'Simple Delivery' failed, now a test case - worried

[richardb196]

Private Seller here, I sold a gold sovereign for £590 on ebay and was forced to use "Simple Delivery" as you all know. Both ebay and RM tracking show it as delivered, RM say they left it in a safe place and uploaded a photo. Seller says package has gone "missing" and he will raise a case with ebay!

I see some help pages on ebay saying I am covered for the loss but another page says gold is in the excluded list for 'Simple Delivery' even though they do not offer any other postal service.

Who is going to end up eating the loss I wonder?

Cheers

Rich

[edwardian-dreams]

I seriously do not think ebays Ai is capable of doing that 

I mean they can’t even get the basics right   As proven to date 

[*vyolla*]

---

@xyz307xyz wrote:

Did you print the label yourself or get a label using QR at Post Office?

---

QR at the PO, which is why I asked to look at the labels on the two separate visits I made for each order, I was expecting to see the 'Marketplace Seller' bit on them.

[xyz307xyz]

If I understood correctly, when Simple Delivery first came in, it was spotted that PO QR printed labels were different. I thought there was talk of them e.g. having prices, sizes and weights on; i.e. looking not much different to a normal tracked label. The impression I got was that is was still considered as a "Simple Delivery".

[department28]

If the OP was pretty sure their item was listed with Simple Delivery postage - and that was what they believed they purchased - but the label they received was a 'normal' RM Tracked 48 label... well, the plot thickens...

If an item isn't eligible for SD, surely some sort of warning should flag up before postage is purchased? There are always messages popping up if item specifics are missing, so it ought not to be possible to buy SD postage for valuables etc - at least not without ticking a box 'I have read & understood the Simple Delivery T&Cs', or something along those lines.

[lucy_farmer]

'If an item isn't eligible for SD, surely some sort of warning should flag up before postage is purchased? There are always messages popping up if item specifics are missing, so it ought not to be possible to buy SD postage for valuables etc - at least not without ticking a box 'I have read & understood the Simple Delivery T&Cs', or something along those lines.'

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

Precisely.

I think ebay have decided that they can't make S.D. postage impossible for every  item that is on the hysterically long exclusion list (read Evri's!).

If they did that without leaving an alternative, insured choice of postage open to sellers (ie NOT mandatory Simple Delivery)  they lose a huge amount of sales. (i.e. no phones, no tablets, no cameras, ....etc etc)

The 'I have read and understood the T's and C's' box : would that cover them legally?

I think institutions are getting wise to the fact that almost nobody reads everything and understands it. (re; the 'sacrifice of your first born' clause in an experimental webpage some years ago and the 'brown M&M clause in a rock group's rider to check if anybody read the darn thing....)

I can't imagine ebay doing anymore than "Tough, you didn't read the small print"  😢

[j.p.greenwood]

There's been too many cases recently of institutions being forced, years later, to hand back large amounts of cash as their T's & C's hid 'unenforceable' clauses, the current one is to do with car finance.

I could almost guarantee that 'forcing' the use of a specific service, that does not provide legal compensation cover, while NOT actively telling buyer at time and point of purchase is the path to a similar payout in years to come.

That's the reason E-Bay should make changes to this, it's the forced aspect that'll cause them the problem.

Personally, I really couldn't care less about the minutiae of Simple Delivery, if it included the ability to use Special Delivery within it (yes they'd probably need to change fee structure and other changes) as simplistically, I'm never going to ship high value electronics using any other delivery service.

The 'every point along the way' tracking gives me peace of mind and I know that RM treat Special Delivery parcels 'more gingerly' in their internal network, due to the timed delivery service requirement.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@*vyolla* wrote:

---

@xyz307xyz wrote:

Did you print the label yourself or get a label using QR at Post Office?

---

QR at the PO, which is why I asked to look at the labels on the two separate visits I made for each order, I was expecting to see the 'Marketplace Seller' bit on them.

---

I believe that big "Marketplace Seller" bit is there so that when someone prints their own label the PO counter can see straight away it is an SD label indicating the package should be accepted without question. If the label is being generated from a QR code the terminal likely informs the postmaster it is an SD label so there would be no need to print that information on the label as well.

Everything that happens at RM after the package has been accepted at the PO counter is automated through barcode scans; i.e. the "Marketplace Seller" text is almost certainly there for the sole benefit of the accepting postmaster if the seller has printed their own label. 

[*vyolla*]

Makes sense, thanks.

[richardb196]

I have some final thoughts, - the ebay CS rep has convinced me that I did not use 'simple delivery' but instead user Royal Mail Tracked 48. Here is the evidence -

this is postage info for 'simple delivery'

 this is postage info for the 'missing' package -

Unless ebay went to extraordinary lenghts to doctor the evidence I accept that I inadvertently used RM Tracked 48, but why?

My theory is that having used 'simple delivery' on several previous sales the contentious listing was silently disqualified from 'simple delivery' and I was only presented with a list of non 'simple delivery' options, the top of the list (and the one selected by defualt) is RM Tracked 48. Unaware of any changes from the previous sales I have got click happy and just pressed "go". 

Amusingly whenever I have spoked to CS over this issue they always thank me for being a loyal customer for 19 years with 100% feedback on hundreds of sales and purchases, the next time they give me this dialogue will will tell them what is the point of being a loyal customer when it earns me no kudos or consideration!

I have logged a case with RM for the lost package but compensation for Tracked 48 is limited to £150.

Oh well, it's only money!

Cheers

[department28]

'My theory is that having used 'simple delivery' on several previous sales the contentious listing was silently disqualified from 'simple delivery' and I was only presented with a list of non 'simple delivery' options, the top of the list (and the one selected by defualt) is RM Tracked 48. Unaware of any changes from the previous sales I have got click happy and just pressed "go". 

If this is what happened, you would have to have purchased the RM Tracked 48 label. Wondered if you remembered having to make a payment? 

Sorry the outcome is not a better one...😞 

[pinemarten56]

But it seems it can have both? see pic attached.

[1956glyn]

You may have to fight with Royal Mail because they usually only cover you for compensation if bullion/gold etc is sent by Special Delivery 😞

[4_bathrooms]

---

@richardb196 wrote:

I have some final thoughts, - the ebay CS rep has convinced me that I did not use 'simple delivery' but instead user Royal Mail Tracked 48. Here is the evidence -

this is postage info for 'simple delivery'

 this is postage info for the 'missing' package -

---

That is pretty conclusive; it was not a "Simple" Delivery label.

---

@richardb196 wrote:

Unless ebay went to extraordinary lenghts to doctor the evidence I accept that I inadvertently used RM Tracked 48, but why?

My theory is that having used 'simple delivery' on several previous sales the contentious listing was silently disqualified from 'simple delivery' and I was only presented with a list of non 'simple delivery' options, the top of the list (and the one selected by defualt) is RM Tracked 48. Unaware of any changes from the previous sales I have got click happy and just pressed "go". 

---

This is what I posited in an earlier post I made. We can all see from looking at your sold items that the live listing appeared to be offering "Simple" Delivery. The postage cost on the listing was £3.94 which is what the buyer would have paid for an SD label. However, eBay have charged you £2.70 for a Tracked 48 label which is what RM and eBay charge for a Tracked 48 label purchased online. This anomaly means you almost certainly were not told when creating the listing that the item would be sent by any other means than SD; i.e. the SD option was silently disabled. I'm almost certain you never had the option to send it Special Delivery Guaranteed either so you were set up to fail if an "item not received" case was opened.

I certainly would not be rolling over if this had happened to me! I would appeal, request a final decision then take the matter up with the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Out of curiosity was the label for the other coin you sent SD or not?

---

@richardb196 wrote:

I have logged a case with RM for the lost package but compensation for Tracked 48 is limited to £150.

---

They will almost certainly refuse to pay out. RM state any valuables must be sent Special Delivery Guaranteed. The terms (PDF file) for non-account Tracked services state:

"You may not use the Non Account Products to send any Valuables except only in relation to non-
transferable tickets which are permitted strictly in accordance with Clause 6.12. If you breach this
obligation then you do so at your own risk and, to the fullest extent permitted by law, we exclude
all liability to you such in circumstances (and, to avoid doubt, we will not pay any compensation to
you in such circumstances)."

[lucy_farmer]

Oh blimey Richard 🙁 if that's what happened, you have my sympathy.

[johnwash1]

---

@j.p.greenwood wrote:

There's been too many cases recently of institutions being forced, years later, to hand back large amounts of cash as their T's & C's hid 'unenforceable' clauses, the current one is to do with car finance.

I could almost guarantee that 'forcing' the use of a specific service, that does not provide legal compensation cover, while NOT actively telling buyer at time and point of purchase is the path to a similar payout in years to come....

---

You raise a good point.  If at any stage I would otherwise terminate my ebay account, in view of this I shall leave it open, so I'm eligible for the payout.  Thank you for the heads up.

[richardb196]

I have 'deduct cost from funds' checked so I did not have to make a manual payment

[4_bathrooms]

---

@richardb196 wrote:

I have 'deduct cost from funds' checked so I did not have to make a manual payment

---

Actually, that raises another anomaly.

The buyer paid £3.94 for a label that was never generated whilst you paid £2.70 for a Tracked 48 label.

What happened to the £3.94 paid by the buyer; i.e. did eBay pocket it or would they have refunded the buyer as if the seller hadn't used the label?

[lucy_farmer]

'What happened to the £3.94 paid by the buyer; i.e. did eBay pocket it?'

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

OP needs to ask the buyer is they got a postage refund...

If they *did* that would prove the sale was on a simple delivery page, at least to begin with?

[4_bathrooms]

---

@lucy_farmer wrote:

'What happened to the £3.94 paid by the buyer; i.e. did eBay pocket it?'

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

OP needs to ask the buyer is they got a postage refund...

If they *did* that would prove the sale was on a simple delivery page, at least to begin with?

---

The buyer received a full refund via the INR case.

I was wondering what would have happened had the INR case never been opened. I'm fairly certain it would be treated the same as if the seller had used their own label purchased outside eBay; i.e. the buyer would (eventually) be refunded for the label they purchased but ultimately never existed.

[wellingnorth]

Do you think it would be worth the original poster trying a 'sell similar' from the sold item and see what postage option is pre-selected?