Packing disclaimer!!

longtimelurkersam

Rarely post on this forum but lurk and have learnt a lot. More of a rant than it is a need for help, although constructive input on feedback appreciated.

I bought two of these from this seller http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Apollo-White-Ceramic-12-Egg-Store-Tray-NEW-/270843507602?pt=UK_HG_Crockery_RL&hash=item3f0f87f392 so ended up paying £6 in postage.

Arrived with one of the items broken. They were only bubble wrapped then wrapped in thin corrugated cardboad.

At sellers request Sent seller a photo of damage. No reply received so chased this up to be advised "Hello We do not usually replace these items as there is a disclaimer on the listing but on this occasion we have sent another item"

I have to say I was somewhat livid to receive the email. Had they done a proper job of packing it say in a box then it might have been an acceptable stance to take, but it basically broke because they scrimped on packing for fragile item but still charge £6. Now I see people giving people negs all the time for ripping off packing costs and I generally take the view that I have agreed the price of posting and therefore wouldn't do that, however in this instance I probably will.

I will wait for the second item to arrive before giving my feedback.

I am sure as a business seller there are lots of reasons why that disclaimer on the ad is utter tosh and no doubt I would habe easily won a case against them.

Anyway, rant over.

Mindless_Clone

Cost aside, for something like this, packaging has to be robust enough, regardless of what their "disclaimer" says. If you raised a SNAD for it they would have no choice but to refund (although return would probablt be at your cost).

And anyway, pretty certain their "returns" policy is not Distance Selling regulation compliant so they can say what they like and it means diddly squat in terms of the law.

RFW

Mindless_Clone wrote: »

And anyway, pretty certain their "returns" policy is not Distance Selling regulation compliant so they can say what they like and it means diddly squat in terms of the law.

I don't think that for something like this Distance Selling Regs are important, it's never just enough for the seller to "stick it in the post". It is always the seller's responsibility that the item arrives with the buyer in good time and condition, they can put what they like about items lost or damaged in transit, it's all poppycock.

It is pretty appalling (and embarrassing for other sellers) that a top rated seller with over 12k feedback should write such drivel on their listing. If only they were on a public forum and could be reported;)

soolin

RFW wrote: »

I don't think that for something like this Distance Selling Regs are important, it's never just enough for the seller to "stick it in the post". It is always the seller's responsibility that the item arrives with the buyer in good time and condition, they can put what they like about items lost or damaged in transit, it's all poppycock.

It is pretty appalling (and embarrassing for other sellers) that a top rated seller with over 12k feedback should write such drivel on their listing. If only they were on a public forum and could be reported;)

I agree, it reflects badly on the rest of us sellers who do understand that good packaging is for our benefit and not only for the benefit of our buyers.

Crowqueen

I generally take the view that I have agreed the price of posting and therefore wouldn't do that, however in this instance I probably will.

Hence why that argument is a bit absurd - the 'agreed' price can turn out to be total rubbish etc. In most cases I won't give lows for anything other than really OTT charges, but as I sell in a market - books - which is ultra-competitive, particularly because big sellers can undercut me savagely on what they charge to post something, I get fed up with people who say it doesn't matter and the buyer agrees and all that. The buyer may agree, but they have to buy first and many will go for the person who can do it cheaply anyway, thus making overchargers uncompetitive.

How someone can do this and get away with it is amazing. I normally think it's OK to buy from TRSs despite terms (they must be doing something right) but it just shows it pays to be careful about who you buy from .

RFW

Crowqueen wrote: »

How someone can do this and get away with it is amazing. I normally think it's OK to buy from TRSs despite terms (they must be doing something right) but it just shows it pays to be careful about who you buy from .

Presumably they have few breakages, faults and lost items, it somehow makes their terms even worse, imagine how well they could do if they had good and legal terms. Even if it wasn't part of the law it can't amount to much to pay for lost and broken parcels, the reward for having satisfied (and probably repeat) customers must outweigh any losses.