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.

[lostin2922]

Hi.

No, I paid  for SD label.

[akemp1]

---

@ja142868 wrote:

Question have I defrauded RM for claiming something I haven't?

---

Maybe deposit some coins in your local post box to return the buyer tax....

Or give it back to them in stamps as that's how they have always refunded me.

[3942rick2005]

Post them some stamps?😁

[punzel9072]

Question have I defrauded RM for claiming something I haven't?

No of course you haven't. You supplied the information that was required, and it's down to Royal Mail's interpretation of it. 

[department28]

'Ebay are trying to create an illusion where the seller thinks it's free and the buyer doesn't realise they are paying a fee.'

Yes - although buyers will be well aware they are paying a fee on auction items. Bids have the fee conspicuously added on, but in bid history, the prices are shown without  the fee. Bidding is now a much less satisfactory experience.

For private sellers - the very people who need listing to be straightforward & flexible - the introduction of the BPF & Simple Delivery has transformed eBay into a frustrating, stressful place to try to sell a few bits & pieces... 😕

[infohelps]

I have a SD question.  I have seen people on this thread say that if a buyer wants more than one of your items, and therefore wants a combined postage discount, you can end the listings and then do one relist for all of the items together.  

That sounds OK in principle, but I was wondering what would happen if you did a combined listing, for say 3 items, and then the buyer asked for a refund for just one of the items.  As AI seems to be making all the decisions, (usually coming down on the side of the buyer without communicating with the  seller),  would they not refund the buyer FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF ALL 3 ITEMS??  That would leave you out of pocket even if the buyer returned the item that they requested a refund for, especially if one of the items was much more expensive than the other two, and they asked for a refund on the cheapest item.

Has anyone come across this or know the answer?

[sml192]

Yes, if you combine several items into one listing and the buyer is subsequently unhappy with any of them then they would need to return the entire order.

[gmij1961]

Actually I spent most of my working life in IT working on complex systems at senior level  and have a more than adequate understanding how things work  etc

For Ebay to act as a bank that they have been for the last few years , their systems would needed to be fully compliant and the change to BPF would created absolutely no extra overhead in terms of security as that level of security already exists.   

The change to BPF will have some cost to Ebay  but none if that has anything to do with extra layers of security as Ebay are claiming , hence why its  fundamentally misleading to a point of being dishonest with Ebay customers   and I really don't get why you are defending it !

All BPF is charging the buyer for a routine transaction fee where they used to charge the seller.  

All  you are saying is Ebay need to cover their costs  and if Ebay ask  a fair and transparent fee for the service they provide I have no issue as do most long term customers like myself 

By telling customers they have to pay a  protection fee without clearly telling them what protection they already have by default is reprehensible practice  which I have no doubt  will eventually backfire on Ebay 

[gmij1961]

Further to my earlier reply 

Given you are such an expert on IT , can you highlight out  any E2E secure transfer that is any difference pre and post the implementation of BPF

The reality is Ebay deduct their transaction fee at exactly the same point for BPF as they did with Seller fees on receipt of the buyer payment.  To achieve that they have to do very little indeed .

The only discernible difference  here , is how that fee is accounted for I.E the VAT receipt now goes to the buyer instead of the seller but that has nothing to do with security  etc.

Another difference those funds are held for longer , previously they were available after a few hours . By holding onto this money for even a couple of days Ebay will be earning interest , to Ebay's advantage  . 

The only other potential difference could be with the refund process but then all BPF is doing is allowing Ebay to manage refunds which was in place before , so highly unlikely.

Ebay are quite clearly claiming that part of the cost goes towards enhanced security and that simply is not the case unless someone who provides their software etc is not being entirely honest which is possible I suppose as they really are that bright considering how they have managed SD etc so far .

A reality of BPF is not only allow to recoup the equivalent sells fees the process of BPF and delaying payments is significant earner .  Which is why all customers really need to understand why BPF is such a con 

I am more than confident that I know what I am taking about , which is why I am prepared to keep making this point until it eventually sinks in 🙂

[jonatjonatjonat]

Everyone - he's right. I'm wrong. Look at all that information. Its clear to me now that ebay haven't had to spend anything on IT security or infrastructure in years. I can't believe I thought they would. gmij1961. they. They know.

[blacksea213]

There seems to be many people offering technical reasons on what EBay May
or not be doing. Whether it is banking, algorithms or whatever. I think
most people (I may be wrong here) would just like a return to how it used
to be. You list your item, maybe a small listing fee like it used to be
with occasional free listing months? But as it has been free for a while
maybe this wouldn’t wash anymore. No fees for buyers, just the sellers fees
as it always has been. This hopefully will bring the buyers back. More
importantly is the right to choose your own postage options and costs. If
the payout is 24 or 48 hours then so be it. This is what it used to be. I
think EBay used to say it was to ensure the funds had been paid and were
available for payout. OK it earned them a bit but I was always ok with
that. I think Vtd has got them scared. Have you seen the new Vtd
advertising encouraging people to sell other things other than clothes!
Give us back our postage EBay … NOW! Then look at the other things.

[gjalp]

I think Vtd is doing a tit for tat thing. Ebay brought in free to sell, Vtd has expanded their categories. Both have up-ticked their TV advertising. It feels like Im watching the start of a marketplace war! Those that lose out are the sellers. Vtd does managed delivery better. More options, longer dispatch times and the ability to extend that time ‘in case of real life getting in the way’. The only reason why I don’t use Vtd is the need to have the item scanned at drop off as I use postbox near my house as most of my items fit in there or I arrange a RM collection. 

[gjalp]

---

@jonatjonatjonat wrote:

Take a look at what Vinted call it if you need the answer to that....

---

Market place fee or something like that. I know its a lot clearer and described better

[theelench]

---

@jonatjonatjonat wrote:

Everyone - he's right. I'm wrong. Look at all that information. Its clear to me now that ebay haven't had to spend anything on IT security or infrastructure in years. I can't believe I thought they would. gmij1961. they. They know.

---

It's a great pity that the exchange of views between you and @gmij1961  over the past couple of days can't be split off and pinned as a separate thread.

It's such a good example of how a discussion board can work when both sides of an argument are listening to the other's input and views and are willing to take them on board.

That it debunks ebay's excuses for introducing BPF and mis-naming it to make it look like something it isn't is really beside the point (most contributors here had already worked that out for themselves anyway).  What is remarkable is that the ebay defence side is actually willing to accept the available evidence and admit that to begin with they had been swayed by ebay's marketing.

Kudos to you both.

[jonatjonatjonat]

No. It’s Buyer Protection Fee.

there it includes….

Refund policy

secure transactions(!!!!)

Support

[jonatjonatjonat]

Sorry I should clarify for anyone who might care. My final response on that was dripping in sarcasm.

[theelench]

Oh shame on you! ! 

 There was I thinking that one of the ebay faithful had seen through all its b s, and been persuaded by logic and sound argument that what ebay tells us is not always transparent or true. 

My mistake.  🤣

[jonatjonatjonat]

This is worth a read - https://www.adyen.com/en_GB/knowledge-hub/ebay
as is this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Industry_Data_Security_Standard#Compliance_versus_validat...

For a start - if one wonders where the money has to go for 'protection'. And that's not to mention preventing script injections, ensuring security, ensuring continued compliance with various regulatory requirements, real time monitoring, vulnerability scans, audits etc...

[suelel1968]

@jonatjonatjonat please can you make a thread of your own?

[moonlight-rhapsody]

"if one wonders where the money has to go for 'protection'. And that's not to mention preventing script injections, ensuring security, ensuring continued compliance with various regulatory requirements, real time monitoring, vulnerability scans, audits etc..."

There are a zillion ecommerce companies that have to do all these things but I don't know of any other company apart from ebay that tries to portray the cost of doing so as some sort of special "protection".  It's exactly the same mindset on ebay's part as calling this complicated delivery system as "Simple".  They think if they give it a special word, we'll fall for it.  In other words, they think their customers are stupid and gullible.  Some may be, but most aren't.