I was shocked to get such a prompt reply from eBay's Safe Harbor on my situation. (seller had a dutch auction for 15 items, I won all 15 in the dutch auction, but the seller tried to charge me $26.55 to mail a 8 to 9 pound package through USPS Media Rate Mail which would have been about $4.80)
Ebay saw this as excessive shipping & handling fees along with it being eBay commission fee avoidance. (ebay would not have received commissions of the high shipping charge, so his auction was against eBay's listing policy)
Anyhow I refused to pay this seller the high shipping cost and I offered him $10.00 for the shipping & handling, he refused then got nasty with me. (vulgar & nasty inmature e-mails)
Anyhow they took care of the problem right away and even removed the auction from the database so he could not file a NPB or give me a negative for not paying him on his "illegal auction".
They did give him a warning and I am sure they refunded his listing fees and commission.
What impressed me most was the survey they wanted me to fill out after they took care of everything (I doubt me filling it out with my answers and comments will be taken into complete consideration) but I am hopeful!
I stressed that my main concern was all the fraud on ebay and that should try to set aside the smaller issues (like all the new features on ebay, all the bells and whistles) and set their priorities on taking care of all the fraud and closing all the loopholes that are letting people get away with committing fraud. I also stated that they should have someone on a regular basis read the Ebay Outlook board here on AW. As I think they would find it very interesting and may see what issues are truly concerning their users.
I hope that my posting will get more people to use or contact eBay's Safe Harbor when they are having problems. And if you do and get the request that they want you to fill out the survey, please do so! Maybe someone will take notice of our comments eventually.
Thanks for letting me share my experience and thoughts. I don't know what I would do without The eBay Outlook Board and all the great people on here. (even the ones that agree or disagree on subjects)
posted on February 6, 2001 07:45:23 AM new
You should be ashamed of yourself!!!
It's people like YOU that ruin ebay!
You should have, or did read the auction shipping terms CLEARLY POSTED in the auction as you yourself attested to in your other thread about this.
You DID NOT write to the seller BEFORE you bid, asking if he would ALTER HIS WRITTEN TERMS to satisfy you.
You just ASSUMED that he would change his terms to benefit YOU, and never bothered to ask.
It's buyers like you that make eBay a LOUSEY place to do business.
I am NOT saying that his shipping was fair, but YOU are taking a peacock strut here for getting a seller "busted for fraud" because he had the nerve to ask you to abide by the rules and TOS of his auction.
Would it have been fraud if 15 different bidders won? NO!, then there was NO pre-meditated fraud there, and what YOU have done to THIS SELLER is commit fraud with your complaint.
YOU were wrong, and used him as scape goat for your lack of doing your own part and emailing the seller first.
$1.75 s&h per item is not SO outrageous compared to what some sellers charge on eBay.
It appears that you were able to weasle your way out of your obligation with the help of eBay...AFTER HE LOWERED THE SHIPPING COST FOR YOU...congratulations!
posted on February 6, 2001 08:08:14 AM new
I agree completely with pocono.
While I am glad to see that ebay occasionally can work fast, this is about the worst time for them to have chosen to do so. After all the REAL fraud on ebay, where people actually lost real, painful sums of money, they now act in this case???? (Where, it should be noted, NO MONEY even changed hands).
This whole "problem" resulted from the lack of basic auction smarts on the part of a self-touted experienced person (bridgette) who, in her own thread, admitted to not asking about saving S&H on multiple items, but rather she made her OWN assumption about what a "fair" amount would be, and then, when the seller failed to live up to her expectations, wasted ebay's time dealing with this "fraud" (which it most definitely was NOT).
I'm not trying to hold up the seller for sainthood (if you read the thread, and if you believe we are getting a balanced story from bridgette) then the seller certainly has their own faults. But calling in the ebay watchdogs because the BUYER failed to do her homework is absurd.
Meanwhile, REAL problems go unsolved because of this foolishness.
posted on February 6, 2001 08:12:14 AM new
Poc ... try not to hold back so much on your next post eh
btw, I agree with you 100%. Pre-communication with the seller would have avoided this problem. There is certainly no fraud involved here, and as a matter of fact, the seller may have a case against this buyer AND eBay for libel for making such an implication ...
posted on February 6, 2001 08:21:35 AM new
bassicbrian:
That's the interesting thing here. Ebay lost money by not letting the auction stand and encouraging completion. One way or the other, I doubt they are getting their FVF from this auction.
The better explanation, I think, is that "the Gods are capricious". Sometimes the guilty are punished, sometimes the innocent; sometimes justice is swift, other times it never comes.
posted on February 6, 2001 08:28:33 AM newWow... eBay Trust and Safety/Safe Harbor WORKED !
BULL PUCKY...in this case safe harbor sucks!
Someone in safe harbor didn't know their a*s from a hole in the ground...this was not a case of fee avoidance, no way..no how
I think I will go back to lurking...I might say something about our "good ebay citizen who is helping to rid ebay of sellers who commit fraud" that will get me suspended from AW.
posted on February 6, 2001 08:34:27 AM new
Good for you Brigette!
Unreasonableness should be punished and punished severely! You're assumption of realistic shipping charges was right on, the seller was trying to get away with padding his profit.
well, it DID work..for bridgette. Got her out of a sticky situation, of actually having to stick with her "legally binding" bid (ha!).
Actually, if you read the thread in question, and "read between the lines" a bit, I suspect the real issue that safeharbour may have acted on was "off ebay" sales. The seller tried to sell her more outside of the auction, and that would have been the fee avoidance issue. Also, the seller may have been dinged for "nasty and vulgar" emails.
The whole S&H thing was definitely NOT fee avoidance, as you correctly point out.
posted on February 6, 2001 08:43:06 AM new
firstover:
By the way, I've yet to see anyone PROVE that the shipping costs were "unreasonable". Do you know, for a fact, that the seller had NOT already bought the boxes and packed the items? In which case he could EASILY have $8 in cardboard box cost and an hour of time invested. Add to that the actual shipping cost and all of a sudden bridgette is actually getting a deal on S&H costs.
But since you've chosen to just blindly accept her side of the story, this possibility hasn't occured to you.
In any case, even assuming the costs are "unrealistic", then reporting them to ebay for "fraud" and "fee avoidance" is completely wrong and a gross misuse of their resources for investigation. At the very worst case, both buyer and seller should have just walked away from this deal, due to miscommunication. Let it be noted that bridgette filed the first negative, and reported them to safe harbor. If being "unreasonable" is grounds for such harsh action, I think the wrong person was punished.
posted on February 6, 2001 08:48:50 AM new
Captainkirk..yeah, I read the original thread...thought it best to keep my opinion to myself.
and yes, safe harbor worked for Brigette...but seems to me to be more of a co-conspirator type situation rather than safe harbor actually doing its job.
The only possible fee avoidance would be the offering of more of the same item to the buyer...but even that is iffy.
As to the emails...thought ebay didn't involve itself in the email correspondance between members? Since when did ebay become "mommy"? Since when was it ebay's role to supervise our correspondance?
Actually, I think I lean towards your "the gods were capricous" theory.
Gads, why doesn't ebay have a feature that allows us to ban certain buyers from our auctions...I have one I want to put on my list!
posted on February 6, 2001 09:20:45 AM new
If you look up DEADBEAT BUYER in the dictionary, i have a pretty good idea of who's picture you may see next to the caption...
posted on February 6, 2001 10:20:50 AM newEveryone,
Some comments on this thread are combative and insulting. Please take a step back and address your comments to the topic and do not discuss the individual.
posted on February 6, 2001 10:44:55 AM new
Let me also say "Good work brigette!"
Yes, technically a buyer should check out every possible variable beforehand when buying an item on eBay. But I don't think that expecting a "combined shipping" charge will be reasonable is out of line.
I need the shipping charge to be spelled out clearly in a seller's listing. If they are vague about shipping charges, I don't bid. If the item was truly unique and I wanted it badly, I would email ahead of time and inquire about shipping charges. But I can't think of an instance where I've actually done that. I've always just moved on to another seller's listing, another seller who has taken the time to give me the shipping charge information I need up front.
Price breaks for combined shipping are a strong incentive for me to place bids on multiple items. If the shipping & handling charge on one item is reasonable, I will often assume that the shipping & handling on combined wins will be reasonable as well. Overwhelmingly, out of hundreds of eBay purchases I've made, this has been the case.
So what many are saying here is it is grossly negligent of me to assume that combined shipping charges will be reasonable. That I should email ahead of time and say, "Please tell me what the shipping charge will be if I win two of your items. If I win three? If I win four? What if I win five? How about if I win six of them? If I win seven, do I get a bigger price break? What's the situation if I win eight? Is there enough of a price break in shipping to warrant bidding on ten of them? 'Coz that's just not gonna happen. Shipping charges need to be spelled out in the auction if I'm gonna bid. So if my assumption must now be that I will be charged full shipping and handling on each and every one of my multiple wins unless the seller states otherwise - in spite of the fact that the actual cost generally is lower when sending multiple items in one package instead of individually - I'm not going to bid on multiple items. I'm probably not going to bid on 1. If a seller wants multiple bids from me, he needs to spell out exactly what multiple shipping charges are in his listing. And the phrase "Save shipping on multiple wins" doesn't cut it. Apparently, what I need now is specifics -- what if I win two? Three? Etc.
Also sellers, if you do not offer a price break on combined shipping, you don't need to add me to your "blacklist." Just state in your auction "Full shipping and handling charges apply to this auction regardless of how many items you win." I'll know to avoid your auction from the get-go.
I'd have to agree that I wouldn't give any great kudos to Safeharbor for shutting this auction down. I've only ever gotten a helpful response from them when it's been a case of fee avoidance, an issue which affects their own bottom line. They're really only acting in their own self-interest, which doesn't exactly shout "great customer service" to me.
posted on February 6, 2001 10:59:53 AM new
Great Work Brigette! I am glad to see safeharbor did the right thing. Hopefully this will send signals out to other sellers that this type of rip-off won't be tolerated.
posted on February 6, 2001 11:02:25 AM new
triplesnack:
First of all, are you saying that you agree this seller is guilty of "fraud" and "fee avoidance" and thus should have had safeharbor intervene??? That's a pretty serious charge, and I'd be curious for you to lay out the evidence thereof. It sure isn't apparent to the rest of us.
I would hope we would all agree that for lesser "infractions", such as "unreasonable shipping", the proper response is to just not bid? I mean if we expect safeharbor to intervene every time a description is unclear, or we disagree with the seller's S&H charges, they'd need to hire the whole population of Utah to sort out all our petty disputes.
I think what we are saying is that brigette was GROSSLY NEGLIGENT (just to use your terms) in not emailing in advance before she bid on 15 (count 'em, 15 separate) items with a CLEARLY GIVEN S&H of $38 when she expected it to be closer to $5-$10. When there is that kind of difference, it is MANDATORY that a buyer confirm this BEFORE bidding, or the buyer should expect the consequences of her poor buying habits (remember this is a self-described experienced ebayer).
And, since you seem to have missed it above, there is no proof yet that the seller's S&H even was unreasonable. Many of these "low overhead/high volume" sellers prepack these items, ready to ship, often with hired labor. This seller might already have a lot of money invested in these items, and brigette's request to ship them in one box might even mean HIGHER S&H costs (buying another box, sticking them all in again).
The bottom line is that brigette should have asked in advance; failing this on her part, her one-sided anger at the seller is misplaced. The seller may or may not be guilty of other sins (off ebay sales, nasty emails), but the initial blame started with her. If she had responded in a mature fashion to this situation, she would have recognized the "mutual blame" and merely walked away from the sale, not flinging a negative at the seller and then running to safeharbor to complain.
posted on February 6, 2001 11:02:43 AM new
[i]If a seller wants multiple
bids from me, he needs to spell out exactly what multiple shipping charges are in his listing. And the phrase "Save shipping on multiple wins" doesn't cut it.[/i]
triplesnackYour stance is unreasonable and here's why:
I have winners of multiple items in many of my auctions. I don't sell dutch -- I usually don't list the same thing twice on the same day. I gladly combine shipping.
My buyers regularly purchase several different items from me -- different shapes, differrent sizes, different weights (from a few ounces per item, up to a pound).
In these circumstances, there's no way to list all the possible shipping combinations in an auction ad. It depends on what the bidder buys and the final weight of the package. This is true of a number of sellers on eBay.
posted on February 6, 2001 11:19:20 AM new
and you wonder why bidders run from Ebay!!!
If the seller wrapped each individual item and mailed them to the buyer seperately--then his shipping charge could stand.
But time, supplies, and postage cost were saved by combining all 15 into one package---and irregardless of his TOS--he should in no way be charging the FULL amount for shipping.
posted on February 6, 2001 11:26:29 AM new
zazzie:
How do you know that "time, supplies, and postage costs" were, in fact, saved in this case? As I keep pointing out, many of these sellers have PREPACKAGED these items, ready to ship. That's how they make money - high volume, quick shipping, low overhead. The seller may have already spent $1/unit to box and pack them.
And the seller did knock off $11 of the $38 S&H, they did NOT charge the FULL amount.
I still ask for anyone to prove that the costs were, in fact, unreasonable.
And even if they were, is that the kind of thing to run to safeharbor for?
And just to make it clear (again) that I'm not a fan of this seller, if the things said about them are remotely true, they aren't the kind of person i'd run to bid on, but I think the mature outcome of this situation would perhaps have been a "no sale/no feedback" resolution, not the escalating battle it turned into.
posted on February 6, 2001 11:29:55 AM new
Buyers don't run because of shipping charges. If they did, half the major online retailers would be out of business.
Would this buyer contact a well known online retailer and tell them what she will pay for shipping? I think not.
The seller can relist the items and sell them to bidders that pay up and not whine to ebay when things do not go their way.
Looks like the seller was saved from having to deal with a problem bidder.
posted on February 6, 2001 11:37:16 AM new
well-the seller is lacking in brains when it comes to Dutch auctions then---as it is very frequent that multiples are purchased by one buyer.
Sorry--but if I bought from Amazon or Barnes & Noble and was told that each item would cost the full amount to ship--and not 'Additional' my purchasing power would go elsewhere. --and an $11.00 discount just wouldn't have done the job in convincing me to buy. I have that power as a comsumer---even on EBAY with some sellers idiotic 'unbendable' TOS. I'll take a negative rather than reward someone for attempting to rip me off.
My one comment to the buyer is--your $10.00 offer was quite a bit on the cheap side--you should have gone to the middle and then added a bit more. Compromise works in two directions.
posted on February 6, 2001 11:44:47 AM newSorry--but if I bought from Amazon or Barnes & Noble and was told that each item would cost the full amount to ship--and not 'Additional' my purchasing power would go elsewhere.
Exactly. You should go elsewhere if you don't like their shipping policy. This bidder should have asked the policy on combining shipping. If she didn't like it she could have moved on to another auction that suited her.
even on EBAY with some sellers idiotic 'unbendable' TOS. I'll take a negative rather than reward someone for attempting to rip me off.
If a sellers "unbendable TOS" are clearly stated, you should not bid if you don't like them. By not paying what is in the sellers terms, you are attempting to rip him off and you deserve a negative.
posted on February 6, 2001 11:45:07 AM new
Zazzie:
The point is that you don't know if multiples are often purchased in the type of item being sold (do you?), or if it is typically prepackaged or not (is it?), so I'd hesitate to rush to claim being a smarter seller than someone else. But that's your choice to jump to such a judgement if you so choose. Personally I tend to let each seller judge for themselves the best way to run their own business, since I don't know their products, customers, business environment, etc.
Again, please detail to me the "rip off" that was in progress that safeharbor so kindly stopped? I'd like to see the evidence of a seller delivering less than promised. At least that is the conventional definition of the word "rip off"; if you are using it to mean "a seller who doesn't sell items cheap enough for my taste" then we can have a different discussion.
One interesting nuance you bring up here...the seller "offered" $25 as the S&H charge. Apparently you feel this is "way too high", and thus is a "rip off". But you also feel that the amount "offered" by the buyer is also way too low...does that mean you'd agree (using your own terminology) that the buyer was also trying to "rip off" the seller???
I just wonder if, even after the disastrous initial mistake by brigette in not bothering to ask about reducing S&H by 80% from the stated amount, if a compromise might still have been reached had negotiations continued with a professional attitude? It seems like emotions just intervened quickly in this, as so often happens, and now both buyer and seller are unhappy.
[ edited by captainkirk on Feb 6, 2001 11:55 AM ]
posted on February 6, 2001 11:54:16 AM new
Maybe the seller saw a way of making more money by 'OVERCHARGING' on shipping
maybe his items sold for less than he expected--so why not make up the difference from the buyer.
but if this was not the case--- instead of giving the buyer a reason for the high cost of shipping--he responded with a vulgar letter. YUP--sure makes one to run to bank and mail off payment. I'd take the negative.
posted on February 6, 2001 11:55:30 AM new
Zazzie...the point here is not whether he seller had poor customer service skills, but whether safe harbor should be "disciplining" a seller for living up to his TOS.
The seller set out a specific set of rules for his auction, including a specific charge for shipping. I believe that charge was $1.75 per item (maybe it was $2.50). Nothing in the ad said the seller combined shipping. A reasonable person, seeing there was no mention of reduced shipping for multiple purchases, would proceed under the assumption that it would not be combined.
It is only logical that if something is not in the ad it is because the merchant did not intend it to be in the ad.
And to turn this person into safe harbor is not right
posted on February 6, 2001 12:02:43 PM new
zazzie:
If even half the things said about the seller are true, (although I would be VERY interested to hear the other side of this story...might provide some more angles to the sorry episode) I think most of us would also call it off, rather than send off the money to a seller we didn't trust. That's not the point.
The question is whether the seller's actions are so bad they deserved the quick negative/reneged bid/safeharbor approach taken by the buyer here? Or is there in fact a whole lot of blame to be spread all around?
