Ebay - Cash on collection should be scrapped!

VanyaHargreeves

HunnyBunny wrote: »

No i didnt look under the covers, or under the carseat itself.

Ah, I thought you meant that the entire thing was filthy, including the stuff in plain view. That's fair enough, but you could have checked there anyway, iykwim. It probably wouldn't have crossed my mind, though...:o

HunnyBunny

VanyaHargreeves wrote: »

In relation to the thread title - in all honesty, I think it's wrong for you to claim that the system should be scrapped just because of you and your one negative experience. It's one among thousands, most of which are positive, and you shouldn't just claim that the entire system is rubbish and doesn't work because you've had a bad experience. Tbh, although the seller was wrong in selling you items that were unfit for use, I believe a small part of the blame for this bad experience is yours, for not checking the item as thoroughly as you could have. That's not ebay's system's fault, either - so I don't believe cash on collection should be scrapped. Just my two pence.

*sits back, waits for the flames*

I'm sure it does work out fine the majority of the time, but there are some instances when the buyer gets screwed. I just thought that as the seller didnt describe it correctly that ebay would have done something to help. If not scrapping it i think they should help out more, should something like this happen to another buyer. It seems unfair that the sellers get away with ripping people off.

HunnyBunny

VanyaHargreeves wrote: »

Ah, I thought you meant that the entire thing was filthy, including the stuff in plain view. That's fair enough, but you could have checked there anyway, iykwim. It probably wouldn't have crossed my mind, though...:o

To be honest it never occured to me to check under the covers, but even if i had though of it i probably would have felt too rude to do it whilst she was looking.

cyberbob

HunnyBunny wrote: »

It seems unfair that the sellers get away with ripping people off.

But you weren't ripped off you just didn't check it properly before you paid the money. It was all in front of you you didnt have to hand the money across. If you had bought from a classified add the same would have happened. It all comes down to you in the end. You admitted yourself you didnt check it over or even push the pram around the room.

soolin

On reflection I don't think paying even by paypal would have helped in this situation. Buyer has item delivered in person and later puts in a claim for item not as described, seller responds by explaining that buyer inspected goods and was happy..I think this is one instance where seller would still have won a paypal claim. Even if buyer had won the pram and seat would have needed to go back at buyers expense which due to weight and awkwardness might have cost a fair bit.

PinheadSK

luvvlyjubbly wrote: »

Totally out of order....i hope you apologise....

Exactly what do I have to apologise for?

I made a reasonable comment and was rewarded with two abrasive/sarcastic replies from the OP. I therefore asked for an explanation of their comments (none given) and made an observation of opinion. From what the OP has said in this thread, I came to the opinion that the over-riding factor here was the bargain when it should have been the childs safety. If you don't like that opinion, then please feel free to ignore me!

The OP states the child wasn't present so the item couldn't be checked. There are other ways to simulate the load that a pram might be expected to cope with. Take an average weight and put it in the pram. It's not difficult to find out the average weight of a baby and then use something to represent it!

Not checking the item is safe (brakes don't work, steers off to one side etc.) is simply irresponsible. I merely stated that it couldn't have been a priority for the OP... and therefore don't feel the need to apologise for my observations.

Sean

luvvlyjubbly

PinheadSK wrote: »

Exactly what do I have to apologise for?

I made a reasonable comment and was rewarded with two abrasive/sarcastic replies from the OP. I therefore asked for an explanation of their comments (none given) and made an observation of opinion. From what the OP has said in this thread, I came to the opinion that the over-riding factor here was the bargain when it should have been the childs safety. If you don't like that opinion, then please feel free to ignore me!

The OP states the child wasn't present so the item couldn't be checked. There are other ways to simulate the load that a pram might be expected to cope with. Take an average weight and put it in the pram. It's not difficult to find out the average weight of a baby and then use something to represent it!

Not checking the item is safe (brakes don't work, steers off to one side etc.) is simply irresponsible. I merely stated that it couldn't have been a priority for the OP... and therefore don't feel the need to apologise for my observations.

Sean

Oh I'm sorry and here I was thinking you wrote the most hurtful thing you can say to a mum just to get a reaction :rolleyes:

Humf_2

I had someone buy a pram of me last month, ( no it is not this one they paid paypal and then came and picked it up,)

But they did test it out with there child first to make sure it was working ok, with weight in the pram

????

Sounds like it was all in bad nick when you brought it?

masterbrown

I like the idea that COC should be scrapped as I agree its unsafe for buyers, and while they're at it they need to scrap Paypal payments too as thats unsafe for sellers.....
From now on they should only accept chocolate coins to pay for Ebay goods, its the only safe way :beer:

soolin

masterbrown wrote: »

I like the idea that COC should be scrapped as I agree its unsafe for buyers, and while they're at it they need to scrap Paypal payments too as thats unsafe for sellers.....
From now on they should only accept chocolate coins to pay for Ebay goods, its the only safe way :beer:

mmmm...chocolate