_farmer]

'.....said that the BPF had nothing to do with the Money Back Guarantee and therefore we could not compare like for like.  It seems obvious to anybody the paid for 'protection' is nowhere near as good as the free 'money back guarantee'. ...'

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

Back before Sep 24 when private sellers paid fees, we can be fairly certain that our fees were covering things like the MBG and 'secure money transactions' and ebay CS .

The it became fee-free (for a short while) for private sellers, so ebay were, in effect, doing that stuff  *for free*.

Obviously this couldn't last long.

So now the fees are dumped onto the buyer instead.  And are covering much the same stuff.

So there's not a lot of difference...... *except* for the cringy, patronising and bullsh**ing attempt to sell the BPF as something new and wonderful that wasn't there before.

[infohelps]

Someone on here said that they had made a report to the Competition and Marketing Authority so I thought I would do too, as the more reports they get, the more likely they are to take notice.  The CMA allow you to just make a report.  They exist to promote "competitive markets and tackling unfair behaviour."   They don't appear to be operating in an Ombudsman type capacity - more of a whistle blower capacity.   So evidence of  contact ending in 'stalemate' does not seem to be required.  You can report your concerns as a cartel, but you can just report a problem which is the route I went down.  I didn't feel sufficiently well informed to discuss a cartel, but I briefly explained about Simple delivery and BPF.  Here is the link if anyone wants it - it doesn't take very long to do and if they get swamped with reports they will have to  look into the legalities of what eBay are doing. They said they would get back to me in 10 days and gave me a case number.  Wouldn't it be great if everyone here did that!   https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tell-the-cma-about-a-competition-or-market-problem#report-a-problem-to-t...

[andyf117]

The price which you set is generally what you see on your listing - depending on how and when you view it* - and is what you will get when it sells. If you list at £9.99, that's what you see, and if it's an auction and people bid higher, the figure you see is what you'll get.

The price potential buyers see includes BPF - so while you see £9.99, they see £11.11, or whatever it works out to with the 75p flat fee and 4% added.

BPF kicked in on a Sunday evening on some of my listings which had previously been unaffected, as it hadn't reached the category when I originally put them on - someone offered me the start price for one which had just not sold, and I immediately re-listed as a 'Buy It Now' for that price, but for him it instantly added £1.00 for the newly-introduced BPF. He point-blank refused to pay unless I reduced the price to get it back to its original start price.

*Click your own 'View Sellers Other Items' link from your utem page, and you'll see what buyers see.

[infohelps]

This is interesting as I replied to your post with a link to the Competition and Marketing  Authority, and it appears to have been deleted!  Anyway, they are easy enough to find on line if anyone wants it.  They appear to operate more in a whistle blower capacity than in an Ombudsman capacity.  Therefore they do not ask for a history of contact that has ended in stalemate.  You can indeed report as a cartel, but I just reported as a 'problem'.  I didn't feel sufficiently well informed to be able to discuss cartels, so I just advised them on the unfairness to private sellers caused by SD and BPF.    It didn't take very long to do and I sent them a link to this thread and told them that they would have a better idea of the complexities by reading this!   Apparently, so someone said on here much more early on, eBay have already received fines for falling foul of the CMA already. Not sure for what though.