Need Help with Nightmare Ebay Transaction

[Cadman]

Looks like the OP has flown the coop, but I would have been curious if the communication with eBay had been actual phone calls, or simply web communication. In my experience, a buyer can return almost anything for any reason and the seller must oblige or there are serious repercussions, up to and including eBay invoicing the seller for the item's value up to 60-days later.

I am always communicating through e-mail and I am making sure they know that I am doing that in order to have proof. It is funny how many impossible things over the phone become instantly possible when you use e-mail or even better paper.

Regarding EBay forcing the seller, if you mark the product as non refundable you are not required to refund?  I don't know if this product was refundable or not, but even if it was refundable it might be that the reason for refunding was not met.

I have two products for sale on EBay and I am not accepting returns. It is written on the offer page.

The big difference with eBay is that you can escalate your issue over the phone to someone that can make an actual decision, explain the situation in more than 255 characters and reinforce the fact you're an actual human being at the other end of the line, whereas eBay's radio button/message system is handled by employees with very little authority, and in my experience, once a determination has been made against you through electronic means, there's little recourse.

There's a common misconception that 'Seller Does Not Offer Returns' trumps a buyer's request for a return, and it simply isn't true. In fact it makes things worse for you as a seller as the buyer can click "Not as Described", and since you're not taking returns, they keep the item AND get refunded.  Cruise on over to the eBay Community to see a plethora of threads on this issue.

[bacchi]

Instead, the OP tried to make it right and is getting the short end. That's what is ###### up about this entire thing.

I don't see it as "the OP tried to make it right."  I see it as the OP tried to avoid the consequences to her/himself of her/his own mistake.

What mistake? That their credit card was used fraudulently?

[bacchi]

Looks like the OP has flown the coop, but I would have been curious if the communication with eBay had been actual phone calls, or simply web communication. In my experience, a buyer can return almost anything for any reason and the seller must oblige or there are serious repercussions, up to and including eBay invoicing the seller for the item's value up to 60-days later.

I am always communicating through e-mail and I am making sure they know that I am doing that in order to have proof. It is funny how many impossible things over the phone become instantly possible when you use e-mail or even better paper.

Regarding EBay forcing the seller, if you mark the product as non refundable you are not required to refund?  I don't know if this product was refundable or not, but even if it was refundable it might be that the reason for refunding was not met.

I have two products for sale on EBay and I am not accepting returns. It is written on the offer page.

The big difference with eBay is that you can escalate your issue over the phone to someone that can make an actual decision, explain the situation in more than 255 characters and reinforce the fact you're an actual human being at the other end of the line, whereas eBay's radio button/message system is handled by employees with very little authority, and in my experience, once a determination has been made against you through electronic means, there's little recourse.

There's a common misconception that 'Seller Does Not Offer Returns' trumps a buyer's request for a return, and it simply isn't true. In fact it makes things worse for you as a seller as the buyer can click "Not as Described", and since you're not taking returns, they keep the item AND get refunded.  Cruise on over to the eBay Community to see a plethora of threads on this issue.

Further, A "no refunds" policy is for buyer's remorse or "as-is" sales. Since the card was used without authorization, the OP is not the buyer.

This is similar to someone using a stolen card to book a no-refund airbnb. In no way would we expect the card holder to "pay for their mistake" of losing the card. The host refunds the money, or airbnb refunds the money, and the card holder is made whole.

[Villanelle]

Instead, the OP tried to make it right and is getting the short end. That's what is ###### up about this entire thing.

I don't see it as "the OP tried to make it right."  I see it as the OP tried to avoid the consequences to her/himself of her/his own mistake.

What mistake? That their credit card was used fraudulently?

For starters that they mailed an item to someone who had clearly told them "no returns".  How is that trying to make it right?  How it that not a mistake?  The OP tried to make a crime committed against her into the seller's problem, because they felt bad about making it the criminal's problem but weren't willing to make it their own problem (by eating the loss).  Someone said "no returns" but she mailed them an item and expected them to pay for it.  How is that not a mistake?

The OP was the victim of this crime, but didn't want to treat it like a crime.  If they didn't want to eat the loss, they should have pursed this via the credit card unauthorized charge.  And if that didn't work, they should have pursed criminal charges.  But it wasn't worth it to them to make those waves, which is also fine, but they don't get to have it both ways--not eating the loss but also not making the criminal pay for it, by making it the problem of the seller. 

[bacchi]

Instead, the OP tried to make it right and is getting the short end. That's what is ###### up about this entire thing.

I don't see it as "the OP tried to make it right."  I see it as the OP tried to avoid the consequences to her/himself of her/his own mistake.

What mistake? That their credit card was used fraudulently?

For starters that they mailed an item to someone who had clearly told them "no returns".  How is that trying to make it right?  How it that not a mistake?  The OP tried to make a crime committed against her into the seller's problem, because they felt bad about making it the criminal's problem but weren't willing to make it their own problem (by eating the loss).  Someone said "no returns" but she mailed them an item and expected them to pay for it.  How is that not a mistake?

"No returns" is meaningless if you didn't order the item in the first place.

The OP could've kept the item, disputed the charge, and let the seller deal with the loss. Instead, the seller was made whole and then some.

[RWD]

Instead, the OP tried to make it right and is getting the short end. That's what is ###### up about this entire thing.

I don't see it as "the OP tried to make it right."  I see it as the OP tried to avoid the consequences to her/himself of her/his own mistake.

What mistake? That their credit card was used fraudulently?

For starters that they mailed an item to someone who had clearly told them "no returns".  How is that trying to make it right?  How it that not a mistake?  The OP tried to make a crime committed against her into the seller's problem, because they felt bad about making it the criminal's problem but weren't willing to make it their own problem (by eating the loss).  Someone said "no returns" but she mailed them an item and expected them to pay for it.  How is that not a mistake?

"No returns" is meaningless if you didn't order the item in the first place.

The OP could've kept the item, disputed the charge, and let the seller deal with the loss. Instead, the seller was made whole and then some.

Or the OP could have kept the item, listed it on eBay or Craigslist to recoup most of the cost, and chalked up the difference as a cheap life lesson in computer security. Instead it's an expensive lesson on following rules and procedures.

[bacchi]

Instead, the OP tried to make it right and is getting the short end. That's what is ###### up about this entire thing.

I don't see it as "the OP tried to make it right."  I see it as the OP tried to avoid the consequences to her/himself of her/his own mistake.

What mistake? That their credit card was used fraudulently?

For starters that they mailed an item to someone who had clearly told them "no returns".  How is that trying to make it right?  How it that not a mistake?  The OP tried to make a crime committed against her into the seller's problem, because they felt bad about making it the criminal's problem but weren't willing to make it their own problem (by eating the loss).  Someone said "no returns" but she mailed them an item and expected them to pay for it.  How is that not a mistake?

"No returns" is meaningless if you didn't order the item in the first place.

The OP could've kept the item, disputed the charge, and let the seller deal with the loss. Instead, the seller was made whole and then some.

Or the OP could have kept the item, listed it on eBay or Craigslist to recoup most of the cost, and chalked up the difference as a cheap life lesson in computer security. Instead it's an expensive lesson on following rules and procedures.

Agreed but I think we see it different ways.

The true lesson may be that Ebay has really strong buyer protections. Use them.

The second, related, lesson is that it's always better to be the one with the money/item rather than the one demanding the money/item.

[MoseyingAlong]

Further, A "no refunds" policy is for buyer's remorse or "as-is" sales. Since the card was used without authorization, the OP is not the buyer.

This is similar to someone using a stolen card to book a no-refund airbnb. In no way would we expect the card holder to "pay for their mistake" of losing the card. The host refunds the money, or airbnb refunds the money, and the card holder is made whole.

I actually disagree with you here.
The criminal and/or insurance should make the cardholder whole, not the other party in the transaction. The cardholder should notify their card company of the fraudulent charge and let them investigate.

Since we're making up new scenarios here, I'll use one that might make it clearer why I disagree with your AirBnB one.  If the teenager who made the unauthorized purchase had instead ordered 60 pizzas for a pool party and those pizzas were in fact delivered, would you expect the pizzeria to give a refund to the card holder?
No, the pizzeria did their part of the transaction and had no reason to suspect that the charge was unauthorized. Otherwise, the loss shifts from the cardholder to the pizzeria who spend resources to make those 60 pizzas and they don't get that money back, whether or not the pizzas were eaten.

The cardholder was the victim of the crime and should have reported it as a fraudulent charge to their credit card company and/or the police. The fact that they don't want to does not (or should not) make it the problem of the eBay seller, AirBnB host or pizzeria.

[bacchi]

Further, A "no refunds" policy is for buyer's remorse or "as-is" sales. Since the card was used without authorization, the OP is not the buyer.

This is similar to someone using a stolen card to book a no-refund airbnb. In no way would we expect the card holder to "pay for their mistake" of losing the card. The host refunds the money, or airbnb refunds the money, and the card holder is made whole.

I actually disagree with you here.
The criminal and/or insurance should make the cardholder whole, not the other party in the transaction. The cardholder should notify their card company of the fraudulent charge and let them investigate.

I always get asked "Have you contacted the seller yet?" when I dispute a charge.

Since we're making up new scenarios here, I'll use one that might make it clearer why I disagree with your AirBnB one.  If the teenager who made the unauthorized purchase had instead ordered 60 pizzas for a pool party and those pizzas were in fact delivered, would you expect the pizzeria to give a refund to the card holder?
No, the pizzeria did their part of the transaction and had no reason to suspect that the charge was unauthorized. Otherwise, the loss shifts from the cardholder to the pizzeria who spend resources to make those 60 pizzas and they don't get that money back, whether or not the pizzas were eaten.

Fair enough. We know the pizzeria doesn't eat (har!) the cost but we also know that the card holder doesn't either. Most likely, in the end, the bank does.

However, in the OP's situation, the item still exists. The seller has it. Nothing was lost except some time mailing out the package.


Let's go over the "correct" thing to do here. Is this it?

1) OP disputes the charge.
2) OP gets the kid arrested.
3) OP follows the "no return" policy and keeps the item.

Result:
1) OP doesn't pay out because OP didn't order the item in the first place. Yay!
2) Kid learns a lesson. Yay!
3) Seller...learns a lesson (confirm with the buyer first)? Yay?

[Gronnie]

Further, A "no refunds" policy is for buyer's remorse or "as-is" sales. Since the card was used without authorization, the OP is not the buyer.

This is similar to someone using a stolen card to book a no-refund airbnb. In no way would we expect the card holder to "pay for their mistake" of losing the card. The host refunds the money, or airbnb refunds the money, and the card holder is made whole.

I actually disagree with you here.
The criminal and/or insurance should make the cardholder whole, not the other party in the transaction. The cardholder should notify their card company of the fraudulent charge and let them investigate.

Since we're making up new scenarios here, I'll use one that might make it clearer why I disagree with your AirBnB one.  If the teenager who made the unauthorized purchase had instead ordered 60 pizzas for a pool party and those pizzas were in fact delivered, would you expect the pizzeria to give a refund to the card holder?
No, the pizzeria did their part of the transaction and had no reason to suspect that the charge was unauthorized. Otherwise, the loss shifts from the cardholder to the pizzeria who spend resources to make those 60 pizzas and they don't get that money back, whether or not the pizzas were eaten.

The cardholder was the victim of the crime and should have reported it as a fraudulent charge to their credit card company and/or the police. The fact that they don't want to does not (or should not) make it the problem of the eBay seller, AirBnB host or pizzeria.

You realize in the end it's the pizza company that takes the loss in this hypothetical right? What do you think the credit card company does when fraud is reported?

[NotJen]

However, in the OP's situation, the item still exists. The seller has it. Nothing was lost except some time mailing out the package.

No, the seller is out a bunch of eBay fees and the original shipping charge.  If eBay already ruled in favor of the seller, they aren't going to refund those fees to the seller.

[Samuel]

If the OP is unwilling to expose the teen to legal consequences for their illegal actions then why should they then be allowed to shift the losses to either the seller or the credit card company, neither of whom did anything wrong here? The OP has a path to actually being made whole but not if they choose to continue to shield the actual bad actor from consequences. Choosing that option (combined with the super naive mistake or poorly thought out attempt at forcing your preferred outcome that was sending back a package you'd been explicitly told was not returnable) costs $700.

[bacchi]

However, in the OP's situation, the item still exists. The seller has it. Nothing was lost except some time mailing out the package.

No, the seller is out a bunch of eBay fees and the original shipping charge.  If eBay already ruled in favor of the seller, they aren't going to refund those fees to the seller.

I've always paid shipping when I've bought from ebay. You're telling me that when I pay shipping, it goes to ebay AND the seller has to pay for it? In effect, a hidden fee to ebay?

^^I don't understand what you wrote. I think one of those "seller"s should be a buyer but I'm not sure which one.


Even if the seller is out some fees, there's obviously another solution here other than the OP is $-700 and the seller is up ~$675?

[bacchi]

If the OP is unwilling to expose the teen to legal consequences for their illegal actions then why should they then be allowed to shift the losses to either the seller or the credit card company, neither of whom did anything wrong here? The OP has a path to actually being made whole but not if they choose to continue to shield the actual bad actor from consequences. Choosing that option (combined with the super naive mistake or poorly thought out attempt at forcing your preferred outcome that was sending back a package you'd been explicitly told was not returnable) costs $700.

This doesn't apply.

But if it did, here's what you're suggesting is the optimal solution.

1) OP disputes the charge.
2) OP gets the kid arrested.
3) OP follows the "no return" policy and keeps the item.

Result:
1) OP doesn't pay out because OP didn't order the item in the first place. Yay!
2) Kid learns a lesson. Yay!
3) Seller...learns a lesson (confirm with the buyer first)? Yay?

That seems like a stupid policy and I'm guessing that the seller would want their item back rather than strictly following their "no returns" policy.


There's more than one solution here that results in more appropriate losses (or "lessons," since that's a term being bandied about a lot) for all parties.

[NotJen]

However, in the OP's situation, the item still exists. The seller has it. Nothing was lost except some time mailing out the package.

No, the seller is out a bunch of eBay fees and the original shipping charge.  If eBay already ruled in favor of the seller, they aren't going to refund those fees to the seller.

I've always paid shipping when I've bought from ebay. You're telling me that when I pay shipping, it goes to ebay AND the seller has to pay for it? In effect, a hidden fee to ebay?

Even if the seller is out some fees, there's obviously another solution here other than the OP is $-700 and the seller is up ~$675?

I assume the OP wanted a refund of the original shipping charges.  Since it was actually mailed, the seller would then be out the amount of the shipping.

And yes, actually, sellers get charged seller fees on the shipping amount (ETA: and sales tax!).

The seller is possibly out about $100 on this transaction (at least, that's how much I'd be paying in fees if I had sold it as a casual eBayer).

[bacchi]

The seller is possibly out about $100 on this transaction (at least, that's how much I'd be paying in fees if I had sold it as a casual eBayer).

Ok.

The OP is out ~$100.
The teen gets punished and owes the OP $100, maybe through labor.
The seller has their fees and shipping charges repaid and can resell the item.

[NotJen]

No, the seller is out a bunch of eBay fees and the original shipping charge.  If eBay already ruled in favor of the seller, they aren't going to refund those fees to the seller.

^^I don't understand what you wrote. I think one of those "seller"s should be a buyer but I'm not sure which one.

No, I meant for them all to say seller.

Here's what this would look like to me (based on $700 total charged to CC):  Item is $635, shipping is $15, tax is $50.  Buyer pays $700.  eBay takes $86.45 in fees.  Seller pays $15 to ship.  Seller has $598.44 in pocket.  Seller refunds buyer $700, seller is down $101.  eBay does not refund any of these charges because they already ruled that seller is in the right.

The seller is possibly out about $100 on this transaction (at least, that's how much I'd be paying in fees if I had sold it as a casual eBayer).

Ok.

The OP is out ~$100.
The teen gets punished and owes the OP $100, maybe through labor.
The seller has their fees and shipping charges repaid and can resell the item.

Yes - this is definitely the right answer *IF* the OP had contacted the seller and they reached this agreement prior to sending the item back.  But your 3rd step doesn't happen from eBay, and it *might* not be possible within the confines of what actions you're allowed to take inside your eBay account (options were very limited the one time I had to accept a return).  You might have to operate outside of eBay, which would make me pretty wary as a seller.

[bacchi]

Ok.

The OP is out ~$100.
The teen gets punished and owes the OP $100, maybe through labor.
The seller has their fees and shipping charges repaid and can resell the item.

Yes - this is definitely the right answer *IF* the OP had contacted the seller and they reached this agreement prior to sending the item back.  But your 3rd step doesn't happen from eBay, and it *might* not be possible within the confines of what actions you're allowed to take inside your eBay account (options were very limited the one time I had to accept a return).  You might have to operate outside of eBay, which would make me pretty wary as a seller.

That's unfortunate. What it tells me, in this type of situation or similar, is to stiff the seller to avoid getting stiffed myself.

And that's why it's fucked.

[iris lily]

Ok.

The OP is out ~$100.
The teen gets punished and owes the OP $100, maybe through labor.
The seller has their fees and shipping charges repaid and can resell the item.

Yes - this is definitely the right answer *IF* the OP had contacted the seller and they reached this agreement prior to sending the item back.  But your 3rd step doesn't happen from eBay, and it *might* not be possible within the confines of what actions you're allowed to take inside your eBay account (options were very limited the one time I had to accept a return).  You might have to operate outside of eBay, which would make me pretty wary as a seller.

That's unfortunate. What it tells me, in this type of situation or similar, is to stiff the seller to avoid getting stiffed myself.

And that's why it's fucked.

Agreed.

This thread strikes me as the OP’s ego centric idea that she’s always right no matter what. Not only did she not think it through, her sending the item back to the seller, she found stuff after getting some pushback on this thread.

Clearly she is always right no matter what.

[iris lily]

Ok.

The OP is out ~$100.
The teen gets punished and owes the OP $100, maybe through labor.
The seller has their fees and shipping charges repaid and can resell the item.

Yes - this is definitely the right answer *IF* the OP had contacted the seller and they reached this agreement prior to sending the item back.  But your 3rd step doesn't happen from eBay, and it *might* not be possible within the confines of what actions you're allowed to take inside your eBay account (options were very limited the one time I had to accept a return).  You might have to operate outside of eBay, which would make me pretty wary as a seller.

That's unfortunate. What it tells me, in this type of situation or similar, is to stiff the seller to avoid getting stiffed myself.

And that's why it's fucked.

Agreed.

This thread strikes me as the OP’s ego centric idea that she’s always right no matter what. Not only did she not think it through, her sending the item back to the seller, she flounced off after getting some pushback on this thread.

Clearly she is always right no matter what.

[Dicey]

Y'all realize you're arguing amongst yourselves, don't you? The OP has left the building. We'll never know the end of this story. Let's all move along, nothing to more see here. Plenty of others who need help and don't turn tail and run when they don't like your expert advice.