Ebay/Post Office.......please help

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

The buyer isn't being block because the seller thinks they are a scammer, they are being blocked because they live at an address which didn't receive a parcel and I do not wish to risk my money sending anything else there in the future. It's a unemotional, business decision.

wannabe_sybil

I haven't had many problems with sellers, I always try and be polite, and I know it can be tough.

However I wish some of them would block me. One or two have been so horrible to deal with that I felt like emailing and saying, 'please put me on your blocked bidder list or I will give you a negative.' because I don't want to ever buy from them again by accident.

Most sellers are either lovely or just do what they want to do which is make money by selling things to people like me. However people are people and sometimes it is just not worth going into all the grief and hassle just to get something that you could have bought for a penny more a few posts down the list.

Pseudopensioner - you are coming across as a bit odd.

pseudopensioner

wannabe_sybil wrote: »

Pseudopensioner - you are coming across as a bit odd.

Ok, I'll accept coming across as a bit odd if you accept coming across as somewhat lacking in the ability to comprehend the written word. You'll be alright though, you're among like minded people.

Crowqueen

wannabe_sybil wrote: »

I haven't had many problems with sellers, I always try and be polite, and I know it can be tough.

However I wish some of them would block me. One or two have been so horrible to deal with that I felt like emailing and saying, 'please put me on your blocked bidder list or I will give you a negative.' because I don't want to ever buy from them again by accident.

Most sellers are either lovely or just do what they want to do which is make money by selling things to people like me. However people are people and sometimes it is just not worth going into all the grief and hassle just to get something that you could have bought for a penny more a few posts down the list.

Pseudopensioner - you are coming across as a bit odd.

I think PP is overdoing it, but I don't mind the sentiments - too many sellers do assume this. I'm going through an INR for £20 elsewhere - not through eBay - and it's taking a while to get my money back.

And the seller doesn't even bother to reply .

So maybe he's just expressing what he feels about the process, albeit in a bit of a rant.

I don't like the attitude of some people here regarding INR - most of the time it is not the buyer's fault something they paid for never arrives. However, if I had to raise a claim to get my money back, I wouldn't buy from that person again.

OTOH, if they dealt with the situation pleasantly and co-operatively, I would buy from them again. I had one INR as a seller, and that's exactly what the person did - and I was happy to sell to them again. Simply because I believed that the item really had gone missing in the post and did not hold it against them. If they trust me enough to buy again, so I have no real option but to reciprocate that trust.

They can also raise a Non-Performing Seller dispute against someone who refuses to sell, so as the OP, if they were not BBLed at the time, you now refuse to deal with them at your own risk.

A claim for NAD might be worse, but I'd only block someone if something went to a nasty dispute; it would be my responsibility to sort out, not the person paying for the item.

Some sellers need to watch their attitude too. It may be different in business, and you may have plenty more fish in the sea not to miss one single customer, but I give people a fair crack of the whip - because at the end of the day some people are being punished for something that is ultimately the seller's responsibility, and it should if possible be solved without it going to dispute in the first place - that's a sign something has failed, not normal procedure for an INR.

I think that is was PP is objecting to - he's putting the case unusually stridently, though.

mikey72

Crowqueen wrote: »

.............Some sellers need to watch their attitude too. It may be different in business, and you may have plenty more fish in the sea not to miss one single customer, but I give people a fair crack of the whip - because at the end of the day some people are being punished for something that is ultimately the seller's responsibility, and it should if possible be solved without it going to dispute in the first place - that's a sign something has failed, not normal procedure for an INR.

I think that is was PP is objecting to - he's putting the case unusually stridently, though.

I did that once.

New seller, 0 feedback, and I thought I would give them a try, as everyone has to start somewhere.

Nothing recieved, they did answer the first email with something like "the computer had gone down", then nothing.

Feedback started appearing, initially good, then pages of negs, and I opened an INR to get a full refund.

So whether they were out and out scammers with a few samples they tried to ship just to delay the inevitable, or whether they couldn't cope and simply gave up, I'll never know.

But I would have no problem with INR, I just wouldn't use the seller again though.

Crowqueen

I bought something from a new seller posting on the community forums asking for help; item got lost/delayed and they were happy to send out a replacement. When both items arrived I paid for the replacement and everything was resolved happily.

I haven't been back, but that's just because I don't need their products - I would be happy to go back at some point.

pseudopensioner

Crowqueen wrote: »

I think PP is overdoing it, but I don't mind the sentiments - too many sellers do assume this. I'm going through an INR for £20 elsewhere - not through eBay - and it's taking a while to get my money back.

And the seller doesn't even bother to reply .

So maybe he's just expressing what he feels about the process, albeit in a bit of a rant.

I don't like the attitude of some people here regarding INR - most of the time it is not the buyer's fault something they paid for never arrives. However, if I had to raise a claim to get my money back, I wouldn't buy from that person again.


OTOH, if they dealt with the situation pleasantly and co-operatively, I would buy from them again. I had one INR as a seller, and that's exactly what the person did - and I was happy to sell to them again. Simply because I believed that the item really had gone missing in the post and did not hold it against them. If they trust me enough to buy again, so I have no real option but to reciprocate that trust.

They can also raise a Non-Performing Seller dispute against someone who refuses to sell, so as the OP, if they were not BBLed at the time, you now refuse to deal with them at your own risk.

A claim for NAD might be worse, but I'd only block someone if something went to a nasty dispute; it would be my responsibility to sort out, not the person paying for the item.

Some sellers need to watch their attitude too. It may be different in business, and you may have plenty more fish in the sea not to miss one single customer, but I give people a fair crack of the whip - because at the end of the day some people are being punished for something that is ultimately the seller's responsibility, and it should if possible be solved without it going to dispute in the first place - that's a sign something has failed, not normal procedure for an INR.

I think that is was PP is objecting to - he's putting the case unusually stridently, though.

Well, I was unaware that I had been 'ranting' but, each to their own opinion.

I thought I'd voiced my concerns quite clearly and succinctly in post#5. Obviously not clearly enough and too succinctly for some to grasp. Had I not been subjected to ridicule, my intellect maligned and my capacity to 'understand' questioned by some posters I may not have posted again.

Was it 'pensioner' in my username which led people to discount/disregard the content of a fair and justifiable statement? That happens a lot to people of a certain age. Strangely these people are still allowed an opinion and many are eminently capable of writing or vocalising this in a reasoned and articulate manner. It is also apparent that those who cannot readily do the same also fail to appreciate or acknowledge their own lack of ability in this area and thus resort to ridicule and prejudice.

I will accede that at times, I am guilty of verbosity. In my defence however, these times are usually preceded/precipitated by the rudeness which appears to be commonly accepted as the 'norm' (but not by me). Rudeness is usually exhibited with deliberate attempt to offend the recipient. Ignorance is somewhat different, in that the perpetrator knows no better.

So, is it that evil thinkers are evil doers? Does a seller ascribe nefarious intent to their INR claiming buyer because they themselves can identify with it? Only the individual seller knows the answer.

Finis. Finish, End of, or, any other variation someone/anyone prefers. That after all is their prerogative.

Crowqueen

I don't think you can say you weren't ranting, or venting. If you look closely I sympathise with your POV, but wishing malicious bidding on anyone is not something I would go along with either.

I fully agree with you. Some sellers are too quick to judge and agreements should be reached without it going to a case so a buyer has a good experience and the seller does not suffer either poor feedback or cases opened against them which they can't win. But I think in all fairness playing the 'age' card is going to damage your case - I could play the 'disability' card as well (to explain why I'm on a fairly low income and therefore see the non-arrival of an item as a big deal which is very frustrating, particularly when I'm then accused of trying to scam someone into the bargain) but I chose not to.

And you can't arbitrarily call time on a public forum - any opinion is open to scrutiny, for people to accept, reject or sympathise with. That's the nature of the beast - don't like it, don't post your opinions to the thread (I do think people were dogpiling you a bit earlier but...if you won't accept even an expression of qualified support at face value, then it's a bit difficult to get satisfaction). If you won't even let me say that you are ranting/venting/whatever, then although I basically agree with you, I think I will start to see where everyone else is coming from.

pseudopensioner

Crowqueen wrote: »

I don't think you can say you weren't ranting, or venting. If you look closely I sympathise with your POV, but wishing malicious bidding on anyone is not something I would go along with either.

I fully agree with you. Some sellers are too quick to judge and agreements should be reached without it going to a case so a buyer has a good experience and the seller does not suffer either poor feedback or cases opened against them which they can't win. But I think in all fairness playing the 'age' card is going to damage your case - I could play the 'disability' card as well (to explain why I'm on a fairly low income and therefore see the non-arrival of an item as a big deal which is very frustrating, particularly when I'm then accused of trying to scam someone into the bargain) but I chose not to.


And you can't arbitrarily call time on a public forum - any opinion is open to scrutiny, for people to accept, reject or sympathise with. That's the nature of the beast - don't like it, don't post your opinions to the thread (I do think people were dogpiling you a bit earlier but...if you won't accept even an expression of qualified support at face value, then it's a bit difficult to get satisfaction). If you won't even let me say that you are ranting/venting/whatever, then although I basically agree with you, I think I will start to see where everyone else is coming from.

Well, 'finis' was patently a misnomer.

Let's just get this clear, I am much indebted to you for understanding the essence of my original posting and your support, it took a while but we got there.

At no time have I ever suggested, or would ever support malicious bidding! I did say I hoped that a seller's particular policy came back to bite him ..... , a "live by the sword, die by the sword" allusion.
Nowhere was malicious bidding mentioned. Where did you get that from?

I have reviewed my postings and if anyone is prepared to review the same, with honesty and can point out my 'errors' I'm more than happy to accede if I've been erroneous.

The 'pensioner' part of my user name emanates from the time I joined this forum. I don't 'use' it, I have previously presumed/assumed ( there's the rub) that my 'arguments' stood for themselves. On this thread however, I eventually came to the conclusion that my reasoned comments were being discounted and ridiculed for some reason. The " If you must post make sense" comment is one that comes to mind, oh yes, add to that. I 'come across as a bit odd'. Why? other posters are not presumed to be not making sense, or a bit odd. Then again, they don't have 'pensioner' as part of their username do they?

In conclusion. The 'finis' alluded to my postings on the thread and no one elses. Shame, I was tempted back to respond, although I really don't see the need to justify my opinion. I have previously given reasoned arguments for my statements. If others can say the same, so be it.

SpammyTheSpammer

is soolin right, that pseudopensioner is "deliberately misunderstanding or do you really fail to grasp how it works" ?

and Crowqueen is correct that pseudopensioner was "ranting/venting/whatever" ?

is pseudopensioner "guilty of verbosity"?