"When someone shows you who they are, believe them" - Maya Angelou

[j.p.greenwood]

With the introduction of Simple Delivery, E-Bay have attempted to promote the idea that "....all items up to £750 are fully covered...."

https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/selling/posting-items/setting-postage-options/simple-delivery?id=5575

However, E-Bays own T's & C's clearly have a long list of exclusions from this coverage.

https://community.ebay.co.uk/t5/Seller-Central/Where-you-REALLY-stand-on-shipping-using-Simple-Deliv...

A lot of members here seem to be in, what to me is a self deceptive state of mind that E-Bay will '..do the right thing...' regarding claims, however, members need to stop giving the 'benefit of the doubt' and understand that from a legal perspective E-Bay can dismiss any claim and as a member you'll have NO RECOURSE.

Why you might ask?

Because that's what their Terms and Conditions clearly state, if E-Bay are really interested in fostering an honest, open and transparent situation with Simple Delivery, which is a long way from the current state of affairs, they'd take the exclusions out of the T's & C's, until they do that every member is shipping at the whim of E-Bays benevolence and believe me when I tell you E-Bay historically have shown themselves to be an organisation not really much interested in benevolence.

So, remember, shipping using Simple Delivery in many instances makes the seller the liable party (that's what the T's & C's clearly state).

If you want to believe otherwise, regardless of the weight of extensive evidence showing they can decline your claim if it suits them, is that a rational decision?  

How annoyed with yourself are you going to be if it blows up in the future and you have to acknowledge the likely very expensive lesson of knowing you were told, but decided to put your head in the sand or convince yourself they'd be your 'friend'.

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them"

[vinylscot]

I think everyone would agree that this latest change (SD) has been implemented very badly by eBay and is clearly nowhere near being ready, or fit for purpose.

However, there is no "extensive evidence showing they can decline your claim if it suits them" as you claim.

There are a number of isolated cases, the most high profile of which are by no means settled, one way or the other, as yet. I retain some hope that, in these most egregious cases, common sense will prevail, and they will be resolved as they pretty obviously should be.

I do agree that the terms and conditions need to be much clearer, and much more consistent - as I said, SD, at the moment, is plainly not fit for purpose.

However, hysterical over-reaction like your post here isn't helping anyone at all, and makes you look rather silly. You're likely to attract support from the usual suspects, which isn't really of much use to anybody.

I'm not 100% giving eBay the benefit of the doubt; I'm watching them closely. But I'm a realist, and I believe that this will all become much clearer in time, and that the isolated incidents documented here will be resolved. I'm not saying I'll then be a fan of SD - I won't be (I have a private account to), but I will just get on with, or not, depending how I feel.

[thepillenwerfer]

The list of excluded items are no more comprehensive than the ones that would apply if buying the carriage direct from Evri, Royal Mail or whoever.  Most things I've sold over the years have effectively travelled with no cover for loss or damage and that's a risk I've accepted.

Personally I'd say I'm indifferent to Simple Delivery as it seems to have good and bad points and is still in such a state of flux that it's too early to reach a final verdict.  Of course it should have been thought about and piloted better before being launched.

[j.p.greenwood]

You've missed on important difference.

Previously you could choose the courier, therefore you could find one that provided coverage, now you're paying for coverage that's legally not actually being provided and you have no choice.

[fotherbale]

With reference to the various carrier company's exclusion lists, I think the big difference here is that ebay have worded all their advice and  announcements about Simple Delivery in such a way that it gives  an impression that everything is covered up to £750 - I think this is the issue that j.p.greenwood is pursuing. 

The vast majority of ebay buyers will take what they read at face value.   There will be relatively few who actually go and look-up ebay's own list of exclusions, still fewer who will carefully read further exclusions lists from Royal Mail and EVRi.  

I don't think the OP is in any way being hysterical.  He is voicing some very genuine concerns that when push comes to shove, a lot of buyers (and sellers) who encounter problems with SD (damage, non-delivery, lost packages) are potentially going to find they have no cover at all. 

There is sufficient confusion and doubt that ebay really do need to clarify the position.   Their representatives on these boards appear unwilling to engage (or unable to provide any clarification) when members have raised questions concerning these apparent anomalies between the terms and conditions of the  carriers and ebays own terms and conditions, and the apparent mismatch between what is in the ebay terms and conditions and what they have published to the membership at large in announcements and the basic advice/help pages. 

I find that disturbing to be honest.

[vinylscot]

I understand the OP,s concerns  although I do believe he is going way over the top with his claims and his reaction.

There are really only two mind-boggling cases which have been reported. Neither are at an end yet, and it's very possible we don't have the full story in either case.

Clarification on the exclusions issue is needed as a matter of urgency, as are some other aspects of SD, but the sky is not falling down. Let's keep some perspective 

[fotherbale]

From my point of view, the sky fell down a few months ago 😞

[lucy_farmer]

'The list of excluded items are no more comprehensive than the ones that would apply if buying the carriage direct from Evri, Royal Mail or whoever.  Most things I've sold over the years have effectively travelled with no cover for loss or damage and that's a risk I've accepted.'

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

You're absolutely right; all carriers have extensive 'no compensation' lists. Even good ol' Royal Mail.

But this is what SPECIAL delivery is for. Not only do R.M. insure your items, they take a whole lot more care of them.

And they can't just leave them 'in a safe place'. (e.g. recycling bin or front doorstep for the whole world to see.....) they have to be handed over, signed for, photographed, timed/dated etc.

If your're selling something valuable/scammable/nickable, you *should* be given the option to send it by Special.

But under Simple Del, one is not given that option, or indeed any option other than the one ebay have decided for us.

At the very least there should be a 'loud' pop-up telling sellers that what they're selling won't be insured for damage /loss in the post,  if they carry on listing with S.D.

But with *mandatory* S.D. , that means careful/worried sellers wouldn't list at all, and that will have an effect on ebay's bottom line. So I don't think it will happen.....