Is it true that sellers end up paying fewer fees this way?  If that’s true, where’s the rub (unless you need the money from the sale to afford shipment)?

You pay fractionally less fees as eBay fee has gone up but it’s slightly less than the old fee of eBay + PayPal’s cut
So you make a few cents/pence per £10$. The benefit of no longer being paid via PayPal isn’t worth it i personally believe. I’d rather pay a couple of pence more per sale and have it that afternoon. Weirdly, anything I buy still goes via PayPal and comes out my bank a few days later so that hasn’t changed.

The delay in receiving money from sales is an average of 4 days I find. Monies have arrived each time, but I’m presuming there’s no chance of bailing out by the buyer in those days. It’s also worth noting that all costs are taken there and then. You don’t have the eBay sale done, PayPal charges and later that month get a sellers invoice for £50 because of everything you sold.

Personally I still don’t ship until the money is with me, but I get it all packaged and ready.

mbassoc2003 wrote in Ebay about to shoot itself again:Is there any way the payment can not turn up, be withdrawn by the seller, etc.? Hello, eBay, I made a mistake.... My son bought something and he didn't have the right to.... Someone hacked my account and ordered something.... And you haven't received the payment from eBay but you shipped the product and it doesn't get returned to you. Therefor you don't have your item but also eBay haven't paid you any money for it?

Can that happen? Or are you guaranteed to get paid if you ship without waiting for funds?
Like if it's $20 who gives a F, but what if it's $50 or $100?

Good points.  I always felt protected under PayPal (as both a buyer and a seller).  I believe the buyer still has to first work with the seller directly for refunds, rather than working directly with eBay.  This should protect the seller in the cases that you mentioned.  I’d be interested to see if eBay provides the same level of financial protection as PayPal did, in fringe cases.

its isn't a Ebay problem though.. this is a UK "distance selling rules" problem.. and a problem if you sell that way under any platform

mbassoc2003 wrote in Ebay about to shoot itself again:However, there is no reason why...

Rules of grammar, that's why.

mbassoc2003 wrote in Ebay about to shoot itself again:
eBay is in the wrong here for not supporting sellers in implementing the law as written.

I think there is a easy answer to why they are doing what they are doing.. money.. it takes time and money to contact, email, get proof etc when they they can just take the easy cheep path.. it would cost them more money to look after the sellers than they make from it

Brette:)

Skullhammer wrote in Ebay about to shoot itself again:Correct me if mistaken, but this sounds more like a problem with the laws in the U.K. and (soon the) E.U, rather can eBay.
The difference being is that while PayPal’s payment paradigm gave a little more control to the sellers by making funds immediately available (which helped assuage the pain from these laws), eBay’s payment paradigm does not.

The problem as I see it is that eBay took it upon themselves to extend/rewrite the scope of the law to encompass returning goods that the buyer had accidentally damaged, or intentionally damaged. The seller cannot sue the buyer privately unless the value of the exceeds £350. Surely if eBay refuses to enforce the laws of a country in regard to the return of the item purchased, the problem is with eBay refusing to enforce the law, not the law itself?

Skullhammer wrote in Ebay about to shoot itself again:
I didn’t realize that, and that’s definitely a problem.  How did PayPal help with this?  Are the buyer/seller policies so different between eBay and PayPal?

With Paypal, certainly when I was selling, you had a dispute mechanism where you could provide PayPal with photos of the condition of the item and how it was packaged, and evidence of receipt at the buyer end, and then photos of the item as it was returned and ask for coverage under the Seller Protection, and they would pay out. Whether they paid both parties and sucked it up themselves, or whether they went to the buyer and said, look, the item you returned to the buyer was used and/or damaged and we have photos proving it wasn't shipped that way, and and you offer no proof of damage in transit (photos of package received), so you don't get your money back, I don't know. And of course damage in transit from the seller to the buyer is covered by the seller insuring the shipment, the buyer providing photos and the damage and the seller making a claim against the shipping company.

And if the buyer then did a chargeback on their credit card, PayPal would just terminate their account. Somehow I don't see eBay dealing with things that way, and the evidence over the past 18 months or so is that a lot of sellers get stung buy buyers who have buyer's remorse and want partial refunds to help ease their regret. Something that didn't happen previously prior to the change in UK Law. I realise the change in the law is the instigating factor, but at the very least I would expect a company controlling every aspect of your retail experience to implement the law in its entirety, and not be selective about what bits it will and what bits it will not implement.

From a business point of view, it makes sense to take complete control over everything and dictate the business practices of your users, and as eBay says, if you can't factor in shrinkage into your business model, then you either adapt and survive or you withdraw from the market in favour of others who will inflate the prices to accommodate such shrinkage. That is why prices are higher on Amazon than on eBay - the sellers know they have to pay for all returns, losses and failed transactions and price them into their business model. If buyers won't pay the extra they can buy from someone else.