[ARC5] Warning re eBay support of militaria selling

[MWM]

I hear what you say Brian and I do think ebay has a lot to answer for sometimes, I too have been robbed by them, but, it works both ways. 
I bought a 100W 30db attenuator which turned out faulty.  Did the request to return etc, the buyer said it was fine when he sent it, different names on messages to listed buyers id etc, and offered to send me another one if I sent another £12 to cover postage. 
Anyway, decided on the return/refund route. He did not reply within 3 days, ebay sent me a return label, prepaid, I returned it and once tracking told ebay it was there ebay refunded my money and original postage. 
So, not all bad but it can be frustrating trying to talk to a multinational. 
Ben G4BXD


-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Clarke <brianclarke01 at optusnet.com.au>
To: arc5 at mailman.qth.net
Sent: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 1:38
Subject: [ARC5] Warning re eBay support of militaria selling

I have just been diddled by a buyer when I used the 'New' category, though I
gave a full description in the free-text portion of my advertisement.
The item I was selling was a headset, H-161, complete in all respects,
sealed in a plastic sleeve by the army. H-161 headsets were made available
in the Vietnam war - so, they are 50 years old. But there is no eBay
category for 'old'. So, I photographed the item and included the photographs
in my eBay advertisement. In my advertisement, I included the eBay
boilerplate that the buyer could return the item within 30 days, and that
the buyer was responsible for return shipping. 
When a successful bid was made, I wrapped the headset in 1" bubble wrap and
put it in an Australia Post International plastic bag, and shipped it.
The buyer, jiglil, claimed the headset was damaged; his words: 
<The plastic section of the headset - the black lining over the metal frame
- is broken in several location (please see pic linked to this message).> 
Jiglil's photograph was exactly as in my advertisement. Jiglil wanted me to
pay return shipping.
So, I asked for further and better particulars of the damage; my words:
<I cannot see how the plastic part of the headband shown in your two
photographs is different from the photograph I put up on my original
advertisement. Please show tighter detail of the alleged damage. What marks
are there on the shipping envelope to indicate impact damage caused by
shipping workers?>
Jiglil did not send further photographs of damage to the headset or the
packaging. Instead, he escalated to eBay for immediate recompense.
eBay conspired with jiglil when it claimed I had not responded to jiglil's
demand for return shipping within 3 days of jiglil's assertion of damage and
demand for return shipping. Yet, quite clearly, and evidentially, I had
responded to jiglil on the day of his plaint, 14th March.
So, eBay sent me a note at 18:58 on the 19th March saying I had 48 hours to
respond. I responded to eBay immediately. At 19:10 (also on the 19th) eBay
told me it had decided to steal the sell price plus shipping from my
account.
So, I recounted the saga to eBay's complaints centre. What did I get back?
That I had not complied with the buyer's demand for return shipping.

My warning: eBay did not support my requests for further and better
particulars that could support the buyer's claim of alleged damage. eBay
gave me 48 hours notice to respond, but resiled within 72 minutes. Is this
fair and just? Well, apparently eBay thinks so.
Beware eBay's hidden agenda and policies.

73 de Brian, VK2GCE.

______________________________________________________________
ARC5 mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/arc5/attachments/20210321/b442c508/attachment.html>