A Flaw in the BidorBuy System

[Pierre_Henri 23]

After over 8000 transactions on BidorBuy, I just received my first neutral rating.

 

When I tried to figure out who the buyer was, I could not find him on My BoB but then eventually saw that he bought the item from me on 1 August 2013 – more than 9 months ago.

 

I called him and said that I will fully refund him plus postage costs but he declined.

 

NOW I see that even if I do refund him, I cannot lodge a SNC (Sale not Completed) because too a long time have elapsed.

 

So even if I refund the buyer, BidorBuy keeps all my fees – that is obviously unfair.

 

The BoB rules state a period of 12 months to rate a person BUT the time to lodge a SNC is shorter (not sure how long)

 

That is a huge flaw in the BidorBuy system – the two periods (for ratings and SNC’s) must run concurrently.

 

Until BidorBuy sort out this anomaly, it would be kind to remove my neutral rating, as technically, I have no incentive to refund the buyer (who then will change my rating) as BOB still keeps all its fees from the transaction.

 

What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander.

 

Pierre

[qball 12]

It should not be about "incentives" to refund the buyer. The SNC and ratings are 2 very separate things. The sale still took place, the buyer still paid and claims he didn't receive most of the goods. I am not sure we would reverse the success fees in any case. If he didn't receive the full order, he is entitled to rate you accordingly.

 

Technically we did our part which resulted in a sale, so I feel we would be justified in keeping the success fee.

[Pierre_Henri 23]

It should not be about "incentives" to refund the buyer. The SNC and ratings are 2 very separate things. The sale still took place, the buyer still paid and claims he didn't receive most of the goods. I am not sure we would reverse the success fees in any case. If he didn't receive the full order, he is entitled to rate you accordingly.

 

Technically we did our part which resulted in a sale, so I feel we would be justified in keeping the success fee.

 

The whole idea of a SNC is to refund the seller if the sale did not go through - if the buyer refund the buyer then the sale did not go through - there simply was no sale.

 

Secondly, what is the period for a SNC to be filed vs. the 12 month-period that ratings is allowed?

[Pierre_Henri 23]

The system seems not to accept my editing

 

It should read as follows

 

The whole idea of a SNC is to refund the seller if the sale did not go through - if the seller refunds the buyer then the sale did not go through - there simply was no sale...

 

Secondly, what is the period for a SNC to be filed vs. the 12 month-period that ratings is allowed?

[NooNooBug 10]

Have to agree with you re: SNc time span is not in line with the time a Buyer has to rate or change a rating. As far as I know it is 60 days from order date that you have in which to claim your fees back, which is nothing really if it takes some buyers 6 or in your case 9 months to realise they are not happy with an item ! I think a year to rate is a little too long, coz when you receive an item you know straight away if you are satisfied or not, also if you still need to "test" the item or whatever, you surely do not need a year to do that ? Would it not be a better to give say 3 months or 6 months for both scenerios? JMHO

[RISadler 10]

Technically we did our part which resulted in a sale, so I feel we would be justified in keeping the success fee.

 

I think you need to go back to your legal dept., as section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act Regulations reads: "An auctioneer may not charge or receive any fee or commission in respect of the sale of movable goods unless such goods have been delivered to the purchaser."

[qball 12]

I think you need to go back to your legal dept., as section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act Regulations reads: "An auctioneer may not charge or receive any fee or commission in respect of the sale of movable goods unless such goods have been delivered to the purchaser."

 

We are not the auctioneer....

[RISadler 10]

We are not the auctioneer....

 

If you say so ... :noworry:

[Little Miss Muffet 37]

I think you need to go back to your legal dept., as section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act Regulations reads: "An auctioneer may not charge or receive any fee or commission in respect of the sale of movable goods unless such goods have been delivered to the purchaser."

 

Eich !! We are all trading illegally.

Imagine if our buyers only pay when they receive the goods-Diaster--We would probably spend our time trying to collect bad debts.:rolleyes:

[wayjen 10]

I am sure we would be happy if after a year or so a buyer gave us a positive rating and that rating was the rating that took us from 99.999% to 100% but damn, would I feel an injustice was done had a negative come in after a year or so and I went from 100% to 99.998% and would hope uncle BoB would look at the length of time and comments given, and go with my side and delete the negative rating but having said that, is it fair to allow such a length of time for a rating when a seller has only a limited amount of days to file an SNC as is the case above?

 

In our ideal world, we would have a rating system in place where no ratings of a neutral or negative can be issued unless some sort of communication went through between buyer and seller and SNC times were in line with rating times.

 

It is a pity that postage costs from USA to SA is so high otherwise I would be selling again on BoB because even though there were issues on BoB, BoB is by far the easiest site to list on. eBarf (ebay), is not user friendly like BoB and they suck really suck.

[Not1CentMore 10]

Methinks BoB falls into the 'black hole' of venue (the scene or locale of any action or event) and facilitator (one that helps to bring about an outcome by providing indirect or unobtrusive assistance, guidance, or supervision) and (most) Sellers fall into the category of self-employed individuals who use BoB's venue to sell 'wares' with BoB facilitating the selling/buying process. We pay 'user fees' (FVF and optional promo and enhancement fees) for selling in BoB's venue and, if needed, BoB will assist in resolving any 'hoopla' between Seller/Buyer and keep an 'eyeball' on 'things' to make sure it all runs 'smooth as a baby's behind'.

 

However, I do understand Pierre_Henri's frustration. When a Buyer waits 6-months or longer to rate a Seller, is still in the possession of the item (Heaven only knows subjecting it to what kind of misuse and abuse... or simply tiring of it) and there isn't a way to 'work with' the Buyer to have the item returned and then, once received by Seller, Seller issuing a refund and filing a SNC because too much time has gone by to do so... well, that just doesn't seem like a 'level playing field'.

 

I must agree with NooNooBug... the 'time' for a Buyer to rate and the Seller to try to resolve and file a SNC would be more 'fair' if 'in line'; a 'cut-off date' that is the same for both - say 60 to 90-days, for example.

 

JMHO

 

Ruthie

Edited May 16, 2014 by Not1CentMore

[wayjen 10]

One thing that gets my goat is that some sites hold back on payment until the client is happy with their item and to me that is way wrong. Pots and pans can be used before returning. Books can be read before returning. DVD and cd's and records etc can be copied before returning.

 

I know the idea is that an online platform is just playing it safe from sellers robbing buyers but what about buyers conning sellers?

[RISadler 10]

Eich !! We are all trading illegally.

 

No, we are not. The legal dept. at BoB seems of the opinion that the definition of "auctioneer" doesn't include them (BoB), but if I were qball & Co. I wouldn't bank that at Barclays. Only, hey, maybe they're right and I'm wrong. Just look at how stuffed-up the Firearms Act is interpreted by even the cops and the DPP. :surprised:

[lilythepink 11]

South Africa has pretty good legislation. It has pretty bad implementation. Enough said.

[RISadler 10]

It has pretty bad implementation.

 

Blame the Dept. of Education, because it nearly always boils down to people not being able to read.

[Pierre_Henri 23]

Blame the Dept. of Education, because it nearly always boils down to people not being able to read.

 

Sela ...

[SADiamondsrus 10]

Opinion (don't shoot me)

Legislation in SA is down for the dogs.......

 

I think what op Manager means is they don't list the auctions therfore they are not the auctioneers I agree. BOB is a platform to use for buying/selling/auctioning and that's what we pay fees for.........advertising and successful sales

 

However I agree, that, the system should follow CPA, where people really have 6 months to return, thus sellers should only be able to accept returns within 6 months AND list SNC's - - - - therefore ratings should only be allowed for 6 months not 12<

 

It gives the buyers the power to abuse the rating system such as happened with Pierre, buyer decided 7/8/9/10/11/12< month later he is not happy with purchase and rates neutral/Neg its not fair if you give buyer option to return, he accepts and gets all money back, but SNC cannot be filed to claim back A SALES THAT ENDED UP NOT BEING SUCCESFULL....THUS SELLER LOSES (ALREADY LOST IN ADVERTISING FEES).

 

This has to be reviewed to be fair

Edited July 22, 2014 by SADiamondsrus
typo

[Colin_P 10]

While I sympathise with the OP, I don't see that the buyer has done anything wrong. I also don't think that any buyer will concern themselves about 1 neutral rating for a seller who has that many positive ratings and who is obviously a good and honest seller.

 

The auction closed on the 1st of August, the seller rated the buyer on the 5th of August, the buyer replied on the 18th of August saying that he only received 3 of the 8 coins bought due to what he thought was poor packaging. Given that he paid for 8 coins and received 3, I'd say that he was perfectly entitled to give a negative rating - the fact that he rated neutral, and the fact that he has rated all his other sellers positively indicates that he was not abusing the rating system, just recording that he wasn't happy with the transaction. If the seller had chosen, he could have offered a refund on the 18th of August 2013 when the buyer informed him of the problem.

 

The only criticism one can level at the buyer is that, after saying he wouldn't rate, he changed his mind after a while and decided to rate.

[SADiamondsrus 10]

While I sympathise with the OP, I don't see that the buyer has done anything wrong. I also don't think that any buyer will concern themselves about 1 neutral rating for a seller who has that many positive ratings and who is obviously a good and honest seller.

 

The auction closed on the 1st of August, the seller rated the buyer on the 5th of August, the buyer replied on the 18th of August saying that he only received 3 of the 8 coins bought due to what he thought was poor packaging. Given that he paid for 8 coins and received 3, I'd say that he was perfectly entitled to give a negative rating - the fact that he rated neutral, and the fact that he has rated all his other sellers positively indicates that he was not abusing the rating system, just recording that he wasn't happy with the transaction. If the seller had chosen, he could have offered a refund on the 18th of August 2013 when the buyer informed him of the problem.

 

The only criticism one can level at the buyer is that, after saying he wouldn't rate, he changed his mind after a while and decided to rate.

 

Agreed, did not realize the issue was raised within days

[Pierre_Henri 23]

Opinion (don't shoot me)

Legislation in SA is down for the dogs.......

 

I think what op Manager means is they don't list the auctions therfore they are not the auctioneers I agree. BOB is a platform to use for buying/selling/auctioning and that's what we pay fees for.........advertising and successful sales

 

However I agree, that, the system should follow CPA, where people really have 6 months to return, thus sellers should only be able to accept returns within 6 months AND list SNC's - - - - therefore ratings should only be allowed for 6 months not 12<

 

It gives the buyers the power to abuse the rating system such as happened with Pierre, buyer decided 7/8/9/10/11/12< month later he is not happy with purchase and rates neutral/Neg its not fair if you give buyer option to return, he accepts and gets all money back, but SNC cannot be filed to claim back A SALES THAT ENDED UP NOT BEING SUCCESFULL....THUS SELLER LOSES (ALREADY LOST IN ADVERTISING FEES).

 

This has to be reviewed to be fair

 

Exactly ---- how on earth can BoB have two time lines for buyers vs. sellers?

 

Buyers have a 12 month period to rate sellers ...

 

Sellers have a 6 month period to lodge a Sale not Completed

 

12 minus 6 = 6 : THUS ----- Sellers have a 6 month period to be screwed

 

It is almost beyond comprehension ...

 

Pierre

[debbiestreet 10]

I am hoping to get a response since my emails are being either fobbed off with dismissive responses or no response at all. I have a problem with a buyer that insists on returning an item claiming it was not as advertised. Secondhand, used. BUT no scratches on screen or back. Bid or Buy is being very unhelpful. Had a look at the buyers profile, quite a number of ratings similar to mine on other sellers. Co-incidence? Can someone direct me a higher level of management in this matter. .Ps. buyer returned after both BoB and Consumer Protection Act limits. I returned the item and BoB instructed the buyer to send it back to me again. Dismissing the documented proof that the phone is in excellent condition as advertised.