Where you REALLY stand on shipping using Simple Delivery including links to sources......

[j.p.greenwood]

So, there is still a huge amount of uncertainty about whether under Simple Delivery you're buying the service directly from E-Bay or whether E-Bay is acting as an agent, this is a critically important fact to have absolute certainty about as it would directly affect who you might end up suing if you cannot get satisfaction from a dispute, while I appreciate that assorted members have their own views and have worded them here, it needs a clear, definitive statement that can only come from E-Bay directly.

Of course it might be seen as churlish for E-Bay to want to keep this matter unclear as that might serve their ends.

That aside, both EVRI and Royal Mail have restrictions on what can and can't be accepted into their networks, they also separately have exceptions on what they're willing to pay out on for certain specific items, the way the Simple Delivery terms read is that you MUST comply with the carriers terms as well to be eligible for compensation.

So, for EVRI the link on their website 

https://www.evri.com/terms-and-conditions#:~:text=Goods%20that%20if%20I%20send%2C%20I%20won%E2%80%99...

I would draw people's attention to clause 8(iii) as who decides what is a 'safe space', if it's the courier leaving a parcel where they consider safe gives them a get out if it's subsequently stolen by a porch pirate.  Also, according to EVRI ALL electrical items are excluded from compensation, so all phones, tablets, hair dryers, even a lot of toys.

On the RM website it's a bit more long winded as the info isn't in one place...

RM Has a category called called 'Restricted Materials' which it allows under certain criteria, however 'Prohibited Materials' are never allowed.

'Restricted Materials' can ONLY be carried by specific RM services and ONLY if they're declared at time of posting.  Clause 1.21 of the following link lays it out.

https://www.royalmail.com/sites/royalmail.com/files/2025-04/specific-terms-for-parcels-version-11.pd...

Now, the list of 'Restricted Material' only seems to be here

https://www.royalmail.com/sites/royalmail.com/files/2025-05/prohibited-and-restricted-items-english....

So, unless E-Bay specifically state that Simple Delivery does come under the criteria as defined in clause 1.21 above, then in reality Royal Mail can say that the required compensation rules were no met and thereby deny compensation.

I realise a lot of members here are trying to be helpful by putting what they believe to be the case forward, but sorry, if I'm shipping items that I'm being told 'are covered up to £750', without telling me who is the liable party if it's lost or damaged, what if any exclusions apply, what do I need to declare at time of shipping, then that 'compensation' promise is frankly worthless and a lot of members are going to end up getting badly badly burnt.

@E-Bay, what Members need is a clear statement, all in one place, not requiring a paper chase to try to understand all the hidden small print get outs, that says, who is liable, what the exclusions are and what information needs to be provided to ensure compensation cover is in place, anything less than this is just short changing your very long standing members and I'm sure that's not your intent is it?

[edwardian-dreams]

I’ve sold a few things with simple delivery

- Small and medium parcels I have no problem with , the postage is actually cheaper than going direct to Royal Mail 

- miffed I can’t send things large letter normal rates as that’s the whole point of large letter post ie it’s cheaper for small light items but in ebays wisdom we have to overcharge but there’s ways round that too I’m sure simplest being do free postage don’t use the label do your own postage claim refund for unused label but wait 14 days for payment 

- simple delivery is still very screwed up ie people can’t get custom postage option for oversized parcels …there’s workarounds that work ie in this case list your item as 800 quid and custom kicks in fine but why need a workaround

, why should users of a billion dollar company have to scramble around like ferrets trying to post their items as they should be posted it’s pathetic and extremely unprofessionak

other than that simple delivery is ok 🧟‍

[johnwash1]

Isn't that a bit like saying: I bought a car and one of the wheels is missing.  Other than that it's ok.

Some people like SD, though I've not seen many.  That's fine.  Ebay, give us choice.  If you get it right most of us will want to choose it.

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

[j.p.greenwood]

kat@ebay  , marco@ebay 

Kat

Not sure if you saw my posting a few days back asking if the T's & C's are going to be updated to reflect your comments earlier?

Also, still awaiting answers on whether it's E-Bay themselves providing the compensation coverage or still the couriers with E-Bay acting as a 'clearing house'?

[johnwash1]

---

@j.p.greenwood wrote:

kat@ebay  , marco@ebay 

Kat

Not sure if you saw my posting a few days back asking if the T's & C's are going to be updated to reflect your comments earlier?

Also, still awaiting answers on whether it's E-Bay themselves providing the compensation coverage or still the couriers with E-Bay acting as a 'clearing house'?

---

Who provides the compensation isn't relevant to the user, unless it's refused.  You're not going to find out whether it's ebay or the courier because the phrase "commercial in confidence" will be thrown around, and only penetrated when there's a court case, I reckon.

As for the first part of your post, I've not troubled to check, though I guess you have.  If ebay are not updating their T's&C's and doing so with clarity, then they're seriously letting down their reps, such as Kat and Marco, as well as their CS staff on the phone lines.  But sending out the troops like WW1 cannon fodder isn't unusual here.

[j.p.greenwood]

The Detail of the commercial relationship between E-Bay and the Couriers is, as you've rightly pointed out, commercially confidential and is unlikely to be divulged.  However, WHO is the liable party has to be defined in the Ts & Cs else there's no contract.

[punzel9072]

I wonder whether the 'Unfair Contract Term Act' could come into play here, given that the restrictions on compensation are so unclear, difficult to find, not all in one place, and fall between a number of parties some of whom may not be known at the time the contract is put in place, i.e. postage purchased from a business (eBay) that claims it will pay compensation.

[j.p.greenwood]

Unfair contract term maybe a bit of a stretch as you'd have to show loss.

However, an injunction, because a party was making contradictory claims (saying one thing in one place, while T's and C's say another) and refusing to address those contradictions even when asked multiple times, could possibly be a successful avenue to pursue.

[j.p.greenwood]

kat@ebay  , marco@ebay 

Kat

If you could let me know if there's any progress on this, even if it's just to let me know it's being looked at internally I'd be grateful.

[britanniabug_stamp_store]

Surely if you are creating terms and conditions you must consult or get legal advice otherwise your "Green Behind the Ear Boys" at ebay could be giving out incorrect, or worse, illegal information in its T&C's.

So in your reply Marco "In terms of the legal side of things, please note that we are not legal experts, so we wouldn't comment any further information on it"  looks very much to me like some kind of cop out.

[britanniabug_stamp_store]

To  kat@ebay

Community Team

Your reply dated:

‎26-06-2025 9:30 AM

Hi @ruby*ryan ,

I'm following up on yesterday's query on Simple Delivery and non compensated items with other carriers.

This is to confirm that eBay provides full protection/compensation for any item that is listed as Simple Delivery, once the label is used and the item is in the carrier network. eBay protection/compensation overrides what the carriers will compensate.

Thank you,

Kat

Hi Kat

It would be great then if ebay would use the same simple, straightforward and easily understood language you have just replied with ... it would save so much grief, time and hassle and maybe win back the trust of thousands of private sellers who have had a postage system forced on them when the previous system worked really well.

[j.p.greenwood]

kat@ebay , marco@ebay 

Kat

Asking yet again, just to get final confirmation that E-Bay are actually actively ignoring these questions, even though they're important for members to understand where they are legally.

[j.p.greenwood]

kat@ebay  , marco@ebay  

I've now been asking since the 6th June for a confirmation from E-Bay staff that this is not in breach of any E-Bay rules.

I do find it pretty interesting that, even though I've asked numerous times, that I've not once even received the courtesy of an acknowledgement or response of any kind, even if it was to say the matter was being escalated internally, what does this say about how much E-Bay really values members with over twenty years standing?

[johnwash1]

Members?  Is this a club and nobody told me?

What's that club quote by Groucho Marx?

[sandstormy]

Ebay must have to stop this idiotic SD train and leave for sellers use what they need.. at least give option to use their own services... 

I can see now soon ebay will get some serious troubles and compensation claims for this ..

Looks like they are stupid and want big losses