Do I have to fill it out ?

Crowqueen

Strapped wrote: »

I can see the temptation to ignore the Royal Mail communication, but I think macfly has a point about personal integrity. It's the old, "you can't change other people's behaviour, only your response to it". Which is why I asked about whether the seller would only get paid if the buyer signs the form. If they will get paid anyway (eventually) then I guess it doesn't matter as much, sign or don't sign.

In this case, actually, I'd say you could change the seller's behaviour by not rewarding it and giving in over the form.

If they do this too many times and work out that their attitude is losing them money, maybe they will think twice about how they behave, or if they go out of business as a result, it will prove that they alienated their customers by their attitude problems and couldn't cope with a job that required them to treat the people paying their wages with a little respect. What goes around comes around.

For example there are two shops in the village, both selling the same thing. One shop is run by someone with good customer service skills, who is always happy to help. One is run by a moody, grouchy old curmudgeon who accuses people who are browsing in the shop of trying to steal things. Would you go back there if you knew the other shop had better service? I don't think so. The person who is moody all the time will probably go out of business, but it will be their own fault - and it is their responsibility to change their attitude.

How we treat other people can often have direct effects on our own affairs - this person should not be any different. It's got nothing to do with morals or ethics - and everything to do with learning not to be an idiot to people you hope will pay you for something.

Strapped

Crowqueen wrote: »

In this case, actually, I'd say you could change the seller's behaviour by not rewarding it and giving in over the form.

If they do this too many times and work out that their attitude is losing them money, maybe they will think twice about how they behave, or if they go out of business as a result, it will prove that they alienated their customers by their attitude problems and couldn't cope with a job that required them to treat the people paying their wages with a little respect. What goes around comes around.

For example there are two shops in the village, both selling the same thing. One shop is run by someone with good customer service skills, who is always happy to help. One is run by a moody, grouchy old curmudgeon who accuses people who are browsing in the shop of trying to steal things. Would you go back there if you knew the other shop had better service? I don't think so. The person who is moody all the time will probably go out of business, but it will be their own fault - and it is their responsibility to change their attitude.

How we treat other people can often have direct effects on our own affairs - this person should not be any different. It's got nothing to do with morals or ethics - and everything to do with learning not to be an idiot to people you hope will pay you for something.

It has everything to do with morals and ethics, if you believed that your actions would cause someone else harm, however much of an !!!! they were.

JimmyTheWig

Shiloe wrote: »

paypal now want 'supporting evidence' from me ... eh I dont have anything so I just took screenshots of the sale page and royal mail parcel track showing still processing :undecided didnt know what they are really looking for but lets hope thats enough

You could take a photo of your empty doormat with a comment of "no parcel received"!

Crowqueen

Strapped wrote: »

It has everything to do with morals and ethics, if you believed that your actions would cause someone else harm, however much of an !!!! they were.

So it's moral to support a shop/business owner that can't serve its customers properly and doesn't take responsibility for its own sales?

Hmmm. Interesting concept. New one on me.

Strapped

Crowqueen wrote: »

So it's moral to support a shop/business owner that can't serve its customers properly and doesn't take responsibility for its own sales?

Hmmm. Interesting concept. New one on me.

It's about your own actions, not about who they affect. Personal integrity. I'm actually quite surprised by your stance tbh as you are usually the champion of "doing the right thing" on this board.

soolin

Strapped wrote: »

It's about your own actions, not about who they affect. Personal integrity. I'm actually quite surprised by your stance tbh as you are usually the champion of "doing the right thing" on this board.

I still don't think this is a moral stance thing at all.

Seller is refusing a refund to buyer- therefore he cannot believe the item is lost, otherwise why is he refusing refund? Therefore why should buyer confirm loss when seller is obviously unsure .

Also on the slim chance that buyer loses the dispute he will need to be able to prove loss himself, so giving seller refund when buyer might need to make a claim himself is possibly an issue.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

To be honest the seller is most likely a 'it's not my responsibility' rather than disputing the loss. Once the payment was refunded I'd just fill out the form and send it back to RM.

As other's are discussing morals, it's a case of whether you follow an eye for an eye? In this case I wouldn't get bothered about it and would just file the claim. The seller has proof of the buyer claiming non-receipt so if anything were to be questioned it would be why the buyer didn't file the form. The seller being an !!! shouldn't cause RM extra work by closing and re-opening cases because the buyer didn't want to help RM.

soolin

I agree with Ludovico that the instant I got my refund I would fill out the form and sne it back, as once loss has been agreed between buyer and seller I would not want the seller to lose out.

Strapped

soolin wrote: »

I Therefore why should buyer confirm loss when seller is obviously unsure .

Because the buyer is obviously sure. Unless they are pulling a fast one themselves.

soolin

Strapped wrote: »

Because the buyer is obviously sure. Unless they are pulling a fast one themselves.

I still would not leave myself with no back up plan (ie the slight possibility of being able to claim myself) if I lost the dispute.

The quicker seller refunds the quicker I would be happy that I did not need a back up plan, and would return the form.