Simple Delivery Returns – eBay Making It Difficult to Offer Good Customer Service?

[shotonvintage.mvp]

Simple Delivery Returns – eBay Making It Difficult to Offer Good Customer Service?

Hi all,

I wanted to raise something that’s been really frustrating and see if others are experiencing the same.

It feels like eBay is starting to make it difficult for sellers to offer good customer service to buyers, even when we’re trying to do the right thing.

In my case, I sold a camera lens using Simple Delivery with no issues sending it out. The buyer then opened a standard “item not as described” request, but after speaking with them, it became clear there was no fault—they just decided it wasn’t for them.

Rather than refusing the return (which I could have done), I chose to handle it as a goodwill gesture. My view is simple: I’d rather the buyer is happy than stuck with something they don’t want. That’s the kind of service I’d expect myself, so it’s how I try to operate as both a buyer and seller.

The issue came when trying to process the return. Normally, with Simple Delivery, it’s straightforward—label generated, item comes back, done. But this time, eBay would not generate a return label.

After speaking to multiple agents, and eventually the leadership team, I was told I’d need to arrange the return myself off-platform.

Some agents hinted there are known internal issues but couldn’t say more. When pushed further, it was suggested this is due to problems with returns—claims of damage, misuse of labels, etc. However, even the leadership team couldn’t clearly explain which categories this applies to or how it’s determined.

That in itself is concerning—if the system isn’t clearly understood internally, how are sellers supposed to manage risk properly?

The bigger issue is the impact this has on sellers trying to do the right thing. In this case:
- The item cost around £4 to send out using Simple Delivery
- To return it safely, I now have to arrange a fully insured Royal Mail service at around £15
- I’ve been told I cannot reclaim that cost because it’s arranged off-platform

So effectively, I’m being asked to:
- Accept a return I’m not obliged to take
- Cover significantly higher return costs
- Take on risk outside eBay’s system

All while trying to provide good customer service.

One of the most concerning parts of the conversation was being told (verbatim) that “we’ve had a lot of issues with returns” and that it can take a long time to recover losses from Royal Mail.

That raises a serious question—why is that being passed on to sellers?

It feels like eBay is effectively shifting its own operational issues onto users of the platform. I’ve never made a claim like that on a return, so why am I being treated as if I might?

If this is about misuse or fraud, surely that should be handled on a case-by-case basis, not by removing protection or functionality entirely without clear communication.

Also, there’s a wider inconsistency here:
- eBay encourages everything to stay on-platform
- Yet in this situation, I’m being forced off-platform for postage
- And then told I can’t reclaim the cost

That doesn’t feel aligned with how the platform is supposed to work.

Another point worth raising—if Simple Delivery can’t support returns in certain cases, shouldn’t that be made clear upfront? Sellers should be able to make informed decisions about how they send items, not find out at the return stage.

Finally, just browsing the forum, it seems like delivery and return issues are coming up a lot recently, so this doesn’t feel like an isolated case.

Has anyone else experienced this?
Or found a proper workaround?

Thanks 

[missdollydaydream]

The buyer then opened a standard “item not as described” request...

In that case you have the choice of issuing a returns label or allowing the buyer to keep the item without return.

If the buyer changes the INAD to a change of mind, you accept the return, buyer pays for label, you refund upon receipt of item.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@shotonvintage.mvp wrote:

In my case, I sold a camera lens using Simple Delivery with no issues sending it out. The buyer then opened a standard “item not as described” request, but after speaking with them, it became clear there was no fault—they just decided it wasn’t for them.

Rather than refusing the return (which I could have done)

---

Sellers cannot refuse return requests that are opened under the Money Back Guarantee (INAD). Private sellers can decline remorse returns provided they have selected the "no returns" option. All sellers can decline returns opened for any reason that are opened after the Money Back Guarantee window has expired.  

What specific reason did the buyer select for wanting to return the item?

[shotonvintage.mvp]

Thanks for your reply—that’s helpful, and to clarify, the buyer opened it as an INAD (“not working/defective”).

After speaking with them, they confirmed there’s no fault—they just didn’t like the dust that was already clearly shown and described, and the lens is fully working with test images provided.

As you’ll know, eBay doesn’t allow the reason to be changed, so in practice you just accept the return and move on—which is what I’ve done here as a goodwill gesture. That part isn’t the issue.

Where this situation differs is when I went to process the return, there was no option to generate a Simple Delivery return label. I was told to arrange it off-platform instead.

I queried this with eBay, and was told it applies to certain items/categories due to “issues with returns,” but no one—including the leadership team—could explain which items this applies to or how it’s determined.

So I’ve had to arrange a return myself, which means paying ~£15 to get an item back that cost ~£4 to send out, and because it’s off-platform, I can’t reclaim that cost.

That’s the real concern here—being required to go off-platform, take on additional cost and risk, and having no clear guidance on when or why this applies.

If this is now part of the system, sellers should at least be clearly informed before listing, as it materially affects how returns are handled.

[shotonvintage.mvp]

Thanks for your reply—if you get a chance, have a look at the response I’ve just put to 4_bathrooms as it explains the situation in a bit more detail.

I’m completely used to the usual INAD situations where something is technically “as described” but the buyer just doesn’t want it. That’s part of selling on eBay—you accept it back, relist it, and move on.

In most cases, you can reclaim postage, and even if not, it’s usually a small amount (around £4), so it’s not a major issue.

The problem here is different. I’ve been forced to arrange the return off-platform at a much higher cost (around £15), with no clear explanation as to why this applies to this item and not others.

There’s also no guidance on which categories this affects, and even support couldn’t clarify it.

I think most sellers would reasonably expect that if an item is sent via Simple Delivery, it should be returnable in the same way, at a similar cost and with the same protections.

That’s the part that doesn’t seem to make sense here.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@shotonvintage.mvp wrote:

Where this situation differs is when I went to process the return, there was no option to generate a Simple Delivery return label. I was told to arrange it off-platform instead.

---

Simple Delivery only applies to the outgoing postage/delivery; SD is not used for return labels. If you can't purchase a return label via the case you can purchase one from Royal Mail or a courier then upload the label/tracking to the case.

You must ensure tracking is added to the case - if you don't the buyer can escalate on the third day after opening the case. If they do this they are guaranteed a full refund at your expense and will be told they don't need to return the item.

[shotonvintage.mvp]

This is where the confusion really starts to deepen.

If Simple Delivery is only intended for outbound postage, then that’s not how it has operated in practice. Up until now, I’ve always been able to generate a return label within the case on-platform, with the same level of cover, simply by following the return process.

I don’t claim to be an expert on the technical side of how it’s labelled internally, but I’ve spoken to two members of the leadership team about this, and both referred to issues with items being returned through that same system. That’s the terminology they used when explaining why I was being directed off-platform.

So I’m not saying you’re wrong, and I’m not saying I’m right—but if what you’re saying is correct, it actually highlights a bigger concern, which is that even senior support staff don’t appear to have a clear understanding of how this process works or when it applies.

The key issue remains that I’ve been required to arrange a return off-platform at significantly higher cost, with no ability to reclaim that cost, and no clear explanation as to why this applies in this case.

That lack of clarity and consistency is the main concern here.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@shotonvintage.mvp wrote:

If Simple Delivery is only intended for outbound postage, then that’s not how it has operated in practice. Up until now, I’ve always been able to generate a return label within the case on-platform, with the same level of cover, simply by following the return process.

---

When you purchase a return label via eBay you are either purchasing from Royal Mail or a parcel broker called Packlink. Your cover is with whichever of those you purchased the label from; this is different to Simple Delivery where eBay covers the sender against loss or damage in transit.

---

@shotonvintage.mvp wrote:

So I’m not saying you’re wrong, and I’m not saying I’m right—but if what you’re saying is correct, it actually highlights a bigger concern, which is that even senior support staff don’t appear to have a clear understanding of how this process works or when it applies.

---

If an eBay customer service representative told me the sky was blue I'd still look out of the window to check.

---

@shotonvintage.mvp wrote:

The key issue remains that I’ve been required to arrange a return off-platform at significantly higher cost, with no ability to reclaim that cost, and no clear explanation as to why this applies in this case.

---

I'm not sure where the higher cost is coming from. Assuming it is something postable (Royal Mail) there is no or very little difference between purchasing the return label via eBay or Royal Mail's online portal. In fact you have more options using Royal Mail directly as eBay return labels are always Tracked 24 or Tracked 48 if Royal Mail is the chosen carrier.

[4_bathrooms]

Just a thought - are you sure eBay hasn't already supplied a return label at your expense? This should be shown in the case if that is what has happened; i.e. it will state something about waiting for the buyer to return the item.

eBay usually does this if eBay Auto Approve is enabled here and the return matches the criteria specified.

[shotonvintage.mvp]

I understand your point regarding cover and where labels are purchased, but I think the main issue here is being missed slightly.

Up until now, returns have always been handled within the platform. That meant the process was consistent, and if a return was accepted in good faith, there was at least a route to recover costs where appropriate.

In this case, I’ve been pushed off-platform to arrange the return myself. That removes that consistency and also removes any ability to recover the return cost, despite this being handled as a goodwill return.

From discussions with support, it seems this is due to internal concerns around returns, but even senior staff couldn’t explain which items this applies to or how it’s determined.

That creates a bigger issue—because as sellers, we have no way of knowing this in advance. We can’t assess the risk properly before listing.

For example, I would reasonably expect that if it costs around £4 to send an item fully covered using Simple Delivery, it would be returned in a similar way. Instead, I’m now having to pay around £15 to get the same item back with equivalent cover.

That’s not a small difference, and it fundamentally changes the risk of selling certain items—without any clear guidance from the platform.

That lack of transparency and consistency is really the core concern here.

[therenewalworkshopltd]

amended...

[shotonvintage.mvp]

I get your point, and in principle I agree. In this case though, although the buyer has admitted in messages there’s nothing wrong with the lens and it’s just not for them, it was still opened as an INAD (“not working/defective”), so it has to be handled that way under eBay’s system.

Realistically, while I’m under no obligation to accept that, it’s generally not worth fighting. Most experienced sellers will just take it back, refund, relist, and move on. You might report it afterwards and often get the return postage refunded if it’s a false INAD—so it usually balances out and isn’t a big issue.

I don’t mind doing that in fairness—I’d rather someone be happy with what they buy.

The issue here is that I wasn’t able to process the return on-platform as normal. I’ve been forced to arrange it off-platform at a much higher cost (£15 vs ~£4), and because of that I can’t make the usual claim to recover the postage from a false INAD.

So the problem isn’t the return itself—it’s that the normal process (which protects both buyer and seller) has been removed, leaving me covering significantly higher costs with no way to recover them.

On top of that, when speaking to support and the leadership team, they acknowledged this is something that’s recently changed due to issues they’ve had with returns and claims. That effectively means their internal problem is now being passed onto sellers.

What’s more concerning is that when I asked where this change is documented, what items it applies to, and how we’re supposed to know this in advance, they couldn’t give a clear answer and admitted they weren’t sure themselves.

That’s the bigger issue for me—when using a platform like this, you need to know what you are and aren’t covered for. Up until now, returns have always been straightforward: generate the label on-platform, stay protected, and claim back costs where appropriate.

Being pushed off-platform like this is completely new to me and, as it stands, puts sellers at a clear disadvantage compared to how things previously worked.

[papso22]

If simply accepting the return through the case did not automatically generate a label paid for by you,  that has absolutely nothing to do with the outward postage being simple delivery.

It is not a process change.  Regardless of how outward postage was done  the return  postage for an item not as described case should not require the seller to go 'off ebay' for the postage.

There is something else going on here.

[shotonvintage.mvp]

Yeah, I definitely agree with you—that’s exactly what I said to them. It shouldn’t require going off-platform at all. Everything should be handled within the case, not forcing sellers to arrange it externally and then upload it back in.

What they alluded to on the phone was that they’ve had issues on certain items with returns, specifically where items are sent back and then a further claim is made saying they were returned damaged or not as described.

I understand those risks exist, but my point to them was that my account has no history of that—I’ve always accepted returns, confirmed they’re fine, and simply relisted. I actively try to minimise issues by using reliable couriers and keeping everything straightforward.

It sounded like they’re reacting to problems in certain categories (I’d assume things like lenses, phones, electronics), but instead of targeting that properly, it feels like it’s now affecting normal sellers without any clear guidance.

So I think you’re right—there’s definitely something going on behind the scenes. The issue is it’s not being communicated clearly, and what’s happened here doesn’t align with how the process has always worked.

[missdollydaydream]

Has the INAD case been closed? If not, Have you been charged for return postage? I'm confused as to who is forcing you to pay £15 for postage!

[sml192]

What was the value of the item?  Ebay return labels are only for standard Royal Mail Tracked services.  Items with a cost of £450 or more need to be returned using a tracked service with signature which eBay doesn’t provide.

[shotonvintage.mvp]

No, the INAD case isn’t closed yet.

This is where it’s been a bit different to normal. I spoke to eBay and they’ve already acknowledged it’s not really an INAD, but as usual they’ve said there’s no point disputing it—just accept the return, get the item back, and claim the postage afterwards.

The issue is when I’ve gone to do that, there’s been no option to generate a return label through the case like normal. Instead, I’ve been told to arrange it off-platform myself.

So effectively I’ve had to pay around £15 to send it back (to insure it properly), but because it’s been done off-platform, I’ve been told I won’t be able to claim that cost back in the usual way.

That’s the bit that doesn’t make sense—normally you’d just use the eBay label, stay covered, and claim it back if it’s a false INAD. In this case, I’m being told to do it differently but without the same protections.

So nothing’s been refunded or closed yet—it’s just that I’ve had to arrange it differently and cover the cost upfront with no clear way to recover it.

[missdollydaydream]

Ok, looks like an eBay rep has got it wrong and given you poor advice. You need to speak to a senior rep to resolve that. I still don't understand why buying postage privately costs c£11 more than eBay charge.

[shotonvintage.mvp]

It was under £450, so in normal circumstances it would fall within the standard eBay return label cover with no issues.

That’s actually part of the problem here—when I sent it out using eBay’s label, it cost just under £4 and was fully covered through the platform.

However, when I was directed to arrange the return off-platform, the equivalent Royal Mail service at that price point only covers up to £70. To get the item properly insured to its value, the only option available is Special Delivery, which pushes the cost up to around £15.

So it’s not that I’ve chosen a higher service unnecessarily—it’s that I’ve had to match the level of cover the item had when it was sent out, but without access to eBay’s pricing and protection.

That’s where the issue is coming from. If the return was handled on-platform as normal, it would have been the same ~£4 cost and covered correctly. Instead, I’ve been forced off-platform, which increases the cost significantly and removes the ability to recover it.

So it’s less about the value threshold itself, and more about being pushed into a different system that doesn’t offer the same rates or protections.

[podlingsmum2007]

I have never been successful in getting postage refunded, for what I believe was a false INAD case, but I have only had one in nineteen years.