feedback extortion

iieee

And they are calling us ill informed! Damn them! This is war! *shakes fists*

Brooker_Dave

soolin wrote: »

Dream on

Please don't all assume we have the IQ of a gnat. Some of us are quiet capable of reading and understanding the requirements for using ebay.

"reading and understanding the" *ever changing* "requirements for using ebay"

brindsey

Don't think it's got anything to do with the "ever changing requirements for using ebay", Rather that we haven't had the full story here. No way would eBay impose that sanction on one misdemeanor of feedback extortion. Miffed we probably will never know the real reason(s) why.

Brooker_Dave

brindsey wrote: »

Don't think it's got anything to do with the "ever changing requirements for using ebay", Rather that we haven't had the full story here. No way would eBay impose that sanction on one misdemeanor of feedback extortion. Miffed we probably will never know the real reason(s) why.

You have to wonder what ebay's shareholders think of the paying customer disposal programme?

Added the latest figures showing Amazon running away with it and craigslist about to overtake:

http://blog.auctionbytes.com/cgi-bin/blog/blog.pl?/comments/2010/7/1278629772.html/2/20#comments

thewarehouseproject

Hi,

I was the Op from the ebay forum, thought i would continue my story here as i have been naru'd.

Against the speculation i have to say that this is the first issue we have had with ebay.

It was a very simple mistake made by a member of my partners staff.

Anyone could have made a simple mistake like this.

Now we are facing closing a good business.

Surely this is a bit unjust?

brindsey

Brooker Dave, hope what auctionbytes quote is true. Can't see it. Guess tho eBay edging their bets by encouraging the big boys of the 'retail outlets'. Regular 'grab a granny' me, who previously bought off small sellers offering good prices on the likes of Jacques Vert. Now there is an official outlet as well as House of Fraser.......... Be interesting to know whether they get concessionary rates? True what they say, death of the small business seller. Still going strong on the 99p tat though.
(Off topic I know, but interesting)

brindsey

Warehouse, good to meet you here. I, like a lot of others, think there is more to your story. However you mention figues in thousands of pounds, which would be considerable loss of revenue to a (as auctionbytes would have us believe) struggling to stay top of the e list auction houses. Glad though you have got a platform not monitored by the moderators/button pushers on eBay on which to put forward your case. Good luck.

sovay

Warehouse, do you realise that this "simple mistake" was in fact against the law?


Because to say "this transaction was a positive experience", was not true.
The buyer had got damaged goods, and when they asked for their money back, the seller said "not unless you tell lies for us first."

I think eBay would be right to suspend the account of a seller who behaves like that.
It isn't a "simple mistake". It's extortion, and it's against the law.
Blaming a member of staff is a cop-out.
The account owner is responsible for their account.

And it isn't really true to say this was the first time it happened.
Because you already said there was another case where the seller did exactly the same thing, only they got away with it.
That didn't make it right, though.

It's like this. Suppose you buy a carpet, and it arrives all soggy and unusable. You ask the carpet firm for your money back.
Suppose they say "Not unless you write a letter saying that you are really pleased with the carpet and with our service, first".
What would you say to them?
Would you write that letter - before you'd had a refund, when all you'd had was threats?

Brooker_Dave

sovay wrote: »

Warehouse, do you realise that this "simple mistake" was in fact against the law?

Should all businesses that make a trivial mistake be closed down and their employees left on the dole?

sovay

"Should all businesses that make a trivial mistake be closed down and their employees left on the dole?"
To refuse - on more than one occasion - to give a consumer their legal rights, unless they make a prior written FALSE statement to mislead other potential customers, is far from trivial.
Warehouse has said that the seller concerned - who is of course NOT Warehouse - has done this before, but the previous consumer(s) caved in to the extortion, and issued the false statements, in order to obtain their legal rights.