Worrying recent changes for buyers & sellers

[stellarx001]

* I posted this elsewhere and was advised to move it here to reach the appropriate audience. *

Seller ability to issue invoices has been 'discontinued'.
I like to offer buyers the option to benefit from combined shipping. They appreciate this as it saves them money and boosts my reputation. eBay has recently 'discontinued' this feature, forcing buyers to pay shipping in full for every item, which I then have to partially refund. It's a burden on the buyer and may start deterring them from multiple puchases; it's hassle for me to have to calculate and refund the unnecessary fees; but of course during the time between payment and refund, for the milions of transactions occuring, there is potential interest to be accrued.

The new 'buyer protection' feature presents multiple issues:
1) eBay now holds on to funds for items bought, until delivery is confirmed. This does not force - but certainly pushes - sellers to use the Global Shipping Programme - and who benefits from that? Regardless, when delivery is confirmed, why does eBay hold on to the money for an additional 2 days? Surely the release of the funds should be immediate? If anyone can explain the reason for this, I'm all ears.

2)  eBay not only holds on to the value of the item sold but ALSO the shipping fees. How are sellers supposed to fund the shipping of the items if the shipping portion of the sales are not released? I recently sold 10 items which had been on auto-relist. They just happened to be won at the end of the month, when my funds were tight. Yet I am still expected to 'magic up' the cash to post the items within 48hrs. A fairer approach would be to withhold just the value of the item sale, not the shipping fees.

3) Why is eBay additionally charging the BUYER 'protection' fees for holding on to their money? Holding on to the cash only accrues potential interest for eBay. Why do they then also need to increase the cost of the items being sold? What exactly are buyers paying for in terms of this 'protection'? I ship via Royal Mail and even without special insurance, ever item is automatically insured for up to £20. What additional insurance is ebay providing for these fees? I am no lawyer but I struggle to see how additionally charging buyers for this 'protection' can be legal. Plus the additional protection fees may well be deterring prospective bidders/buyers (rather than 'encourage them' as eBay claims. You cannot prove a false negative but logic certainly suggests this is a stong possibility - certainly in the currently challenging financial climate.

The company has earned a lot out of just ME over he last 25 years - but then I could not have made money from my sales without the company. It just seems that both buyers' and sellers' lives are being made more difficult with the recent changes - purely to secure even greater profits for eBay. I don't think just a single complaint like this will change anything - but I can see sellers (and buyers) drifting away from eBay due to the sense of greed and unfairness being generated by their ever changing policies.

Positive changes eBay can make to address these concerns:

1) Reinstate sellers' ability to issue combined invoices.
2) Stop charging buyers the current unjustified 'protection fee' on ever purchase.
3) Only withhold the value of the item sold from sellers until delivery is confirmed; release the shipping portion immediately.
4) Once delivery is confirmed, release all relevant withheld funds immediately (not 48 hrs later).

Hopefully, these suggestions will generate widespread support.

P.S. Anticipating modertor responses, I have read responses advising tht electronic money can not accrue interest. While that is true, the use of Float Accounts, and other tools can bypass this obsatcle to interest. Can it be said categorically that eBay uses none of these tools to accrue a single penny of interest?

[rosestudios]

Did read somewhere that the combined postage problem is an EBay glitch that they are working on.

[*vyolla*]

---

@stellarx001 wrote:

I have read responses advising tht electronic money can not accrue interest. While that is true, the use of Float Accounts, and other tools can bypass this obsatcle to interest. Can it be said categorically that eBay uses none of these tools to accrue a single penny of interest?

---

I've no idea who's going round saying that, no company will sit on money and not make interest.

eBay changed a couple of paragraphs in the UA in October last year to confirm that they do receive the interest.

User Agreement:

Funds received by us on your behalf represent an unsecured claim for payment against us, but do not constitute deposits; nor are these amounts eligible for FDIC pass-through insurance. eCI may combine your funds with the funds of other eCI customers in pooled custodial accounts and invest the funds in accordance with state money transmitter laws.

You do not have any ownership interest in these investments and any interest earned from these investments will be retained by us. To the extent you may have any beneficial ownership in the interest or proceeds of these investments, your acceptance of these terms constitutes an assignment of any right, title or interest therein to us.

[andha-21]

@stellarx001 

"Positive changes eBay can make to address these concerns:

1) Reinstate sellers' ability to issue combined invoices.

2) Stop charging buyers the current unjustified 'protection fee' on ever purchase.

3) Only withhold the value of the item sold from sellers until delivery is confirmed; release the shipping portion immediately.

4) Once delivery is confirmed, release all relevant withheld funds immediately (not 48 hrs later)."

You've actually got 1 and 2 the wrong way round. 2 is the reason they can't offer 1 anymore. 

Before it got disabled we were seeing combined invoice posts where the buyer was being charged BPF fees for every single item on the invoice.

It's a BUYER PROTECTION FEE not ITEM. 1 Buyer =1 fee per transaction. 

3. The shipping idea makes alot of sense.

4. I agree, but doubt they will

& I'm not sure why you felt the need for the disclaimer. Fairly certain eBay covered that themselves in Terms and conditions. Along the lines of the consumer has no rights to any interest accrued whilst with eBay.

No doubt someone will cp in the exact exert covering that.

Edit;

@*vyolla* already covered the above. Very fast, that one!

[stellarx001]

Thanks for taking the time to read and reply. WRT Combined Invoices, yesterday I contcted an eBay agent via online chat to seek help with this matter - the response (cut/pasted from the online chat) was:

eBay agent:
"I want to ensure that I am transparent and not misleading with the information I provide. As of now, the invoice feature has been discontinued, and we are receiving lots of feedback to bring it back.

"I would request you to ask the buyer to make the payment first, then send them a partial refund on postage cost as desired."

...which is what I have been forced to do since the change (or glitch) was introduced. I registered feedback with the agent, formally requesting the feature be reinstated. I would urge other sellers to do likewise. 

[papso22]

We have been told it's a technical glitch, not a planned discontinuation.

[andha-21]

There was a community reply on X? yesterday saying the coders had discontinued it as it's not compatible with the new system.

& later there were similar posts but direct to sellers from CS agents.

[stellarx001]

Again, appreciate the consideration and comments.

I think I understand your comments re my points 1 & 2 - however it seems to me that the duplicate BPFs are only an issue because BPFs (which I have argued should be discontinued) were introduced by eBay in the first place.

WRT interest, I do not argue that sellers (consumers) have any right to any such interest - only that such interest is (I believe) accrued, to eBay's benefit. BPFs and the withholding of buyer funds until delivery is confirmed will be adding hugely to this. My argument is that eBay has introduced these changes purely for profit and not for any altruistic desire to actually protect buyers. Buyers only really need protecting from untrustworthy sellers - so perhaps reliable sellers such as myself with a 100% feedback score could (should) be absolved of the need for BPFs and withheld funds?

[stellarx001]

Re: "I've no idea who's going round saying that, no company will sit on money and not make interest."

As mentioned in my first post above, I originally posted this in another part of the forum and was recommended to repost it here.

In that other section, more than one 'Mentor'* had replied to other posts, stating that electronic funds do not accrue interest. I thought this ws incorrect so googled it. It is correct 'in principle' but as I pointed out, there are ways around it, and as you have stated, ebay seems to have confirmed thet it does indeed accrue interest, so my comments abut the BPFs and withheld fees appear vindicated.

*I understand individuals should not be identfed in posts, so I am not posting their forum names.

[stellarx001]

"We have been told it's a technical glitch, not a planned discontinuation."

I merely pasted the comments I receoved from an eBay agent direct yesterday. I know not which of the claimed reasons is accurate: unintentional glitch or intentional discontinuation.

[stellarx001]

"There was a community reply on X? yesterday saying the coders had discontinued it as it's not compatible with the new system. & later there were similar posts but direct to sellers from CS agents."

I can believe that. eBay introduced BPFs (which I believe are purely a profit-generating change, not an altruistic step to protect buyers) on invoices. If sellers re-issue their own custom invoice for combined purchases, then that will either duplicate the BPF(s) or (more likely) will reduce the cumulative BPF cost to the buyer. That doesn't reduce the buyer protection - but may hit eBay's profits.  Either way, it's not good.

Ultimately, the removal of the Combined Invoice feature is causing genuine practical issues for both buyers and sellers, so I (and others it seems) have requested that eBay finds a way to reintroduce it, that IS compatible with the new system (i.e. the changes eBay has elected to introduce).

[andha-21]

@stellarx001 

I don't think you understand the BPF/Invoice interaction.

The problem exists because it replicates, or at least did on some, the 75p fee. The 4% is irrelevant.

Charging 1 buyer multiple buyer protection fees (75p) on the same transaction is almost certainly fraud. 1 buyer = 1 buyer protection fee per transaction.

Now I've posted the above using varying wording a number of times now and I've yet to receive a single reply from the special eBay account here. The one they seem to use for legal reasons. That says alot. If what I was saying was wrong they could come after me. They haven't. Not once. The kh mods haven't either and they can censor posts for a variety of reasons some of which also cover the above.

So whilst they seem to be choosing compatibility issues as the explanation of choice it's probably more likely they shut it down to avoid legal reprisals. Still a compatibility issue but from a different perspective.

[stellarx001]

"Buying or selling in ANY auction envronment is a gamble and Ebay is an auction so if you aren't willing to lose sometimes then why are you gambling?"

With respect, I don't personally agree that the analogy is pertinent.

"As an aside If it's so good in the City why doesn't any one smile?"

This, I 100% concur with. 🙂

[papso22]

Why is not a fee charged to buyers per item purchased?  It's called buyer protection fee because ebay says it's charged to buyers, that doesn't contain any indication that it can't be based on items. 

When a seller lists what could be called a job lot, that job lot has one item number hence it's one item.

I don't think an invoice for lots of items put into a basket together, creates a new, single item number as you would have if they were listed as a job lot, but I have no personal experience of that.  If there are still several item numbers in the order, then that might explain why there are several lots of the fixed fee charged.

In the old seller fees days it might have been different as then part of the fee was for processing the payment, regardless of the number of items.

[andha-21]

@papso22 

"It's called buyer protection fee because ebay says it's charged to buyers, that doesn't contain any indication that it can't be based on items."

That's not how they advertise it now or ever have done that I have seen. 

And the terminology used defines purpose. Just like someone can buy life and/or contents insurance. Why they can buy extended warranties or insurance packages for specific items.

You are trying to defend the indefensible again.

[papso22]

What bit of the advertising are you referring to?

The guidance refers to items in a number of places, and confirms the fee is based on items and not simply on purchase/transaction by the buyer.

I made that comment because you have previously used the fact that it is called 'buyer protection fee' to say that it must be illegal to charge the 75p for each item because it's not called an 'item protection fee', I am simply saying that the buyer bit only means the person to whom it is charged.  You have to take the name in the context of the full guidance and not just use those three words to define purpose.  

https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/buying/paying-items/buyer-protection-fee?id=5594&st=3&pos=2&query=Buyer%...

"When you buy from UK-based private sellers, the item price includes a Buyer Protection fee"

"When purchasing from UK-based private sellers, the Buyer Protection fee is calculated as:

• A flat fee of up to £0.75 per item, and
• 4% of the item price up to £300, and
• 2% of any portion of the item price from £300 to £4,000"

[stellarx001]

"What bit of the advertising are you referring to?"

Apologies but I am not sure how you have interpreted my words. I have made no mention of any advertising?

"I made that comment because you have previously used the fact that it is called 'buyer protection fee' to say that it must be illegal to charge the 75p for each item because it's not called an 'item protection fee', I am simply saying that the buyer bit only means the person to whom it is charged. You have to take the name in the context of the full guidance and not just use those three words to define purpose."

With respect, you appear to be putting  words in my mouth due to your own interpretation of my initial post.
I have made no distinction between 'buyer' or 'item' - only using the term BPF because that is what eBay calls it. My (whistling in the wind) point was that I don't see how the fee is actually affording a buyer any protection,  ergo querying it's legality. I don't know either way, I am merely postulating.

[papso22]

I wasn't relying to you.

[johnwash1]

Ebay can structure their fees however they wish.  It's a business decision.  Back in the days of private seller fees I sometimes had buyers buying several items, paying all together, and I was only charged one 30p.  I liked that.  And I refunded such buyers any postage savings I made.

Ebay could charge 1p per page on every book I sell, and call it a paper pulp preservation fee or something.  I would not like that.  And since ebay are not a monopoly, I would not suffer it.

Introducing 75p per item, especially on low value items, is an 'interesting' decision.  Arguing about legal aspects of nomenclature simply isn't relevant.  All that's relevant is whether people will put up with it or vote with their feet.  Some sellers are saying their sales are unchanged.  Others are saying their sales have fallen off a cliff.  Only ebay knows, only ebay can judge whether some serious back pedalling and/or course correction plus window dressing is required.