Do you think this feedback was justified?

Bamber19

kevinyork wrote: »

Yes the seller didnt grovel and send an email reminding the buyer of when it had been sent and offering to refund for it. However the buyer in their dispute did say 'I want my money back' and thats exactly what the seller arranged so they can hardly say the refund was unexpected.

They wanted their money back after they failed to get the item they paid for. No matter what goes wrong there's two possible solutions for a buyer, have the item sent out to them or get a refund. Negging someone despite a refund is hardly unfair, they've failed, as a seller, to get the item to the buyer and offered no explanation, Simply not messing it up any more shouldn't be rewarded, they still deserve a neg for their initial failure. They probably wouldn't have left the neg before feedback changed, but that's why it changed, to stop this situation where the OP would have negged back (or the buyer would at least have feared this) when the buyer in no way deserves a neg, bought item, paid for it, "ah, but you negged me so here's a neg" that would be unfair. Feedback is not part of the transaction, you shouldn't be giving someone feedback based on the feedback they leave you, it should be based on how they've handled the transaction.

As for an unpaid item dispute to spite the seller, that's hardly fair as a resposne to a deserved neg and would be incredibly petty.

jasmineswhiskers

meester wrote: »

I don't get it.

You order something.

It doesn't arrive.

There is no apology, no explanation from the seller. They can't even be ar5ed to say 'I sent it, sorry it hasn't arrived, guess it got lost in the post', or 'Can I check your address is correct', so !!!!!! is this a bad buyer?.

Unless the seller is psychic surely an email from the buyer to the seller saying 'they hadn't received anything yet - is there a problem' would have been the obvious thing to do instead of jumping straight into a dispute.

StaffsSW

From my understanding of what the Op has written, the first they knew about the problem was when they checked their email and found an open dispute.

I may be mistake, or we may not have the full story, but there is no mention of any previous correspondence from the buyer, either by email or eBay messaging - just straight into the paypal dispute.

"Back in the day" in similar situations I would have considered leaving non-positive feedback for "poor buyer communication and unwillingness to resolve problems" regardless of how quick they paid me.

jasmineswhiskers

Bamber19 wrote: »

Negging someone despite a refund is hardly unfair, they've failed, as a seller, to get the item to the buyer and offered no explanation, Simply not messing it up any more shouldn't be rewarded, they still deserve a neg for their initial failure.

Is this for real???? Unless the OP is also the head of Royal Mail how can an item going astray in the post possibly be their fault.??? They refunded without complaining - none of the usual i'll refund you when I get refunded blah blah excuses. The only thing they didn't do was communicate and/or apologise - not worth a neg in my eyes. And yes - it is totally unfair to neg for a situation like this!

meester

jasmineswhiskers wrote: »

Unless the seller is psychic surely an email from the buyer to the seller saying 'they hadn't received anything yet - is there a problem' would have been the obvious thing to do instead of jumping straight into a dispute.

I do agree.

But the buyer has opened a dispute, you know at this point that your buyer is not happy.

You need to respond diplomatically, act like a professional to calm them down.

You don't refund their money and say nothing. I opened a Paypal dispute with a seller I have had trouble getting response from in the past about a counterfeit item, he responded saying "sorry, this isn't really my area of expertise, I have refunded your money". Job done, positive feedback left, that's how to do it. Two things: refund, and communication.

Anyway, we aren't evaluating the buyer's behaviour.

The fact is the seller quite clearly should have given an explanation at didn't. Negative given, quite right, because the transaction was not completed in a positive manner, and when something went wrong, the seller did not respond wellon. A negative feedback is left for a substandard transaction, clearly this was substandard, the seller hopefully has learned to communicate better in future, job done.

I think the sellers need to get over their sense of entitlement.

The fact is that unless you, as a buyer, wish to maintain a relationship with a seller (most won't ever buy from you again), it is ONLY the seller that has any stake in it, so expending a little energy on customer service is definitely wise - buyer's don't have any reason NOT to give you a neg, sorry.

spinning_hamster_wheel

....what's even better is that the neg my buyer got today refers to an item missing in the post :rotfl: am guessing she didn't envisage this new feedback thing working both ways. Am glad the rest of the sellers on here are setting the bar so high for the rest of us :T

Bamber19

jasmineswhiskers wrote: »

Is this for real???? Unless the OP is also the head of Royal Mail how can an item going astray in the post possibly be their fault.??? They refunded without complaining - none of the usual i'll refund you when I get refunded blah blah excuses. The only thing they didn't do was communicate and/or apologise - not worth a neg in my eyes. And yes - it is totally unfair to neg for a situation like this!

Yes it's for real, the buyer knows absolutely nothing, it is not up to the buyer to assume a Royal Mail problem, it is up to the seller to communicate properly with a message to accompany the refund explaining that the item must be lost in the post.
It's not totally unfair, the seller has failed to deliver the item, not as a reuslt of their own faults, fine, but they've then failed to explain anything to the buyer aswell.
By failing to communicate they've left it up to the buyer to wonder what's happened "Have they just decided not to sell to me?"

In addition, the responsibility to deliver the item lies with the seller, even once they've put it in the hands of a third party (Royal Mail) that is why failing is still their fault, Much as people will blame the head of the royal mail for the faults of a postman, failure by royal mail lies partly on the shoulders of the person who has employed their services (the seller)

kevinyork

Bamber19 wrote: »

Simply not messing it up any more shouldn't be rewarded, they still deserve a neg for their initial failure.

Initial failure???/?You mean the seller deserves a neg because Royal Mail lost the item they posted? Surely that itsnt what you are suggesting?

The seller listed something, it was purchased and the seller posted it. Nothing there to deserve a negative. As soon as the seller became aware the item had not been received they issued an immediate refund exactly as requested by the buyer. I really dont see what the seller has done wrong apart from perhaps not sending an email reiterating that they sent it and RM must have lost it and confirming they would refund the item. I still dont think anything here deserves a negative.

If Im reading the posts in this thread correctly then the future for sellers on eBay is completelty doomed if people are going to hit the Negative feedback button for issues like this.

kevinyork

Bamber19 wrote: »

In addition, the responsibility to deliver the item lies with the seller, even once they've put it in the hands of a third party (Royal Mail) that is why failing is still their fault, Much as people will blame the head of the royal mail for the faults of a postman, failure by royal mail lies partly on the shoulders of the person who has employed their services (the seller)

Responsibility for delivering the goods of course rests with a seller but negging a seller because RM loose the goods???

jasmineswhiskers

Well said!!! (This was what I was trying to say.)