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.

[rugbyguy1960]

It's just so frustrating on here nowadays.

I've not listed anything since early April since I ended my last listings by choice because of SD.

I know this platform rarely ever does a u-turn regarding it's changes.

That's why I truly believe that if they compromise and make SD optional it would encourage a lot of sellers to start selling again, which in turn would increase the number of people buying.

Plus it would be so good if they stopped trying to enforce their will on people, especially regarding things that they must know by now are so unpopular.

[rugbyguy1960]

So much for things being fair for everyone.

[goodibags]

You seem very confident about being able to see into the future, possibly a lot more so than Ebay would be?

Leaving aside what you think of fellow Ebay users, you seem once again to be under the illusion that the only thing wrong with SD has been the way it was implemented? As if the things that had been rolled out on a Tuesday would have worked better if left to the Thursday, somehow?

But what if it really was SD that is the elephant-sized problem here, given the 'mass hysteria' (?) you've witnessed as users have attempted and failed to get SD to work for them? As well as failing to appreciate just how wonderful it could be if only it did.

In what way does widespread user reluctance 'show' that SD cannot possibly be made optional? Surely the opposite must be true. Being practical, why shouldn't SD be reserved for only those sales it's best suited to? As you say, Ebay may have agreed certain volume or revenue targets with its couriers. If so, why not open up selling on the platform once again to have a decent chance of actually hitting them? 😉

[rugbyguy1960]

Maybe it's because like in the past a lot of private sellers and buyers have moaned about unpopular changes but have just got on with things.

BUT that was then and not now. I know new things can take time to bed in but after nearly 5 months SD is still a mess. This time a lot of sellers have stopped selling plus a lot of users have gone onto other platforms.

These are facts, but as per usual no one at higher levels takes any notice.

This platform now is worse than I've known it to be in 20 years.

That cannot be called progress in any shape or form.

I like to think that I and many others hope this platform sees sense before things get any worse.

Maybe one day I'll start selling again on here.

[gmij1961]

Its an interesting scenario as any tax implications are between the seller an HRMC and although Ebay say they will block funds , its not their money and  they really should not be using it a lever to ensure such compliance .  What would  a more  "correct" approach is to prevent new listing or taking down listing if the seller has chosen not to comply.

I haven't listed anything since February so when I got the requests for NINO it was not going to interrupt any sales activity and also they do give you  about month to comply.

My feeling the HMRC are going to have a hell of lot of data to trawl through and  any immediate action will be limited to those who massively exceed the  current thresholds, this is not  they just an Ebay thing and Ebay probably isn't the  biggest pot they will be looking at   . There may  be a few more people getting self assessment forms but they will be looking at people who potentially owe £1000's in tax .

I  think the data will more likely to be used to work out how to claw in some of this potential tax revenue  from on line markets and the easiest long term is to do that at source I.E point of sale   . An irony is here before Ebay "abolished" sellers fees  20% of the those sales fee were passed on to the HMRC . I assume HMRC still get their 20% tax revenue via BPF fees , however as BPF is basically a insurance scam there is potential issue with that revenue .

To me the if BPF was stopped dead in its track's then the current "SD" ( Ebay delivery)  strategy would fall apart as well  . And if that were to happen then Ebay could actually implement an optional , honest SD offering to help sellers and develop it properly through its own merit  etc etc  🙂

[ceres_plantery]

HMRC should go for GIANT TRANSNATIONALS eg Google, FB, Amazon, but no they threaten the minnows, causing a lot of anxiety. Why should transnationals who trawl the ocean floor get away without even so much of a slap and some Apple boss even boasted about they respected the spirit of taxation laws. In the EU, they won't get away with it. 

Buyers don't like to work out HOW MUCH IS THE FINAL PRICE for an item. Why not make it transparent. Now I have to factor in £3.38 postage and then crawl back money for boxes, tapes, pencils, stuffing materials which have to be reflected in the prices. So basically, the prices seem to be hard. But £3.38 doesn't fly the item to the buyers and buyers want to see TOTAL PRICES upfront. This learning curve is ruining business. 

[lucy_farmer]

'This learning curve is ruining business. '

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

Unfortunately ebay want sellers like you to go on to a business account  - this is one of the reasons ebay are making life awkward for large-volume 'private' sellers.

Because business sellers pay fees - ebay had to go to 'free to sell' for private sellers to compete with Vint*d etc.

Ebay generally don't care about UK online selling laws etc.  These state 'buying,  making or growing things for the purposes of selling them' is a business activity (which needs to display their contact details on every listing and is impossible on a private account)

Those reguations chime with ebay's desire to get in more business fees, so *now* they do care... 

[crn303]

Hello goodibags … spot on with your comments in each paragraph.

[crn303]

Agreed … eBay can amend and reverse SD at any time they wish to.   Also, eBays agreement  to achieve dispatch targets is probably poppycock.  In the commerce world, contracts are cancelled or amended every day of the week.

[theelench]

I think you're right that a large proportion of the "massive over reaction" as @vinylscot has termed it is "the elephant-sized" problem for many and not just because they don't like change.

Ebay and Vinylscot IMO, hugely under estimate the reaction of private sellers to the removal of their freedom to make their own delivery arrangements, because it impacts them far more than the BPF and compulsory payment holds which although as objectionable, have not seen anywhere near the same level of complaint.

It didn't register with me until I read @1956glyn 's recent posts.  We are not full-time employees running ebay businesses, ebay is at best a part-time hobby, more often just an occasional de-cluttering exercise that has to be fitted into already busy lives that don't revolve around ebay.   Ebay has to fit around full-time employment, family commitments and even social or recreational activities, not the other way around.

Ebay has made a big mistake (IMO) by trying to make itself the center of those lives with it's "You must do it OUR way or go away" attitude.   As one option and assuming ebay ever gets SD to work properly (and isn't too obviously just a cash grabbing ploy) SD might become acceptable to the majority of private sellers.  But I don't think it will achieve anything like widespread acceptance all the while it tries to remove the flexibility that private sellers require to continue to sell on ebay.

[theelench]

Did we just have a glitch??

[vinylscot]

You're putting words into my mouth.

Nowhere did I state (or have I ever stated) that the only thing wrong with SD was its implementation. There are many problems, which must be addressed. It is not yet fit for purpose.

But we have to live in the real world, not the wishy-washy "wouldn't it be nice" world, where binding long-term contracts worth many many millions of pounds can just be scrapped by one party, particularly if it's the one party which has actually created the problems. If you were RM or Evri, would you let eBay out of their commitment?

eBay's incompetence in implementing SD would probably result in the majority of users refusing to use SD if it was optional (unless eBay did something drastic with its pricing). There's not a hope that making it optional could entice more users to use it.

SD is NOT going to be reversed, or even made optional. I'm forced to use it on my private account, but I don't like it, and I'm fed up with folk on here trying to claim that I do. It's a mess, but we're stuck with it.

[a_j_bingham]

I think it’s important to remember that the disclosure rules for selling goods or services on digital platforms were introduced by the government, not by eBay. If eBay doesn’t comply with those rules, they get fined.

I’m not sure about the freezing of funds, but I would imagine that’s eBay’s policy. There’s probably something in their terms and conditions about that.

As far as what the rules mean in practice, those exceeding the thresholds will likely receive a standard letter from HMRC notifying them of their responsibilities. If they’re not trading or making capital gains, they can disregard that letter.

HMRC may make further enquiries at any time. It would seem sensible to focus those enquiries on people with the largest amount of sales, and over multiple years.

I’m sure information will be passed across irrespective of whether a person provides their National Insurance number or not. HMRC are just trying to catch those who are trading and not declaring it. I think that’s a good thing.

If you’re genuinely selling old personal possessions, I really wouldn’t worry about it.

[goodibags]

I don't know why you shouldn't try being more optimistic? Ebay has already rolled back on the ridiculous Buyer Fee rates we had up until last month. Ebay has also caved in on payment retention too. Remember it's a profit-seeking corporation. Why shouldn't it do whatever it takes to get sellers and buyers back onto the platform and sale volumes possibly recovering? Including, if necessary, making SD optional.

When you say "There's not a hope that making it optional could entice more users to use it." that's giving the game away. What you're saying is that SD can only 'work' if made compulsory because it is genuinely uncompetitive? If so, you've admitted that SD IS the ginormous elephant sitting on the platform.

[infohelps]

So this is how I understand your position.   If it were up to you, you'd rather not have SD, as you recognise it is a flawed system, not yet fit for purpose, but  you feel that the investment in the time and effort trying to get to grips with it, is, in your case, worth it.  Sounds reasonable to me, and I'm sure that there will be many who share that opinion. 

The majority of us here, on the other hand, do not feel that the investment in our time is worth it for our own personal reasons.   However, we like to hang around here to keep abreast of what is going on.  We do not need eBay, so we don't feel the need to act like eBay employees, and we are sitting back and calmly watching the s$^t s&*w unfold.    We also want to keep in the loop just in case eBay makes SD optional again, even if that is about as likely as seeing a flying pig.  (However, there are usually get-out clauses in corporate contracts which may come into play if numbers do not meet that which was anticipated.  Do I hear a distant 'oink'?).   All of the above must surely seem reasonable to you. 

What I'm not entirely sure about, is, why you keep coming back here to converse with people who seem to be a great source of frustration for you?   You have said previously that you don't want to change our minds about SD and you are 'fed up' with people misunderstanding you and feel that many of us are suffering from 'mass hysteria'  so, respectfully,  it doesn't seem to be the best use of your time.  

[crn303]

Spot on, infohelps …. Some people hear only what they want to hear.  Also continue to revisit and use this thread which they have repeatedly dismissed !!

[goodibags]

We need a new thread called 'NO LONGER VISITING THE THREAD CALLED 'NO LONGER SELLING DUE TO SIMPLE DELIVERY''.

For those with extra time on their hands but not so keen to attribute it to SD?

[akemp1]

---

@goodibags wrote:

We need a new thread called 'NO LONGER VISITING THE THREAD CALLED 'NO LONGER SELLING DUE TO SIMPLE DELIVERY''.

For those with extra time on their hands but not so keen to attribute it to SD?

---

The commitment to reading every message in this thread over the past nearly 5 months has been more than any other consecutive reading task I have ever achieved.

I think we have literally given ebay 'War and Peace' on this change.

Google reckons W&P has 587,287 words and with 8,657 messages then it would only take an average of 67 words per message to be comparable.

This reply alone has 74 words (excluding quote).

[gmij1961]

Ebay haven't really rolled back on the buyer fees , they have just changed on how they get charged .  So  a lower flat fee that will be less of a deterrent on lower priced items and starting bids but they have increased the sliding charge so at the end of the day Ebays BPF revenue should remain and potentially earn them more if it encourages more sales and bids . 

It makes a bad set-up a bit  better .  I think you will find that Ebay's  BPF fess are still higher in comparison to other platforms.  

The biggest change is changing the delay in payment as that was simply wrong as the seller can not be held responsible for delivery , the sellers  responsibility quite clearly ends when the item is dispatched  and given the implementation of "AI" listing tools the seller has reduced responsibility for description issues .

BPF is still a scam as anything  sold  on line and posted  is already covered to a large degree by distance selling laws  ( which they fail to make clear !)and whilst we all may be happy if Ebay made SD optional there perhaps is far more compelling case to make BPF optional . 

Ebay's problem is they really did not  understand  or promote the strength of their  own model and have ended up to to copy there own imitators .

[akemp1]

---

@gmij1961 wrote:

The biggest change is changing the delay in payment as that was simply wrong..

---

They seem to have completely given up on that for established users.

 So complete u-turns, on some scale, are possible.

I sold an item yesterday, printed the label and the money was available later that evening - before I even posted it this morning. I've already re-spent it on something that was on my wishlist.

Everyone wins and common sense has prevailed on that issue.