'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

[450-262541]

I don't know if anyone else here feels the same as me, but if someone who knows how could set up a Go-Fund me for the OP I'd happily make a small donation to either help him fight this or just recoup some of his loss.

I think all of us that have followed this have learnt a very great deal about what we can and can't trust from ebay/ Simple Delivery through his unfortunate experience and I'd like to think that collectively we could do more than just commiserate with him at this point.

If we all bought him a drink it might add up...

[4_bathrooms]

---

@wellingnorth wrote:

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?

---

For the purposes of evidence for the Ombudsman; yes!

This is what I'm fairly certain has happened:

1. The listing form automatically enrolled the item into "Simple" Delivery as the value was over £10.00 & less than £750.00, the weight was less than 20kg and the longest side was shorter than 120cm.

2. When the buyer purchased the item eBay's automata realised the item was "prohibited" for "Simple" Delivery so it generated a non-SD Tracked 48 label instead. eBay deducted the cost of the label from the OP's available funds.
3. eBay treated the INR case as a standard, non-SD case. As there was no signature obtained on delivery the OP lost the case.

The issue here is that at no point was the OP told or warned that the item would not be sent with a "Simple" Delivery label. Worse, eBay's automaton automatically generated and charged the OP for a postage label that was wholly unsuitable for the item being sent. At no point was the OP made aware their item was being sent without any valid insurance nor that the decisions made by eBay's automata had left them with no protection from eBay; protection the OP had reasonable grounds to assume was being provided. During the whole process the OP was never given any choice other than to use the unsuitable Tracked 48 label that was unknowingly sold to them by eBay. 

I really don't see how eBay can just wash their hands of the matter.

[sunflowers4me59]

I've not seen anything we trust from ebay during the last 3-4 months.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@450-262541 wrote:

I don't know if anyone else here feels the same as me, but if someone who knows how could set up a Go-Fund me for the OP I'd happily make a small donation to either help him fight this or just recoup some of his loss.

---

There really isn't any need.

The OP should appeal eBay's decision and obtain a "final decision" from them. Then, they can take the matter up with the Financial Ombudsman Service which costs nothing. Provided the Ombudsman sees sense - which I'm sure they would - they would direct eBay to compensate the OP.

[johnwash1]

---

@4_bathrooms wrote:

---

@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.

---

I don't see how it could have been SD.  To purchase non-SD postage you need the buyer's address.  If it's SD you don't get the buyer's address until you generate the SD label.

At least, that's my understanding, but I don't think I'm yet on SD.

[department28]

If Simple Delivery had never happened (if only...!) would the OP have selected Royal Mail Tracked 48 voluntarily for this item?

If so, unfortunately they would still find themselves in the same position - not adequately covered for a INR/scam situation like this.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@department28 wrote:

If Simple Delivery had never happened (if only...!) would the OP have selected Royal Mail Tracked 48 voluntarily for this item?

If so, unfortunately they would still find themselves in the same position - not adequately covered for a INR/scam situation like this.

---

The difference being if the OP had been given the choice of using Tracked 48 or Special Delivery Guaranteed then consciously chose to use Tracked 48 it would rightly have been their own fault. 

However, it seems the OP wasn't given any choice but to use the Tracked 48 label sold to them by eBay. That makes a world of difference. 

[theelench]

I've just deleted my final listing on ebay, a £749 glass lamp that ebay enrolled into SD with RM postage of Tracked 48(?)   @ £7.98?.

I only left it live as a test to see what ebay would think was an appropriate service when it was switched over.  Left to my own devices it would have been sent double boxed with so much packing it would probably have needed to go by ParcelForce.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@johnwash1 wrote:

---

---

I don't see how it could have been SD. 

---

It wasn't.

The OP's sold listing shows a "Simple" Delivery postage charge that the buyer would have paid on purchase. However, eBay's automaton then decided the item was unsuitable for SD so charged the OP for a Tracked 48 label instead. I'm guessing eBay would have refunded the buyer what they paid for the SD label - a label that was never generated - if an INR case had not been involved. 

[sml192]

---

@richardb196 wrote:

this is postage info for the 'missing' package -

---

Something doesn't add up here as according to that screenshot the label was created on 27th May 2025 which is 2 days before the coin sold on 29th May? 

That appears to be the only item that you sold around that date though.  The last sale before that was the other gold sovereign that sold on 17th May which ties in with the Simple Delivery label created on the 18th May that you provided a screenshot of. 

[4_bathrooms]

---

@theelench wrote:

I've just deleted my final listing on ebay, a £749 glass lamp that ebay enrolled into SD with RM postage of Tracked 48(?)   @ £7.98?.

---

That's bizarre!

"Simple" Delivery Tracked 48 has no such cost whether just Royal Mail or both couriers are selected. Also, Royal Mail Online has no such rate for Tracked 48.

£7.98 less VAT is £6.65 which is what eBay has listed for a 2-10kg parcel with Royal Mail only selected. However, that price should be shown including VAT. 

I know you said you deleted the item but is it still in your unsold items?

[nursediesel]

I suggest everyone contact Citizens advice, CMA, BBC, Guardian and others about what is happening here. I put together a form letter that I posted on another thread that you can use if you dont want to put in the effort of writing up your own. Just read it and make changes and updates based on your experience as you want to be totally honest when making these allegations.

Your Name
Your Address
Postcode
Email Address
Date

---

Subject: Restriction of Seller Autonomy and Potential Abuse of Market Position by eBay UK

To whom it may concern,

I am a UK-based seller on eBay and wish to raise a formal complaint concerning what I believe to be anti-competitive practices and unfair restrictions on seller autonomy imposed by eBay UK.

As of [insert month/year you noticed the change], eBay has removed the option for sellers like myself to opt out of their proprietary shipping program:

These programs forcibly override my own shipping preferences and compel me to use eBay as a freight broker—without meaningful consent, transparency, or control over the delivery process. Previously, sellers had the ability to disable such programs or choose direct services (e.g., Royal Mail, Evri, UPS) with full control over pricing, service tiers, and tracking. That ability has now been silently and irreversibly removed.

This situation raises several serious concerns:

1. Loss of Commercial Autonomy: I am unable to fulfil orders using carriers and service levels I trust and prefer. eBay’s system overrides this and masks actual shipping choices from buyers.

2. Hidden Fees and Inflated Costs: Buyers are charged inflated shipping rates, but I do not receive this money nor do I have clarity on how it is used or calculated.

3. Forced Use of a Single Intermediary: eBay inserts itself as a mandatory shipping broker, effectively limiting my right to contract freely with a third party courier. This could be seen as an abuse of market dominance under UK competition law.

4. No Redress or Complaint Mechanism: eBay offers no internal complaint route for challenging these policy-level impositions. Attempts to contact eBay UK support yield only generic responses or redirection to irrelevant help articles.

This is particularly damaging for small and individual sellers who rely on transparent, competitive shipping options to offer value and retain customers.

I believe this policy change may breach:

• Consumer Rights Act 2015 – Unfair contract terms

• Competition Act 1998 – Abuse of dominant position (Chapter II Prohibition)

• Unfair Trading Regulations – Lack of transparency and misleading omissions

I request that this issue be investigated by the relevant authorities and that pressure be applied to ensure eBay UK complies with fair competition and consumer protection standards. At minimum, sellers should have the ability to opt out of these shipping programs and regain control over how their items are delivered.

Please confirm receipt of this complaint. I am happy to provide screenshots, policy documentation, or further details on request.

Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]

[punzel9072]

I find it difficult to understand that a gold coin would be sent by a delivery service that only offers compensation up to £150, when clearly the value would be in excess of that.
Also, a gold coin in almost any reasonable form of package would fit through a letterbox, so why would it be lift in a 'safe place'?

[4_bathrooms]

---

@punzel9072 wrote:

I find it difficult to understand that a gold coin would be sent by a delivery service that only offers compensation up to £150, when clearly the value would be in excess of that.

---

eBay's automaton decided the item was classed as "valuables" so wasn't allowed to be sent by SD then purchased a label at the OP's expense for a postage service that doesn't insure valuables for loss or damage in transit.

---

@punzel9072 wrote:

Also, a gold coin in almost any reasonable form of package would fit through a letterbox, so why would it be lift in a 'safe place'?

---

The picture provided by the OP shows three packages that were presumably delivered together. One of the items clearly would not fit through a letterbox so it seems the postie decided to leave all of them together in a "safe place".

[4_bathrooms]

---

@nursediesel wrote:

• Unfair Trading Regulations – Lack of transparency and misleading omissions

---

Just pointing out the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations were recently revoked and replaced with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act.

[lucy_farmer]

'I find it difficult to understand that a gold coin would be sent by a delivery service that only offers compensation up to £150, when clearly the value would be in excess of that.'

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

If the OP wasn't using the  S.D. system he would have been posting by Special delivery.. ... had he been given the choice.  Which he wasn't.

He was pushed into S.D. ; that is obvious when you look at his 'sold' page. the items were £3.42 postage and 2-3 days delivery .These are S.D. figures.

There can be no argument that these were listed as Simple Delivery items.

It's what happened once they were sold , is where the mystery is.

It looks like they were given a label for non-S.D. bog standard postage- (not Special ) but the seller was not aware of this change of label.

No seller of gold coins would *choose* to send sovereigns uninsured........!

'Also, a gold coin in almost any reasonable form of package would fit through a letterbox, so why would it be lift in a 'safe place'?'

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

That is also a mystery. Unless the letterbox was, for some strange reason, inaccessible or blocked?

[richardb196]

The 'missing' coin was sold on May 26th, I am looking at the order details now.

[roger_roger_over_and_nowt]

"The picture provided by the OP shows three packages that were presumably delivered together. One of the items clearly would not fit through a letterbox so it seems the postie decided to leave all of them together in a "safe place".".

Maybe the letterbox was broken,non existant or inaccessible.

BUT,maybe the postie did as they do where i live.Postie has 1 or more large parcels and 1 or more small packets.He/she puts all on floor,rings bell,taps door etc and gets ready to photograph (those required) whilst awaiting signs that someone is coming.

Once there are signs of movement the postie takes pics and then hands over ALL items when door opens.

If no sign of movement postie leaves card for redelivery of big one (as there is no safe place or signature is required) and posts small packets through letterbox.

Hence no items were ever left outside.

Maybe OP could do a streetmap search to see if address has a letterbox although pics may be out of date.

[technthread]

If it was a multi quantity listing, the sold filter that we can look at wont pick up every sale date. I’m guessing it was the listing with 3 sold.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@roger_roger_over_and_nowt wrote:

BUT,maybe the postie did as they do where i live.Postie has 1 or more large parcels and 1 or more small packets.He/she puts all on floor,rings bell,taps door etc and gets ready to photograph (those required) whilst awaiting signs that someone is coming.

Once there are signs of movement the postie takes pics and then hands over ALL items when door opens.

If no sign of movement postie leaves card for redelivery of big one (as there is no safe place or signature is required) and posts small packets through letterbox.

---

The problem with that theory is Royal Mail's tracking for the item stated it had been left in a "safe place" (from the OP's original post).