Gareth Jones

Around two months ago I sold a BMW E36 driver’s side headlight on eBay. In my listing I had described the headlight in considerable detail and I also included a photograph of it. It sold for a reasonable £45, which was approximately what I paid for it a few months before.

A few days after posting it out, the buyer got in touch and said he wanted to return the item because some 3rd party angel-eye bulbs that he had bought elsewhere didn’t work with it. Now, angel-eyes didn’t come out for the 3 Series until the E46 and were never part of the E36 range, and today they are sold as an after-market 3rd party item. The headlight I sold was a genuine BMW replacement unit. I was pretty confident that if these two units were incompatible that the problem was with the bulbs and not with the headlamp, and as I had clearly stated in my listing that returns would not be accepted the only grounds by which I would be obliged to accept a return was if either a) the headlamp was damaged or b) the headlamp was not as described – and neither case applied here. I respectfully declined to accept a return and explained why.

The following day I received an email from eBay telling me that the buyer had opened a dispute with me by claiming that an item was not as described. You can see what he did here. I logged into the resolution centre and posted a number of replies (although eBay asks for as much information as possible, they only give you a tiny little window in which to post it), detailing why the item was actually exactly as described, why the buyer was claiming that it wasn’t and an account of our previous discussion. I also reminded eBay that I was only obliged to accept a return for one of the above conditions; neither of which were met, and that I was looking forward to them finding in my favour. I also called eBay to discuss the case and was assured by the representative that whoever would deal with the case would thoroughly read through the notes and all correspondence before making a decision. I was also thanked for being such a good eBayer and for having 100% positive feedback.

A week later I received an email from eBay stating that they had found in the buyer’s favour and that the buyer would be requested to send the headlamp back to me. I was also informed that I would have to refund the buyer as soon as the headlamp arrived, and the full amount was automatically deducted from my PayPal account in anticipation. In order to use my PayPal account again for any purchases, I would be forced to deposit the refund amount first.

Naturally, I called eBay to ask just what the hell was going on and why they had found in the buyer’s favour when he was clearly lying. I was informed by a representative with poor English that in all cases, eBay had to find in the buyer’s favour and that if it later turned out that the seller was right then they would issue a refund to the seller themselves. This seems totally bizarre.

1. Why bother having a “no returns accepted” option on the item listing if in reality eBay insists that all items are returned regardless of any facts?
2. Why automatically find in the buyer’s favour so that they have to cover the cost of the refund themselves in cases where the buyer is obviously lying? Surely it makes more sense to just properly investigate the claim first and only find in the buyer’s favour when there’s a genuine claim? Isn’t the aim of any business to make money rather than deliberately give it away?

Bewildered by what I was hearing, I asked what was going to happen next. The representative told me that I could appeal the decision and it would be looked into again more thoroughly within 48 hours. So, I appealed the decision and waited. The automated email stated that while most cases were dealt with within 48 hours, that I should allow up to 72 for cases that were especially complex in nature. I was pretty sure that my case was straightforward enough, but having already witnessed the stupidity that was eBay’s customer service I decided to wait the 72 hours before chasing them up. The deadline came and went with no reply from eBay so I got on the phone – again.

This time I spoke to a representative called “Ken Ainsley” (his accent and broken English would suggest otherwise), and after reciting the entire story to him he told me that eBay had been unable to make a decision on this case because I had not supplied them with any photographic evidence that the item was as described. At this point I got pretty angry, because at no time had eBay asked for any such evidence nor had they even given me an email address to which to send it. For over 72 hours eBay had simply sat on the case and done nothing – so much for the “thorough investigation” that was promised. I asked “Ken” for an email address to which I should send a photograph and he sent me the below email in response. I sent a photograph three days later when the item arrived back here.

Hello Gareth,

Please attach the documents confirming that your item is as described.

For better assistance, you can call eBay customer support at 8003586551.

eBay Hours of Service:
8am – 10pm Mondays – Fridays
11am – 6pm Saturdays and Sundays

I trust that this information helps and I wish you all the best in the
future.

Kind regards,

Ken Ainsley
eBay Customer Support

Three days later I received a response from a “Charlotte Boylan” telling me that my appeal had been denied. Naturally this must mean that they decided that the item was in fact not as described, right? Actually no, the reason that my appeal had been denied was, bizarrely, because the item had been returned to me:

Hello Gareth,

Thanks for getting in touch about the headlamp (XXXXXXXXXXXX) you sold
to “xxxxxxx”.

We’ve reviewed this case thoroughly, and found in favor of the buyer. I
understand that you appealed on the case, so I’d like to explain our
decision.

The buyer was able to provide us tracking information showing that the
item was delivered with your signature confirmation to the address
registered on the buyer’s eBay account. We’ve also reviewed your appeal.
Again, because the buyer provided valid tracking information as proof of
delivery, we’re not able to change the case decision.

We appreciate your understanding.

Kind regards,

Charlotte Boylan
eBay Customer Support

Just how eBay expected me to take a photograph of a returned item without actually receiving it first is sadly beyond my understanding. On the contrary, to satisfy their requirement for a photograph as requested by “Ken” 6 days prior, surely I had to get the item back first?!

I got on the phone again. Bear in mind that it’s not actually possible to just call eBay like you can call virtually every other company on earth – you need to jump through hoops on their site first to get a PIN number; without this PIN number you get no further than an automated message telling you that you need to go and get one.

Once again I got through to someone who seemed to have English as a second or third language, and I was told that what I needed to do was send in a photograph. Now I really exploded. I actually shouted down the phone at this guy, asking him if anyone there knew what they were doing. I explained how I had already been asked for a photograph and had already supplied one. I explained how I had made an appeal against their decision because an item that was sent back to me was actually exactly as described and how this appeal had, for some totally bizarre reason that was beyond me, been refused because of the fact that the item had been returned to me. Having realised that I was not interested in any more BS, this representative told me that he would forward the case to their appeals team and that I would get a full refund “within 4 days”.

Seven days passed and no refund. No communications from eBay either – nothing. I got on the phone again. This time I spoke to a guy who was adamant that I was not eligible for a refund as eBay did not issue refunds for such things. Clearly having got through to an idiot who couldn’t even read his colleagues’ case notes, I hung up and dialled again.

This time I got a woman who kept insisting that she couldn’t hear me. She kept calling “Hello? Hello?” down the line despite the fact that I could hear her fine. Eventually she left me on hold while she went to check the records. She came back and said that normally she could have given me a refund (so much for the previous guy’s claims), but that she couldn’t in this particular case because there was no record of them ever taking the refund out of my PayPal account. This was ludicrous. I suggested that she wait on the line while I log into PayPal and get the date for her (since she wasn’t capable of doing this herself), yet as I was logging into my account to get the exact date of the transaction, she terminated the call without warning.

Now I was really pissed off. I called again, desperately trying not to throw the receiver. This time I got through to a woman called “Jane Maddock”, and after reciting the entire story to her she recited back her understanding. To my amazement, Jane knew the difference between the headlight of an E36 and an E46. She also knew that angel-eye bulbs were never part of the original E36 specification. She put me on hold for a short time while she read the case notes which by now were quite lengthy. She came back and told me that far from getting a refund within 4 days as previously promised, the best that she could do was escalate the case which some additional information that she would add herself. In around 6 days I will be informed whether or not I’m getting a refund, though obviously, unless Jane follows this particular case through to completion I won’t be holding my breath. I asked for a direct line to her because litterally everyone else that I had spoken to had been incompetent, but unfortunately she couldn’t give me one and could only apologise for my experience.

In all honesty, I have never been impressed with eBay’s customer support. Throughout the 6 years of my eBay membership, every time I’ve contacted them for whatever reason I’ve been left unimpressed and wondering how these people manage to dress themselves in the morning without a carer. There are exceptions – or more accurately, an exception in the form of Jane – but on the whole I’d rank eBay’s customer support team below chimpanzees in terms of intelligence. This latest example just takes things to a whole new level of incompetence, and after 6 years and over 1272 transactions, I’m seriously looking for an alternative to eBay.

As if it isn’t bad enough that someone who is brand new to eBay can make an “item not as described” claim with nothing more than a pack of blatant and obvious lies (the buyer contradicted himself on at least four major points in the resolution centre and anyone who read what he said would have seen that), the fact that a seller with 100% positive feedback over 1272 transactions has to supply photographic evidence to the contrary (in itself an indication that, in eBay’s eyes, the burden of proof is on the accused and not the accuser which is the exact opposite of the requirements of the legal system of every developed country in the world) is beyond a joke. That such evidence can then be set aside in a sea of incompetence as each representative contradicts the last is beyond comprehension.

All told I must have spent at least 3 hours on the phone talking to these idiots and for what? I’m still no better off today than I was a month ago. This is how eBay treats its loyal customers. This is how eBay thanks you for being a “good eBayer” and for maintaining 100% positive feedback over 6 years.

I’ve searched for an alternative to eBay as I desperately want to take my business – and my money – elsewhere, but all I’ve found are tiny sites with no more than a few hundred listings – if that. If anyone does know of an alternative that has competent staff, please feel free to leave the relevant information in the comments section below.

As far as eBay is concerned, I’ll post a link to this article to their customer support and maybe call their head office with a link tomorrow, but I don’t expect that anyone will actually resolve the issue for me.

UPDATE: At 6:11pm on Tuesday the 28th of September – just 2 days after posting this article – I received a full refund from eBay. There was no message and no apology – literally just a refund – but at least it’s here. The only uncertainty now is whether it’s here because Jane did as she promised, or because eBay takes complaints a lot more seriously when they’re pasted all over an SEO’d blog. Hmm.

I was asked a few days ago by a father of two if it was worth buying the PSPgo. He already had a PSP 3000 which his eldest had commandeered and wanted another so that his youngest could play as well.

The PSPgo was released in Europe and the US on October 1st, 2009 as an alternative – not a replacement – to the recently released 3000. At launch the unit price was £250 – around £100 more than the 3000 – though due to the substantial resulting backlash many retailers were discounting the machine to around £225 from day one.

The Go has exactly the same hardware specifications as the 3000 except that it can’t play traditional UMD games as it lacks a UMD drive and it has a smaller screen due to the console itself being half an inch smaller and 43% lighter than the 3000. Depending on who you ask, the smaller size is sometimes a positive and sometimes a negative – yes it’s easier to fit into your pocket but yes a larger screen is always better than a smaller one.

Sony’s decision to launch the original PSP back in 2005 with a UMD drive was quite controversial. Back in 2005, solid state memory was pretty expensive and the UMD allowed a cheap method of providing up to 1.8GB of storage space for its games which would have cost almost as much as the console itself in solid state. However, the drive was slow, it drained the battery and as soon as your games collection surpassed the grand total of 1 you had to find another pocket for your (cumbersome and delicate) UMDs. Some cases allowed up to 3 UMDs to be carried with the console but quickly got bulky – anything more than 3 and you were looking at a bag.

The UMD format shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone though as Sony’s history with bespoke formats is long and colourful. Among the success stories are the CD, the Memory Stick and Blu-ray, but on the flip side are BetaMax, DAT tapes and Mini Disk. Cynics were adding the UMD to the latter list as early as 2006.

At the beginning Sony seemed to have high hopes for the UMD format. As well as providing the medium for the PSP’s games, the UMD was also used for PSP versions of the latest blockbuster movies (the original PSP came with Spiderman 2) though this aspect was actually poorly thought out.

Firstly, a UMD movie could only be watched on the PSP – a rumoured UMD set-top box that would allow UMDs to be watched on your living room TV never materialised. Secondly, this PSP-only version of the movie often cost considerably more than a DVD copy that you could watch on anything. It was even possible to rip DVD movies to memory card and watch them on the PSP at no extra cost, though Sony artificially crippled the resolution of movies played back this way to 320×240 as a way of forcing people to watch their movies on UMD – which could use the system’s 480×272 screen to its full potential. With custom firmware removing this limitation however and UMD movie sales slumping, Sony eventually removed the limitation from their own firmware in revision 3.30 as part of a larger drive to try to stem the flow of custom firmware installations.

So, the UMD failed as a movie format and here in 2010 you can get memory cards of a higher capacity for next to nothing, so surely the PSPgo is a no-brainer and everyone should upgrade from their PSP3000, right? Sadly not, and the reasons are all down to yet more stupidity on Sony’s part.

First there’s the console’s price. Even today it has an RRP of £225 while you can pick up the PSP 3000 for just £130. In May Sony CFO Bill Glaser called the Go’s sales “a little bit of a disappointment”, so recently it has gone through a relaunch to an indifferent public and now includes 10 “free” games, though again all is not as it seems. The first and most obvious issue is that you’re paying for these “free” games in the inflated price of the system so they’re not free at all. The second issue is that while 6 of the games are either critically or commercially acclaimed, four of them are not and so are unlikely to be on your wanted list, and lastly, although Sony claims that there’s £200 of games being given out for free here, you could actually get all 10 for closer to £70 on UMD if you were to shop around. Still, if this offer is enough to tempt you, be warned that Sony fully intends to make back any money that it’s losing with this promotion as soon as you start buying more games.

Assuming you swallow the £70 higher price tag of the Go, you’ll then be wanting to buy some more games for the machine. The only place to buy games for the Go is on Sony’s online PlayStation Network (PSN), and for some reason nearly a year after the console’s launch there are still a LOT of great games that aren’t available on the service simply because they were released before Sony started selling games online.

When you do find a game that you want to buy on the service, be prepared to pay a premium. Despite having zero distribution costs, everything from brand new releases to bargain-bin golden oldies costs significantly more on PSN than on UMD. I’ve heard clowns make excuses for this, claiming that it costs publishers more to sell on PSN than it does to sell in shops and therefore the games simply have to cost more. Whether this is the case or not I don’t know, but I don’t think the average customer cares about the politics behind it all and I think they just want fair prices. Besides, I’m not sure how any of this is supposed to excuse Sony’s own games which also cost more on PSN than they do on UMD – are we to believe that Sony’s gaming division is charging itself extortionate rates to sell on its own platform? That seems to be quite a stretch for the imagination – even for a Sony fanboy.

Lastly, if you’re one of those people who sells their games once they’re completed or no longer played (personally I keep all of mine, unless the game is just total garbage) then you’re out of luck on the PSPgo. Games are digitally signed at the point of download to only work on your PSP, so you’re stuck with the game whether you like it or not. You can’t sell it to anyone and can’t send it back for a refund – this really is a one-way trip here. Of course, with a UMD copy (which cost you less in the first place remember), you can either sell it on eBay or part-exchange it for another game in your local games shop.

I said earlier I’d come back to why the PSPgo has so far sold so poorly that Sony felt it needed a relaunch. Unfortunately for Sony, it appears that the gaming public isn’t quite as stupid or gullible as Sony likes to believe.

When the PSPgo was first announced and the lack of a UMD drive was confirmed, thousands of PSP owners who initially wanted to upgrade asked the question, “How do I get all of my [UMD] games onto it?“. Sony promised a solution, though wouldn’t give any clues as to what the solution was until shortly before the release of the console. Speculation was rife, including – though not limited to – the idea that Sony would install booths into games shops all around the country that would turn UMD games into digital copies.

It turned out however that the “solution” was this: for people who had an existing UMD games collection, Sony was willing to give them an incredible 3 games for free with their PSPgo. That included those who only had 3 UMD games as well as those who had 100+. Also, the selection of games to choose from was very limited. Unsurprisingly, few took up their “trade-in” offer and most stuck to their older PSPs instead.

Those who were new to the world of PSP weren’t stupid either – why would they pay extra for a system that also forced them to pay extra for a smaller selection of games? And then prevent them from selling those games when they were done with them?

The result was, quite naturally, poor sales of the PSPgo which lead Sony to conclude that the gaming public “was not yet ready for digital distribution”. I’d say that on the contrary, digital distribution is doing just fine when done properly and that in fact what people aren’t ready for is to be ripped off three times over with a single console. Had the pricing of the console reflected the lower manufacturing cost and the pricing of the games reflected the zero distribution costs, then I think the PSPgo could have been a contender – even with the smaller games selection. As it is, to answer the question at the beginning of this article – is is worth buying a Sony PSPgo? No it isn’t – get the PSP 3000 instead.

Update: As of 21st of April, 2011 – just 18 months after launch – the PSPgo has been discontinued due to its failure to have any impact on the market. The full story is here.

I went on holiday to Cornwall last week for a few days. Upon arriving in Looe after a 5 hour drive down, the weather was nice and I was looking forward to checking out some of the places I remembered from when I was 13.

That was Wednesday. On Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, it rained. On some days it rained the whole time, while on others there were intermittent periods of sunshine.

It was still a nice break nonetheless, and in total I either visited or stayed in Looe (nice), Fowey (nice but wet), Newquay (turned out to be Blackpool of the south – avoid), Bude (nice), Chard (dump), Yeovil (nice) and Bath (nice).

I’ve uploaded photos to Flickr and they’re available to view in the My Flickr section.