posted on April 30, 2001 01:10:10 PM new
A few months ago I won the bid on a widget for $8.xx plus shipping. The item got lost in the mail and the seller sent me my money back. Everything fine
In todays mail I received an insurance claim form for this widget, stating that 2 widgets got lost at a cost 5 times what my winning bid was. This, in my book is fraud.
What should I do? I am not completing the form, I know that.
posted on April 30, 2001 01:13:28 PM new
If you don't complete the form, could suspicion be thrown back at you?
I would go and ask at the Local PO and explain to them what SHOULD be on the claim form.
Ain't Life Grand...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Apr 30, 2001 01:13 PM ]
posted on April 30, 2001 01:48:40 PM new
Zazzie, I don't care one fig what he paid for them. There was 1 item, not 2 and the value was $8.xx. That is fraud, no matter how you look at it.
No, suspicion could not come back on me but, the empty container was returned to him 2 weeks after he shipped it.
posted on April 30, 2001 01:54:45 PM new
Is it Fraud??? What if it cost him 8 times to replace the item---
What you should do is make a copy of the auction page and staple it to the statement you have to sign--and make sure you make a notation on the form somewhere that tells the post office that you have enclosed the sheet with the claim.
posted on April 30, 2001 01:57:01 PM new
Your local post office has the number of the local inspection service. These are the "Postal Police" they deal with mail fraud of any type. USPS site might have a national number, but you may have to play a little phone tag to get a local inspector, but if you want to pursue it that is the way to go
posted on April 30, 2001 02:48:09 PM new
I have just emailed the seller asking what the deal is? My purchase was a total of $11.00, including shipping.
I'll come back after I receive an answer.
Zazzie, I am not sure where your logic lies. It doesn't matter what the replacement of this item would cost. That is not what the value was at time of shipment. Why would he want to replace it? He sold it to me.
posted on April 30, 2001 02:52:14 PM newIt doesn't matter what the replacement of this item would cost. That is not what the value was at time of shipment.
Others have posted here previously that the USPS (in their particular case) would not accept the EOA value when making a claim- that they required proof of the replacement value. Maybe this seller is dealing with such a post office?
posted on April 30, 2001 02:59:18 PM new
--I'm just trying to think why he would insure something for more than it sold for---and one of the reasons that makes sense is that it sold for less than it's actual value---so therefore if it was damaged or lost---the 'REPLACEMENT' value may be more than it's sale value...
it doesn't have to make sense--but it might be how he is thinking.
[ edited by Zazzie on Apr 30, 2001 03:04 PM ]
posted on April 30, 2001 03:18:35 PM new
I understand where Zazzie is coming from, however it is not the buyers resposibiltiy to say that the item is worth more than they paid for it.
I personally would still go down to the post office, with EOA, and ask them how it shold be filled in.
Ain't Life Grand...
posted on April 30, 2001 03:47:24 PM new
What if he had given the darn thing as a gift to someone? It wouldn't(couldn't) be up to the receiver to determine the value of it.
A while back I had to make an insurance claim. The items were sold for $60 dollars, but since she didn't insure I did for $50.00.
They got smashed and I filed the claim. It did not make one squat what she paid me for them. I(me the seller) had to prove what the replacement value was. Then when I did(a lot more then $50 or $60) all I got was the $50.00.
I was mad as hell....there are some things there just is no way of finding out the replacement cost on.
So I asked what are we to do in those cases.
Of course no answer to that one.
I think the insurance is worthless on antiques and some collectable where you can't go to a book and find a printed value.
posted on April 30, 2001 03:48:59 PM new
Zazzie, I see what you mean, but it says 2 widgets on the form. I only bought one. No one would even want 2 of these widgets.
Twelvepole, I will go to the PO tomorrow. It might be possible this form was sent to the wrong buyer, but it wasn't. I rechecked all the email I received from him, it was my widget alright.
Packer, I see what you are saying but....this item sells for $24.95 brand new and it was just one of them, not 2.
Still haven't heard from the seller.
[ edited by rarriffle on Apr 30, 2001 03:55 PM ]
posted on April 30, 2001 04:13:27 PM new
If the seller has already refunded your money for the lost item why would you even be interested in collecting the insurance?
posted on April 30, 2001 04:20:30 PM new
Given that the bidder bought the insurance (and I'm assuming that), shouldn't the "replacement value" be refunded to them, not what they actually paid for the item? For the seller to be asking for the actual replacement cost (if that is indeed what's happening) and then not refunding that amount to the buyer seems, well, fraudulent. I've got to figure the bidder/buyer bought insurance for their own protection, not so that the seller could make money. None of this even speaks to the fact that the seller is claiming 2 items were lost when there was only 1 widget shipped.
Very odd. Gotta give the seller a chance to explain. I'd hold back until I got a response.
posted on April 30, 2001 05:11:51 PM new
It may be that the seller figures insurance coverage was purchased, so why not "get what he paid for." If he can prove that the replacement cost of 2 widgets is $50, that's what he's going to claim, since that's the minimum amount of insurance he can buy!
Personally, I think the postal rules stink concerning insurance claims. My feeling is that no matter what the item cost during the auction, if you have an independent 3rd-party verification of the replacement cost, that's what you should get, up to the amount you insured for (so that you can "replace" what the P.O. damaged). I figure it's my business whether or not I get a bargain on eBay--if I KNOW that something is worth more than I paid and I can PROVE it, I think getting reimbursed for the DOCUMENTED price is perfectly fair. However, I DON'T think it's right to claim 2 widgets when he originally sent only one.
JMO
P.S. By "documented" I don't mean a price guide to collectibles with a "this is worth" price--I mean a website, retail store, or mail order place where you can actually place an order and receive the item in question. Of course, this would only work where you CAN purchase exactly the same brand/model of new or used widget.
Without eBay, I might have a real life...
[edited to add P.S.]
[ edited by mcbrunnhilde on Apr 30, 2001 05:24 PM ]
posted on May 1, 2001 04:45:42 PM new
Well, its been over 24 hours and not a word from the seller. Maybe he is trying to come up with an acceptable answer to why he should be reimbursed full, new purchase price for 2 items when only 1 was lost.
Tomorrow I call the 800 number on the form. I don't think he will be getting his insurance check.
