Totally useless complaint system

[pixel24n]

I am incensed by the fact that a buyer can make out that an item was damaged on return when it clearly wasn't and where I was able to provide ample evidence to eBay when the item was returned to me that was the case and yet the buyer gets the return and my counter complaint about the buyer is totally disregarded.  eBay makes noises that it is greatly concerned about any dishonestey from buyers but that turns out to be completely without any intent and it total hot air.  So the buyer openly gets away with fraud and dishonesty and eBay effectively condones this. With policies like this is it any  wonder that we live in an increasinly dishonest society?

[pixel24n]

Thanks for your comment. As far as i understand it, and certainly when buying 2nd hand, once you have agreed to purchase it is assumed you have all the information you need to make the decision to buy and therefore once the purchse is made that is a contract and  binding agreement. It also means that if you don't have the information you have no one but yourself to blame aka 'Let the buyer beware'.  I don't sell  anything 'new' as in deliberately buying in new stock.  So, as far as I cn see caveat emptor is perfectly valid.  Besides it is made abundantly clear on the listing so from both angles if anyone is not happy after the purchase they have no one to blame but themsleves.  I do obviously accept returns if there is a reasonble basis for it.

[vinylscot]

I think you'll find "caveat emptor" does not apply at all to online purchases. It is very limited in its scope now, and certainly does not apply to instances where the purchaser has not even seen the item for sale. (If you think about it for just a minute, I'm sure you'll realise why.)

[pixel24n]

Fair comment, thank you. But perhaps that is even more reason why questions should be asked before purchase.  I now make very sure I do so with eB items for example because the criteria applies to me just as much as it does to anyone else.  So maybe the answer is be double sure you ask questions and if the resultant product does not match the anwers THEN, I feel there is a case to answer.

[pg_kicks]

---

@tressygirl wrote:

Infuriating and upsetting as it is,  and I fully agree and understand that,  the fact is,  eBay cannot actually see the item,  so cannot be sure / prove who is telling the truth,  buyer or seller. 

---

That is all good but when an item goes via Authentication but the buyer opens a return for item doesnt match description or pictures and then is returned via authentication and you get a reply saying we have refunded the buyer as we believe the item is in the same condition as it was sent out. So its either both me (who takes the picture) and the authentication team who are wrong that the item doesnt match or the buyer? Either way authentication are agreeing with us both which can not be right. So even if eBay were to see every item I know (proven with facts) that they would side with the buyer.

I'm currently going through a case now which was sent out fine, passed authentication then the buyer said theres damage to the shoe, sent it back authentication said its perfectly fine and I get it and the toe box is f**ked up, either ebay dont care or they employ people who need to take a golden retriever to work with them. I've had to send in pictures to prove the item I have received back via them is damaged but they are terrible at replying so chasing it it as I type.

[nigel_paul_wright7557]

UK distance selling laws state if the buyer isnt happy they can send the item back.

Nothing to do with ebays decision, ebay have too abide by the laws.

The only time a seller wins if buyer clains item not received but seller provides tracking.

[plpmr]

If you took legal advice before putting this red notice on your listings [the majority are brand new] I'd ask for my money back -

PLEASE NOTE:

In English law once a purchase  has been made then it is taken that a contract of agreement happened. In other words that the buyer was quite happy to make the purchase and knew beforehand whatever he or she needed to know about the product.  This is otherwise known as ‘caveat emptor’, “Let the buyer beware”.  Therefore, please be sure you ask any questions about an intended purchase before committing to buy.

[tressygirl]

@tressygirl wrote:

Infuriating and upsetting as it is,  and I fully agree and understand that,  the fact is,  eBay cannot actually see the item,  so cannot be sure / prove who is telling the truth,  buyer or seller. 

That is all good but when an item goes via Authentication but the buyer opens a return for item doesnt match description or pictures and then is returned via authentication and you get a reply saying we have refunded the buyer as we believe the item is in the same condition as it was sent out.

My apologies   @pg_kicks I was replying to the OP's post and didn't realise ( did I miss this)  that it went through the Authentication process?

---

[pixel24n]

Yes, they are 'new' in context that they have never been used but they are not bought in as current and new from a supplier. They are, as stated, from a collector who has had them in storage. Therefore, it is possible that some may not be in perfect condtion as  such.   Some of the locomotovies whilst 'new' because they had been bought many years ago neeed a little tlc and kick starting to get them going.   So I still feel it is still  perfectly fair to say make sure you ask any questions before you buy.  I have learned by experience buying on eB that that is vitally important.  If I get an answer and the item does not match the answer, THEN I have a case otherwise caveat emptor applies to me as much as anyone else.  In any case there was clear eveidence in this case that the buyer created the apparent damange, which proved not to ge damaage at all and eBay, apart from, as it turned out to be,  generating meaningless platitudes, showed no interest at all in that side of the case.    Much though eBay made a strong play in words  of being greatly concerned and would take action against any buyer who abused the return and refund facility, in effect that was totally meaningless.

[vinylscot]

You're beginning to sound a little silly now. You've been very polite, thanking people for their comments, but you are taking no notice of what you are being told.

Caveat emptor does NOT apply to transactions where the actual item for sale has not been seen - I don't believe it ever has. In any case, eBay's terms and conditions (which you agreed to abide with, when you joined), and the law of the land both take precedence over any additional terms you may attempt to insert into your listings.

I'm sorry you're not hearing what you want to hear. You need to suck it up and move in.

[dch2112011]

Just to join in the silliness -  

Would 'Caveat Venditor'  apply equally as 'Caveat emptor '

The principle of caveat venditor cautions that the seller is responsible for any problem that the buyer might encounter with a service or product.

There is a Latin phrase for most legal situations for some reason !

[pixel24n]

Thank you for your comment and I note your point. I have no wish to be impolite to people but eBay very clearly stated that they would be cum are greatly concerned with anyone abusing the return and refund policy and yet, having had clear evidence of that they totally ignored it,  meaning they clearly had no intention in the first place of following that statement through, at least  as far as I can see. 

From a number of comments it seems that the prime responsibility of the buyer to make at least a reasonable effort to ensure an item does what he or she expects, in other words, 'Let the buyer beware', is largely irrelvant. I learn as I go and thanks again for the  helpful suggestion/s.

[pixel24n]

In conclusion: Thanks everyone for your engagment, comments and advice and viewpoints on caveat emptor are noted, thank you.

To sumarise the facts. (1) The buyer claimed an item was missing. It was clearly stated in the listing it wasn't there.  and (2) when that was answered there is clear and indisputable evidence that the buyer contrived to show the item was damaged on receipt.

All round it is clear that eBay never had any intention of taking notice of the facts and will therefore always find in favour of the buyer regrdless.  Therefore I remain convinced that their complaints proceedure,  from seller angle,  whilst full of platitudes is a total waste of time. 

Thanks again everyone for your contributions.

[pg_kicks]

I don't know if it did or not, I was just pointing out that even when eBay see the item (twice) they still believe the buyer even if they have confirmed that it does match the description in the first place. So by using the eBay line of sorry we never see the item is a bit pointless as when they do they still just side with the buyer.

[arkwebus]

I do not think that I have ever heard of a situation where eBay has seen an item in dispute let alone twice!

Can you please explain what happened?

@pg_kicks 

[dch2112011]

As a thought would a buyer think the system unfair when it sides with the seller ? -  with two sides to every return one or the other is going to feel aggrieved and blame ebay. It's the easiest option !

So what is better side all the time with the sellers who of course are always honest or side with the buyers who are also always honest ?

Do sellers never return anything they purchase from anywhere ? Or do they only protest when they are selling not when they are buying ? 

Of course ebay could charge every seller the cost of having every return delivered to them have them inspected and returned with a report to the seller. It would work but at what cost to the seller ? I would think you would see sellers hitting the refund buyer button quicker than it takes to breathe. Then of course they would blame ebay again - and the cycle continues !

[pixel24n]

An interesting series of hypothotese but, if that is pointing towards my instance in any way, please remember that that (a) the facts were clear enough without eBay needing to see an item (pictures also supplied and video offered) and (b) eBay's decision openly condones dishonesty.  

[pg_kicks]

Just type in Authentication guarantee scheme and it will explain it for you, any returns be that faulty, not matching item description or just doesnt fit need to go back via eBay. They then should check this is correct, sadly this fails numerous times. They cant possibly say the item doesnt match the description or is faulty and return as they have already confirmed the shoe is as description and its faulty when I send out, but I've not had a single one rejected.

Also they need to check for wear, I get 1 a month that I need to send back as somehow eBay have missed the dirt in the shoe, so I'd not hold much belief that even if they saw the item in other categories theyd not side with the buyer, some of the worn shoes I've had back are a disgrace. Its something I'm constantly complaining to eBay about, the staff are not correctly trained and many dont even know the eBay policy.

@dch2112011 

Im fine with returns, its when its abused I have the issue, if you wear the trainers and then return them that should be rejected but its not, eBay see these dont still accept them. The same as when you claim they are faulty or nto as described, not sure you know about the deal with trainers but they go to eBay first who confirm everything is correct in the listing, they are genuine and not faulted. So how does a buyer open a return for INAD, not genuine or faulted and then eBay agrees with them, thats basically eBay admitting they either got it wrong the first time or the second time (the buyer has damaged them/swapped one shoe).

I'm more than happy accepting returns, but I know that eBay side with the buyer even with cast iron evidence provided by eBay themselves.

[dch2112011]

What I wrote was tongue in cheek - not aimed at anyone,  the problem is How do you decide whether a seller or buyer is correct with their opinions? 

Legally I believe that he only way is to have an independant specialist to write an inspection report - this I believe can include the manufacturer  and this is at the seller's cost. 

This makes it a nonsense for low value items - reality is that if an item is returned in saleable condition the financial loss in real terms to a seller is minimal - postage or if received 'used' anywhere up to  50% .

Take authenticated trainers - buyer tries them on for a day - they hurt his feet - he blames the trainers - the seller blames the buyers feet - Who is right ?  The manufacturer whose size 9 is narrower than a competitor ? The seller for not having narrower feet ? Ebay for authenticating them ? The seller for selling them ?

Reality is no one is at fault but the buyer has not the opportunity to try them on before they buy when purchasing online  and therefore a return has to be accepted. 

Would it be not as described in that the buyer uses size 9 trainers but these size 9 trainers did not fit  or would it be remorse because the label says size 9 and the seller stated size 9.

Not sure I could disagree with either but the benifit of the doubt would go to the buyer - it's difficult

[pg_kicks]

Sorry I was watching the football and on here so missed the tongue in cheek.

With sneakers its pretty simple (if the checks are correct) that then the buyer is at fault as the shoe should be checked for faults/authentication/matching item description, and the biggest kicker in eBays policy is if a shoe has been tried on then it cant be returned as its then classed as used so its a change of condition, obviously I dont mind if a buyer tries it on as long as they dont crease it but eBays own policy (which they never actually stick to) should mean 95% of my returns are rejected as the buyer uses the reason doesnt fit, this *should* be seen by the authenticator and rejected but it never is. Thats why I hate when people say eBay cant see the item so how could they know, items and cases they do see they get wrong, its just an easy out. 

It cant ever be solved with pans or cheap items but reporting needs fixing, theres buyers and sellers on this site that shouldnt be on due to abusing the system, eBay know it, we know it but we always know eBay wont ever stop people as they make money off each sale.

[pillarboxred]

That's true so sellers have to eat it up or go elsewhere.