Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Teup  | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2021 14:38 | | Subject: | Re: Refusing to sell or ship because of location. | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, mcmcmahan writes:
| | "If you are unwilling to ship to every Bricklink
user then you need to leave and sell your wares elsewhere"
|
You mean every seller has to ship to every user? How about Bricklink simply showing
correctly whether the seller ships to you or not? Seems like a more feasible
solution to me.
|
 |
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2021 13:00 | | Subject: | Re: IC and maximum Volume | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Shipping | |
|
| In Shipping, cosmicray writes:
| | Shipping Methods currently have the ability specify a maximum volume.
In the USA, that might be used to trap orders that require dimensional shipping
(i.e. greater than 1728 cubic-inches). Some orders contain multiple items, and
the cumulative weight is less important than the fact that dimensional will require
a higher dimensional weight (and corresponding rate).
I suspect, that I can put a maximum volume on a shipping method (to satisfy those
with non-dimensional requirements) and implement a fall-back shipping method
with the same group number.
The problem that arises is, there is no way (that I can see) to specify the conversion
from volume (in cubic inches) divided by 166 to arrive at a dimensional weight
(in pounds), which could then be sorted out by the weight bands. Nor can I use
a volume band to directly apply the volume calculation,
Any thoughts ?
Nita Rae
|
How many "volume bands" do you need? You could consider making a separate shipping
method for each one and put them in the same group.
When you work with volumes, keep in mind "Bricklink volume" is some 50-70% of
real-life volume. I had to reduce the volume of the method by about half to get
orders that just fit.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2021 04:23 | | Subject: | Re: Parts smelling like cigarette smoke still new | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Selling | |
|
| In Selling, CSC writes:
| | Would you and/or Bricklink consider parts/minifigs that smell like smoke new?
It is not just a bit of a smell, it is horrible on each minifig I ordered.
I also contacted the seller after placing the order that he should not send the
items if they smell like smoke as I saw that in his feedback. The seller never
responded but shipped the parts AFTER I sent my message.
Any ideas on how to handle this?
Thanks
|
In my experience the smell is gone within like 2 weeks. I once bought a huge
batch of plastic bags from an excessive smoker for packing lego, it smelled horrible
but even that was fine eventually, I am still using those and they just smell
like plastic now.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2021 04:07 | | Subject: | Re: When are you going to reopen my store? | | Viewed: | 124 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, Dino1 writes:
| | Hello Bricklink!
When are you going to reopen my store?
I have always paid my dues. The last payment was on 08/05 for the July contribution.
Until you issue a tax correct invoice, I am not obligated to pay taxes on it.
I pointed this out on the forum over a year ago. By the way, Bricklink's
accounting seems to be in a desolate state. My total of 4 payments were not taken
into account and are always re-invoiced, although I have pointed out the first
2 payments additionally by e-mail.
In addition, I expect the immediate deletion of the note "Reason: non-payment
of fees" on the store page.
This is a lie and also damaging to my reputation. Such a thing is illegal.
Regards
Werner
|
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1312127
Why do you repost if you didn't answer that?
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2021 17:19 | | Subject: | Re: BUGS in Distance selling / OSS | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Help | |
|
| In Help, jbricks writes:
| | A bit of a confusing answer.
Removing B2B sales would be an amazingly designerror.
|
In reply to this point which I also made:
Actually I think I was wrong and the problem is of a slightly different nature:
You can't "remove" B2B sales as such, B2B transactions are a fact of life.
Fact 1: When a business buys from another business, they have a legal right to
an invoice.
Fact 2: And the correct way of invoicing businesses in other EU countries, is
by charging 0% VAT.
Conclusion: It is not a separate optional service, it's simply the correct
way of doing it*
In other words:
Bricklink's choice is not whether or not to allow B2B selling, but whether
their VAT stats (and features around it) are going to reflect reality or not.
If they are going to go with this design error, it simply means that sellers
need to add a credit and do their correct administration outside of Bricklink
(which is a smart thing to do anyway, I would never trust Bricklink - again proven
right). Any VAT amounts that Bricklink indicates over a period of selling is
just going to be inaccurate, as it includes VAT in B2B sales that wasn't
there.
* This is what a specialised employee of the tax agency told me, but they do
make mistakes, so I'm about 80% sure this is correct
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2021 16:12 | | Subject: | Re: BUGS in Distance selling / OSS | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Help | |
|
| In Help, kaat writes:
| | In Help, Teup writes:
| | In Help, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Help, kaat writes:
| | In Help, TDH_Bricks writes:
| | Confirm this BUG from my side. It was happened to me as well but I was not sure
if it was my fault or BL did it.
Happily there was only one EU order at that time and we switch OFF the OSS promptly.
As regards the VAT calculation - we do it same way like you described. This is
the best way for both sides. Difference between VATs we credit (lower recipient
VAT) or charge (higher) as Additional Charges 2. Sellers cannot be responsible
for higher recipient VAT rates.
|
I've reported these bugs to BL yesterday and was just informed the issue
where a status change would switch the VAT off was fixed. Haven't tested
it though. But great this was resolved fast!
VAT checkbox is still disabled, that isn't fixed yet.
|
This is expected behavior - it is disabled by design. When Distance Selling is
enabled in the VAT settings, this box will be automatically checked and disabled.
|
Huh? Why? How to do B2B transactions with Distance Selling enabled? 
|
Normally, if a EU based company buys from a company in another EU member state,
the VAT id is verified and a 0% VAT transaction is done. VAT accounting is then
delegated to the buying company and handled in the quarterly VAT report. Many
(if not all) of the larger EU sellers are companies. There is also a lot of design
agencies that build models that are also companies. We need this to do business
with each other.
I've done 0% VAT B2B transactions on BL for many years and would like to
continue doing so. It's a normal business procedure in the EU.
It also just works as-is. When you manually remove the disable property, it does
what it needs to do. Like it did for many years. Please reconsider.
|
Russell's response really confused me. Now I have so many questions.
-So Bricklink decided to... remove the feature of B2B selling? Which is significant
activity here on Bricklink?
-...because of some unrelated tax issue?
-...although only for members who have that feature enabled?
-...without warning them?
-...and not a mention about all of this in advance; We're just removing b2b
selling and expect it will all be fine and nobody cares? Did it occur to Bricklink
that maybe people want to make an informed decision...?
-Or are people expected to do b2b only with offsite payment or add credits
or something like that to substitute the old feature? Is that the idea?
This really needs some explanation, they can't just casually drop this information
like that.
| | There might also be an alternative:
If you could improve the BL invoices / order overview page, in a way they are
compliant and actual invoices, then when domestic VAT is charged we might be
able to claim it back at the tax office that way. However, right now the BL invoices
for orders do not meet the legal requirements. Would be great to improve that
too 
|
Well I always make proper invoices, and you can always ask sellers for one. But
AFAIK even with an invoice you cannot claim foreign VAT back domestically, hence
the 0% construction.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2021 15:45 | | Subject: | Re: BUGS in Distance selling / OSS | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Help | |
|
| In Help, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Help, kaat writes:
| | In Help, TDH_Bricks writes:
| | Confirm this BUG from my side. It was happened to me as well but I was not sure
if it was my fault or BL did it.
Happily there was only one EU order at that time and we switch OFF the OSS promptly.
As regards the VAT calculation - we do it same way like you described. This is
the best way for both sides. Difference between VATs we credit (lower recipient
VAT) or charge (higher) as Additional Charges 2. Sellers cannot be responsible
for higher recipient VAT rates.
|
I've reported these bugs to BL yesterday and was just informed the issue
where a status change would switch the VAT off was fixed. Haven't tested
it though. But great this was resolved fast!
VAT checkbox is still disabled, that isn't fixed yet.
|
This is expected behavior - it is disabled by design. When Distance Selling is
enabled in the VAT settings, this box will be automatically checked and disabled.
|
Huh? Why? How to do B2B transactions with Distance Selling enabled?
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2021 15:28 | | Subject: | Re: EU Distance selling feature is now live! | | Viewed: | 155 times | | Topic: | Administrative | |
|
| In Administrative, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Dear BrickLink Members,
We have released our Distance Selling feature for sellers who plan to or have
reached the EUR annual 10 000 distance sale of goods threshold. To see where
your current BrickLink sales totals are, you can download the order information
here:
https://www.bricklink.com/orderExcel.asp?orderType=received
|
Don't forget to exclude VAT in that calculation, and also no-VAT (B2B) transactions
| | or foreign VAT registration information and provide valid documentation. Once
enabled, the prices of your items will remain the same on your storefront, however
the VAT rate charged and collected will be changed to match the country’s rate
in which the buyer is located.
|
Uhm, that's kind of a dirty workaround solution. The whole reason for the
new legislation is making competition more fair. As far as I can see, keeping
the prices the same for all EU customers kind of negates the idea. Not saying
it's necessarily wrong, but did you check properly that this type
of approach is at least legal for a marketplace?
And be ready for sellers who are not going to be happy about this, and they have
a point. Profit will depend on who you are selling to, which is weird. Hopefully
there will be a more accurate solution in the future.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2021 11:58 | | Subject: | Re: No longer can ship toys to france or germany | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | General | |
|
| | | | | Yeah, it might be down to labelling for LEGO pieces eapecially for Germany although
a boxed set with warnings is still a toy, so doesn't really make sense. If
this is the individual countries taking action and not the EU, presumably they
also apply for EU to EU transactions.
|
Can’t be. As Teup said, goods (and persons) are free to move in EU, no customs,
no borders.
|
Yeah, and at the same time, rules that don't apply at the border make no
sense either. The whole problem with Brexit was the issue with the Ireland/N-Ireland
border potentially becoming some kind of import "leak", which made sense. Would
be weird if the EU was actually suffering that type of problems all the time
because of having free movement in the EU but quirky national import rules at
the same time..
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2021 10:50 | | Subject: | Re: No longer can ship toys to france or germany | | Viewed: | 108 times | | Topic: | General | |
|
| In General, SimplyBricks writes:
| | In General, Mmartin1980 writes:
| | I dont know if this has come up yet but ive just been to my local post office
and the wonderful ladies there gave me a copy of the new prohibitions list for
France and Germany
they have now added:
Toys, games and sports requisites, parts and accessories thereof
they mentioned it to me as they know me from my daily drop off and that i sell
lego, and now i cant ship it to France or Germany
|
I think your ladies have their knickers in a twist!
It specifically says 'games and sports requisites' which has nothing
to do with Lego! Lego is a toy!
|
It literally says "toys" though? And even "parts and accessories" .. pretty accurate
description of LEGO.
I don't understand though A. Why there would be rules for some specific EU
countries at all? You can technically then send it to another EU country and
send it to those countries from there without a single check, it would be a completely
inconsistent rule. and B. Why precisely for Germany as well as France, exactly
the same rule, at the same time
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2021 03:05 | | Subject: | Re: Unieregeling | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | LANG Nederlands | |
|
| In LANG Nederlands, kaat writes:
| | In LANG Nederlands, Teup writes:
| | Iemand al ervaring met BTW aangifte doen met de unieregeling? Ik wil me er volgend
kwartaal voor aanmelden en ik vroeg me af wat ik kon verwachten aangezien ik
mijn software moet gaan aanpassen. Je moet dan een lijst met EU landen aanvinken
en invullen hoeveel omzet en hoeveel BTW je bij dat land hebt, zoiets? Verder
nog iets dat ik moet weten?
|
Ja dat is het wel zo'n beetje. Stelt niet zoveel voor: Inloggen via belastingdienst
zakelijk, linkje unieregeling (of zoiets dergelijks). Je vult per EU land je
omzet en de BTW in. Het totaal moet je dan overmaken (naar een ander rekeningnummer
dan de NL BTW) en dan is het geregeld. Als je zo'n lijstje omzet+btw genereert
kost het weinig moeite.
Als je de "distance selling" optie activeert op BL (hoop dat ze de bugs snel
oplossen) dan is het letterlijk 1-op-1 de bedragen overnemen die aangegeven staan
op de order.
|
Top, dank je! Dan ga ik even een exportfunctie voor zo'n lijstje maken
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2021 16:31 | | Subject: | Unieregeling | | Viewed: | 117 times | | Topic: | LANG Nederlands | |
|
| Iemand al ervaring met BTW aangifte doen met de unieregeling? Ik wil me er volgend
kwartaal voor aanmelden en ik vroeg me af wat ik kon verwachten aangezien ik
mijn software moet gaan aanpassen. Je moet dan een lijst met EU landen aanvinken
en invullen hoeveel omzet en hoeveel BTW je bij dat land hebt, zoiets? Verder
nog iets dat ik moet weten?
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2021 10:38 | | Subject: | Re: Taxes and Documentation | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Selling | |
|
| In Selling, oasis writes:
| | I'm sure discussion of this topic has already been raging, but..
They can't keep purging stuff after six months, like they've always done
in the past, because there are now VAT issues and tax issues, that we sellers
must address. Personally, the fact that they are STILL collecting sales tax,
instead of seller tax numbers, is an absolute insult. BL / Lego has increased
my costs by 8% this past year, and I have to go get it back myself.
|
If you click the "download" link, you can download general details about all
orders - those are never purged.
However, Bricklink is not a bookkeeping program, so whether it's Bricklink,
a website, garage sales or something else, in the end a seller is always responsible
for their own administration. (Personally, I don't trust Bricklink to do
anything for me)
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2021 11:36 | | Subject: | Re: Adding items needs a little improvement | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Selling | |
|
| In Selling, jennnifer writes:
| | In Selling, Teup writes:
| | - Why can I enter only the design ID and not the element ID from the "add item"
screen? They are in the database, so Bricklink might as well use them, right?
|
I take it you mean adding items to your inventory? and not the catalog?
https://www.bricklink.com/inventory_add.asp?act=a&a=P
If so, it would be a bit difficult to use our PCC's on that page as
there needs to be some kind of interface to allow you to choose between items
that have the same number. When working on inventories, a drop-down menu pops
up when you type in one of those codes on the Add Inventory screen. So, perhaps
the programmers could reuse that bit of code?
It's a good idea!
Jen
|
Ah, yep, I meant to your inventory. There could be either a separate box for
entering the element ID, or, even better I guess, just one box where you can
enter either the design ID or element ID, and in case of the latter it would
fill out the color selection too.
Takes more than 30 minutes to code that so probably not realistic on Bricklink..
but anyway it's a suggestion.
(Right now you can add things quite easily with the element ID just by looking
up the part, but well, since the "add item" screen exists, it might as well be
fully functional otherwise there's no point in using that route )
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2021 11:09 | | Subject: | Re: Payment methods | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Help | |
|
| In Help, Cln6wmm writes:
| | How do you pay a seller if you do not have a Paypal account? I don't have
one and my proposed purchase is in the UK as I am.
|
You can also pay by using Stripe's credit (and some debit) card method, if
the seller has it enabled.
As a seller I've abandoned PayPal completely and switched to IBAN and Stripe's
card method, mainly because of the transaction costs and poor service to justify
them.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2021 09:54 | | Subject: | Re: Distance selling / OSS | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Help | |
|
| In Help, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Help, Teup writes:
| | […]
I don't get it. I think the descriptions are off..
"Distance selling are sales made from one EU country to a different EU country."
Ok,
"Distance selling is disabled"
Huh? I am literally selling to other EU countries today. Did they mean "OSS is
disabled?"
|
It means “Distance selling using the buyer’s VAT rate is disabled,” as you are
not obligated to use an OSS but can be registered in the other countries (as
the two options below corretly show).
They are just calling the whole feature “Distance Selling.”
|
Ok, makes sense, except that first line ruins it, where they directly mis-define
their terminology "Distance selling are sales made from one EU country to
a different EU country." Guess they should add "... using the VAT rate of the
country of the buyer"
| |
| | "You must complete the VAT registration verification in order to begin distance
selling in an EU country."
Uhm, I am VAT registered and verified, but this setting is about OSS. I think
they meant "you must complete the OSS registration verification?"
|
This sentence is above the choice, so it works for both options, and the second
option is a real VAT registration (or even several).
Also, registering to the OSS can be seen as being VAT-registered for all the
EU countries¹.
So it’s a VAT-registration in both cases
(¹ But your own, in which, IIUC, you may still not have to be VAT-registered
in your own country to be registered on the OSS.)
|
Actually it says:
"Distance selling is disabled
You must complete the VAT registration verification in order to begin distance
selling in an EU country."
I guess it means...
"Distance selling using local VAT rates is disabled
Youy must complete both the VAT registration verification and OSS registration
verification to begin distance selling using local VAT rates"
Bit of an amendment, hope it's really what they meant.. and hope they remember
to EXCLUDE VAT when establishing the €10.000 limit (which, by the way, should
actually be this year's sales, not last year's)
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2021 08:48 | | Subject: | Re: Distance selling / OSS | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Help | |
|
| In Help, Stellar writes:
| | In Help, TDH_Bricks writes:
| | Hello,
just recognized there is implemented Distance selling / OSS registration on the
Store Management Page already.
As I did not see any official announcement about this up to now, can you please
confirm this can be used now (switch it ON and insert OSS registration data and
file)?
And how is the recalculation to EU recipient country VAT rate done?
PS: Because of the ordering "Technical Error" discussed last few days on the
Forum we tried to switch it ON and fill in requested data. Today one EU order
was received and it seems there is no recalculation of VAT from our VAT rate
to recipient VAT rate but only calculation of recipient VAT amount from order
total. This would mean the VAT difference is on our store account what is not
good and we will switch this off. 
Thank you.
|
Interesting.
Maybe it is not enabled until someone at BL verifies it, so you probably have
to wait for it to work.
But seems it is worded as foreign countries shops, it doesn't mention VAT-Rate
per country selling within the EU.
|
I don't get it. I think the descriptions are off..
"Distance selling are sales made from one EU country to a different EU country."
Ok,
"Distance selling is disabled"
Huh? I am literally selling to other EU countries today. Did they mean "OSS is
disabled?"
"You must complete the VAT registration verification in order to begin distance
selling in an EU country."
Uhm, I am VAT registered and verified, but this setting is about OSS. I think
they meant "you must complete the OSS registration verification?"
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2021 10:41 | | Subject: | Adding items needs a little improvement | | Viewed: | 91 times | | Topic: | Selling | |
|
| - Why can I enter only the design ID and not the element ID from the "add item"
screen? They are in the database, so Bricklink might as well use them, right?
- I can't enter a negative sale in the "add item" screen. It just doesn't
accept a "-" character in that screen. Has been reported 5 weeks ago and devs
were going to have a look at it, still not fixed. (=The usual pattern whenever
I report anything, so I'm not surprised, but still - come on guys!)
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 19, 2021 11:46 | | Subject: | Re: Admin; please help, potentially serious bug | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, Heartbricker writes:
| | We just got a message from a domestic buyer (Ohio ) who sent us a screenshot
of their cart with a message that our shop doesn’t support shipping to Ohio.
We ship to Ohio almost every day (here on Bricklink )
Please help,
This can potentially block many buyer and sellers from conducting business here.
Please help,
The Heart Bricker crew
|
I can't explain that message but ask anyway what precisely your buyer has
in their cart, and see if you can reproduce an error with that cart. Maybe there's
like a square kilometer sticker sheet because someone made a mistake entering
dimensions or who knows what There are 54 lots, maybe one of them is acting
up. It would explain why other orders to Ohio are fine while this one isn't.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 17, 2021 16:05 | | Subject: | Re: Nieuwe posttarieven (zakelijk) | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | LANG Nederlands | |
|
| In LANG Nederlands, donja_nl writes:
| | Alle logica ontbreekt.
Tot 30 gram bijvoorbeeld:
België 1.55
Duitsland 1.40
USA 1.40
Denemarken 2.05
Rest van de wereld 1.60
En dan ook niet met enige logica verder in de staffels. Je zou verwachten dat
er iedere keer een vast bedrag bij komt of dat het verdubbelt of zo. Maar niets
van dat alles.
Kan een van jullie er chocola van maken ??
|
Ik vind het wel logisch, op z'n eigen manier:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1310272
Vanuit consumentenoogpunt (rechtvaardigheid) slaat het inderdaad nergens op.
Maar als "bedrijven onder elkaar" - dat zijn we immers met PostNL - kan ik die
tarieven wel begrijpen. Wordt nog een toer om m'n winststatistieken goed
te laten berekenen in mijn software met al die maffe tarieven; erg praktisch
is het allemaal niet.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 17, 2021 16:01 | | Subject: | Re: Shipping terms for EU stores | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Shipping | |
|
| In Shipping, yorbrick writes:
| | In Shipping, Teup writes:
| | In Shipping, yorbrick writes:
| | .
| |
Hmm, well, if BL removes an NSS when a seller only has proof of posting the order
(and not delivery) that basically means that BL has decided that the buyer is
lying.
|
No, they are believing the seller sent the order. That is not the same as believing
the buyer is lying.
|
But believing the seller sent the order is irrelevant. The buyer must receive
the order. It says in Bricklink's own terms - indirectly, by referring to
consumer rights - that buyers should get their order or their money back. Sellers
have all clicked "I agree" to these terms, here on Bricklink. Strange if Bricklink
would remove a penalty on a seller that is breaking their own terms.
|
Why is it irrelevant? The NSS is is about whether the buyer shipped the order.
Read the help page. https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=110 It is all about
whether the seller shipped, not whether the buyer received. If BL believe tge
seller shipped, then there is no NSS case. The NSS is different to the refund
process and local laws.
|
Well, yes, if you take the narrow meaning of shipping - posting it. But then
I don't really see the value of the NSS concept. It wouldn't really separate
the good sellers from the bad sellers that way. I don't have proof of shipping
on half of my orders anyway.
| | From a more practical point of view, BL cannot check whether refunds were sent
unless all payments are done onsite, thus removing payments such as bank transfer.
It is easy to fake text in an online bank statement, so they cannot be believed.
|
True, and obviously buyers can lie, too. And sellers can fake that they shipped
by shipping something else. So basically the whole NSS concept is pretty weird.
I think the only way out of all this, is by statistics. If a seller gets a lot
of ONR (order not received) points from several independent buyers, then that's
a red flag, and if a buyer is involved in a lot of them, then that is a red flag
too. Maybe that's the only way to figure out who's breaking rules without
depending on believing anyone. BrickOwl has these stats (not sure what they do
with it though)
| | | | But maybe we're thinking a bit too deeply about a system that was set up
by one guy in the early years of the internet and has inexplicably been frozen
in time even though it is now a big company in the modern e-commerce age  In
the end Bricklink just has to step forward and tell us all what exactly the rules
are, and what the penalties are. We've spent years trying to figure them
out, and Bricklink's cockpit is empty as always.. IMO it's better to
have clear rules for all of us anyway, rather than a patchwork of local legislations.
|
Yes, it would be good to have one fixed set of rules and avoid any local legislation
so long as BL rules do not force a seller to break local regulations. So for
example they could insist all payments are via insite PayPal or Stripe, and ban
sellers from charging for using PayPal. I doubt it would go down well though,
for sellers or buyers.
|
I don't understand why they could want to reduce the payment methods to PayPal
and Stripe and what it has to do with clear rules. BrickOwl has fixed rules and
also has many more payment methods than Bricklink has. Don't think people
complain there. Sellers tend to get upset if other sellers are trying to get
ahead of them, but if the same rules apply to everyone I think that would calm
everyone down. And most of the time sellers are hobbyists and simply are not
aware of laws, so they'll be happy to get some help. I think with clear rules
there will be much more willingness to comply, so there won't be as many
disputes. Usually the disputes I read about in the forum come down to different
opinions about what's right - and that's something you can take away
with rules.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 17, 2021 12:10 | | Subject: | Re: Shipping terms for EU stores | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Shipping | |
|
| In Shipping, yorbrick writes:
| | .
| |
Hmm, well, if BL removes an NSS when a seller only has proof of posting the order
(and not delivery) that basically means that BL has decided that the buyer is
lying.
|
No, they are believing the seller sent the order. That is not the same as believing
the buyer is lying.
|
But believing the seller sent the order is irrelevant. The buyer must receive
the order. It says in Bricklink's own terms - indirectly, by referring to
consumer rights - that buyers should get their order or their money back. Sellers
have all clicked "I agree" to these terms, here on Bricklink. Strange if Bricklink
would remove a penalty on a seller that is breaking their own terms.
But maybe we're thinking a bit too deeply about a system that was set up
by one guy in the early years of the internet and has inexplicably been frozen
in time even though it is now a big company in the modern e-commerce age In
the end Bricklink just has to step forward and tell us all what exactly the rules
are, and what the penalties are. We've spent years trying to figure them
out, and Bricklink's cockpit is empty as always.. IMO it's better to
have clear rules for all of us anyway, rather than a patchwork of local legislations.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 17, 2021 11:48 | | Subject: | Re: Shipping terms for EU stores | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Shipping | |
|
| In Shipping, SylvainLS writes:
| | And even if you consider volunteers as a resource, BL can hardly put volunteers
in charge of policing stores.
|
Well? Volunteers made the entire catalog, which is an extremely complicated task.
If Bricklink showed some leadership and set some clear rules (something better
than "ok guys, look up what the law says and just go and do that, enjoy" ),
and set up an infrastructure to report incorrect terms, I bet we could have them
all corrected in a month.
Even better, of course, if there wouldn't be terms at all Just multiple
choice options within what Bricklink allows. Illegal clauses are often not even
malicious intent, so it would help sellers too.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 17, 2021 09:02 | | Subject: | Re: Shipping terms for EU stores | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Shipping | |
|
| In Shipping, yorbrick writes:
| | In Shipping, Teup writes:
| | In Shipping, yorbrick writes:
| | In Shipping, Teup writes:
| | In Shipping, yorbrick writes:
| | In Shipping, peregrinator writes:
| | In Shipping, Teup writes:
| | You can start a Non-shipping seller alert. If the seller still doesn't (re)send
the items, it will complete and if it happens 3 times, the seller will have their
selling privileges revoked.
|
Isn't proof of shipping sufficient to address a Non-Shipping Seller alert
though? I don't think you have to show proof of delivery.
|
Yes, for bricklink it is enough. But the (EU) business still needs to refund
the customer.
|
Well.. I assume it's NOT enough? Bricklink's terms say you need to abide
by consumer legislation, so surely they wouldn't go against their own terms
by removing an NSS? While PayPal would let the buyer win the claim in that same
situation...
|
That is irrelevant. NSS are nothing to do with consumer legislation. NSS are
an internal measure used on Bricklink to decide whether Bricklink management
allows a seller to continue selling after a customer complaint.
|
But not respecting consumer rights is a breach of contract with Bricklink, because
it says so explicitly in the seller terms that sellers have to observe consumer
rights. If a buyer has not received the items and the seller has no proof of
delivery, then the seller should be in trouble. You should get the same situation
as with PayPal.
|
But what does any of that have to do with BL removing an NSS after a seller proves
a parcel was sent? If BL is given court documents that indicate a seller is not
complying with their local legislation, no doubt they would do something about
the seller (no matter how many NSS they have).
|
Hmm, well, if BL removes an NSS when a seller only has proof of posting the order
(and not delivery) that basically means that BL has decided that the buyer is
lying. AFAIK, shipping ends when the parcel is delivered. Was the order shipped
(including delivery) or not? According to the buyer, no. The only person who
has proof of (no) delivery when there is no tracking, is the buyer. Maybe the
buyer is lying. But removing the NSS every time there is proof the order was
posted seems to defeat the whole system. What use is proof of postage when something
does not arrive? The buyer paid and got nothing. Per BL's terms (let's
say it's an EU transaction), the buyer should get their money back. But the
seller is breaking those terms. Although the buyer could be lying, it seems a
strange situation to be siding with the seller the moment that seller is breaking
the terms.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 17, 2021 08:00 | | Subject: | Re: Shipping terms for EU stores | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Shipping | |
|
| In Shipping, yorbrick writes:
| | In Shipping, Teup writes:
| | In Shipping, yorbrick writes:
| | In Shipping, peregrinator writes:
| | In Shipping, Teup writes:
| | You can start a Non-shipping seller alert. If the seller still doesn't (re)send
the items, it will complete and if it happens 3 times, the seller will have their
selling privileges revoked.
|
Isn't proof of shipping sufficient to address a Non-Shipping Seller alert
though? I don't think you have to show proof of delivery.
|
Yes, for bricklink it is enough. But the (EU) business still needs to refund
the customer.
|
Well.. I assume it's NOT enough? Bricklink's terms say you need to abide
by consumer legislation, so surely they wouldn't go against their own terms
by removing an NSS? While PayPal would let the buyer win the claim in that same
situation...
|
That is irrelevant. NSS are nothing to do with consumer legislation. NSS are
an internal measure used on Bricklink to decide whether Bricklink management
allows a seller to continue selling after a customer complaint.
|
But not respecting consumer rights is a breach of contract with Bricklink, because
it says so explicitly in the seller terms that sellers have to observe consumer
rights. If a buyer has not received the items and the seller has no proof of
delivery, then the seller should be in trouble. You should get the same situation
as with PayPal.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 17, 2021 06:26 | | Subject: | Re: Shipping terms for EU stores | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Shipping | |
|
| In Shipping, yorbrick writes:
| | In Shipping, peregrinator writes:
| | In Shipping, Teup writes:
| | You can start a Non-shipping seller alert. If the seller still doesn't (re)send
the items, it will complete and if it happens 3 times, the seller will have their
selling privileges revoked.
|
Isn't proof of shipping sufficient to address a Non-Shipping Seller alert
though? I don't think you have to show proof of delivery.
|
Yes, for bricklink it is enough. But the (EU) business still needs to refund
the customer.
|
Well.. I assume it's NOT enough? Bricklink's terms say you need to abide
by consumer legislation, so surely they wouldn't go against their own terms
by removing an NSS? While PayPal would let the buyer win the claim in that same
situation...
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 17, 2021 06:24 | | Subject: | Re: Shipping terms for EU stores | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Shipping | |
|
| In Shipping, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Shipping, Teup writes:
| | […]
So even though Bricklink is more interested in censoring rude words on the forum
|
Volunteer moderators do the moderations, not the admins.
And we do that according to the ToS every member agreed to.
|
I know that, and I'm glad about everything volunteers do, but I just wish
Bricklink put the resources where they're needed most. But they don't
admit they don't have enough resources, which is kind of the first step..
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2021 19:33 | | Subject: | Re: Does a seller have to accept my return | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, Teup writes:
| | If you don't have any return rights, then that's pretty much end of story.
|
Oops, forgot: Unless the payment method you used has additional terms of use
that include a return clause.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2021 19:31 | | Subject: | Re: Does a seller have to accept my return | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, CSC writes:
| | The item is used and it shows. I just do not like it that way. Others might think
it is OK.
|
Ok, so I guess it's a return then
| | Not sure how to handle it as I would like to solve it amicably, but the sellers
response does not show a lot of wiggle room here.
|
I'd say, find some sources, like some consumers union or legal sources, that
write what your rights are in e-commerce. If you don't have any return rights,
then that's pretty much end of story. But if it turns out you do, you can
just show the seller and then at least it won't be a back-and-forth of wants
and opinions, but just sharing facts that you can't really deny.
Bricklink explicitly states in its seller terms (whigh your seller has agreed
to) that sellers need to respect any applicable consumer rights. It doesn't
say *what* those rights are, though, so that's up to you to figure out
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2021 19:19 | | Subject: | Re: Does a seller have to accept my return | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, CSC writes:
| | Hi,
I bought something I would like to return.
The seller has no return policy in his store at all when I check the terms.
I sent the seller a message, he asked my why I wanted to return, I said, because
I am not happy with the purchase and he said that he can not accept a return
under these circumstances. All conversations were normal, so nothing bad. The
item itself is just "too" used in my opinion if that makes sense and I want to
return it. I understand that I have to pay shipping for the return most likely
and I am fine with that.
Can a seller just refuse the refund or what would be the best solution here?
Thanks
|
You should check some local sources on what your right as a consumer are considering
returns, and send what you found to the seller if it offers an opening for you.
EU customers only pay return shipping if that is explicitly specified by the
seller - if it isn't specified, the seller pays even that.
However, you say the item was in too poor a condition. If you really got something
that does not at all match what you could reasonably expect, then that's
not a return, that's failure on the seller's part. If you want to play
hardball, you could actually consider this nonconformity and start a non-shipping
seller alert and/or a PayPal claim if the seller does not cooperate. I don't
know what you got, but if it really is bad, we need to be clear here that you
are the disappointed one here, not the seller. If it was OK but it just made
you realise you prefer new parts, then it's a return.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2021 15:12 | | Subject: | Re: Shipping terms for EU stores | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Shipping | |
|
| In Shipping, Poncke writes:
| | In Shipping, yorbrick writes:
| | In Shipping, Poncke writes:
| | Hi, first post on Bricklink. Just trying to find my way around.
Question on shipping terms from EU stores on here.
I have come across shipping terms from stores that go against EU legislation
that governs these circumstances, Article 20 of Directive 2011/83/EU.
For example, stores that say that they are not responsible for damage after an
order is shipped. According to article 20 of Directive 2011/83/EU essentially,
the trader is responsible for the item until it is handed to the consumer. Thus,
if the trader organises a particular courier service to handle delivery, then
the trader remains responsible for the goods while the courier is in possession
of them. In such cases, the trader will need to replace the item or refund the
payment if the goods go missing or are damaged.
How is this dealt with in case of a dispute? Surely store T&Cs can never override
the EU directive?
|
|
yes, I guess payment via IBAN then comes down to willingness of the seller to
comply. When that happens, who interferes? Bricklink? I would assume there is
a report option. Otherwise report the seller to the consumer agencies in their
country for braking EU regulation.
|
You can start a Non-shipping seller alert. If the seller still doesn't (re)send
the items, it will complete and if it happens 3 times, the seller will have their
selling privileges revoked.
So even though Bricklink is more interested in censoring rude words on the forum
than it is in moderating illegal terms, there's at least that, and I suppose
that works. Anyway, when there's money involved the main thing I would do
is go to the police.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2021 13:34 | | Subject: | Re: Shipping terms for EU stores | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Shipping | |
|
| In Shipping, Poncke writes:
| | Hi, first post on Bricklink. Just trying to find my way around.
Question on shipping terms from EU stores on here.
I have come across shipping terms from stores that go against EU legislation
that governs these circumstances, Article 20 of Directive 2011/83/EU.
For example, stores that say that they are not responsible for damage after an
order is shipped. According to article 20 of Directive 2011/83/EU essentially,
the trader is responsible for the item until it is handed to the consumer. Thus,
if the trader organises a particular courier service to handle delivery, then
the trader remains responsible for the goods while the courier is in possession
of them. In such cases, the trader will need to replace the item or refund the
payment if the goods go missing or are damaged.
How is this dealt with in case of a dispute? Surely store T&Cs can never override
the EU directive?
Thoughts?
|
You're right. Unfortunately, there's no indication that Bricklink at
all cares. I've reported invalid terms several times, never heard anything
back. It seems like Bricklink only starts moving when authorities or other parties
pressure them. For example, Bricklink acts immediately when a seller located
in the US charges PayPal fees (probably under pressure of PayPal US), but if
any other seller charges a percentage that violates EU legislation, they don't
care about it.
It's Bricklink's loss, really, because it's one of the reasons casual
consumer shy away from Bricklink and why mainstream Lego sellers I know do not
feel comfortable referring customers to Bricklink when they ask them where to
buy missing parts.
In my experience, many sellers are honest and are not trying to rip anyone off.
When I message them about invalid claims in their terms, they're often willing
to learn and adapt. That kind of makes the fact that Bricklink isn't picking
up on this even more awkward.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2021 03:49 | | Subject: | Re: Help with b2b | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Selling | |
|
| In Selling, BrickPhaisan writes:
| | Very good to everyone.
Today I had a small problem with an order since he asked me not to charge the
VAT since the buyer was from Italy and we from Spain, and in the end we have
to cancel the order, a colleague has told me something about the b2b , but I
have no idea how I can sign up for this, does anyone know where to sign up to
be able to make intra-community sales and not have to lose other sales? I currently
have VAT, but for B2C.
Thanks in advance,.
|
Officially it's something you're supposed to know once you register a
business There is nothing you need to sign up for. The correct way of invoicing
a business in another EU country is sending an invoice charging 0% VAT, since
the buyer is not able to reclaim foreign VAT domestically.
At the end of your VAT term, you report that amount (together with all other
such exports) as exports within the EU. You will then need to back up this info
by reporting these amounts as intracommunity transactions, where you write the
amount and the VAT ID of the receiver. That's why you always need to verify
their VAT ID before you proceed.
Over here, once you enter an EU export amount into the form, a message automatically
appears saying that you need to fill out an intracommunity transactions form.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2021 09:36 | | Subject: | Re: International Shipping | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Shipping | |
|
| In Shipping, magicalbricks24 writes:
| | In Shipping, SandyMcPherson writes:
| | I just received my first international order and it appears the shipping fee
will not cover the shipping charge. How do you handle international shipping
so it doesn't result in loss? What service do you use?
|
I would only recommend using a manual invoice for international orders.
|
Is it really that unpredictable what shipping costs are going to be? IC offers
a good range of parameters, you should be able to formalize most things with
it. Would be a shame to toss out IC. Remember the shipping rates don't need
to match postage costs exactly.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 14, 2021 11:22 | | Subject: | Re: Blue border around image | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Technical Issues | |
|
| In Technical Issues, Roxyncz writes:
| | In Technical Issues, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Technical Issues, Roxyncz writes:
| | SylvainLS:
can you please write me the code
|
It’s what Randyf posted at the same time I posted… and you say it doesn’t work.
You may try to add “important!”: “a style="border: none important!" ”.
|
not working
|
Did you already try this?
style="border:0; text-decoration:none; outline:none"
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 14, 2021 11:15 | | Subject: | Re: Blue border around image | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Technical Issues | |
|
| In Technical Issues, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Technical Issues, Roxyncz writes:
| | SylvainLS:
can you please write me the code
|
It’s what Randyf posted at the same time I posted… and you say it doesn’t work.
You may try to add “important!”: “a style="border: none important!" ”.
|
Seriously? There's a keyword called "important" in html? My respect for
html has just sunk even lower
I see how it would look a little nicer without borders, but the main thing that
would bother me esthetically is that right now the top row has more buttons than
the bottom one.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 14, 2021 10:46 | | Subject: | Re: Blue border around image | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Technical Issues | |
|
| AFAIK this is something the browser does. I think it's just the way html
links are rendered by default. Is it really a problem? At least users will see
that it's a link, and it gives UI feedback when hovered and being clicked
on this way.
In Technical Issues, Roxyncz writes:
| | there is still a blue border
In Technical Issues, randyf writes:
| | In Technical Issues, Roxyncz writes:
| | In Technical Issues, randyf writes:
| | In Technical Issues, Roxyncz writes:
In the "style" attribute for the "img" object, add "border-style: none;" to the
list.
|
can you take a picture of me where to write it?
|
In this part: style="border-style: none; width: 151px; height: 208px;"
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 14, 2021 04:13 | | Subject: | Re: How to restrict shopping to low-rated users? | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Selling | |
|
| In Selling, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Selling, peregrinator writes:
| | In Selling, Teup writes:
| | As far as I understand, yep, it restricts shipping methods but not necessarily
payment methods, so buyers just can't select manual invoice methods. Once
they select an IC method, I think they can then select any of the payment methods
that the seller supports.
(I'm not actually 100% sure so correct me if I'm wrong anyone)
|
I think this is correct, but I don't know what payment methods are actually
allowed under IC apart from onsite PayPal and Stripe.
|
Yes, those are the only “onsite” methods: https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=18
And IC is Auto-invoice + Onsite payment: https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2462
So if other payment methods are still possible for new buyers with this option
on, then it doesn’t do what it says it does.
|
It already messed up from the get-go, because BL has two definitions of IC.
In the store settings, those shipping methods that trigger an auto invoice are
called IC methods. Shipping methods can be IC or manual. And then payment methods
is a separate topic. So when there's that option that says new users can
only select IC methods, I'm 95% sure it just refers to the IC shipping methods.
Just when you compare it to the help section where they separate the concepts
auto-invoice and IC it's getting confusing. It's probably because when
BL thinks about it IC, they often forget the auto-invoice + offsite payment combination
- I recall a comment like that was made when I had a teams call with the BL team.
So I'm not even sure that option does exactly what BL wants it to do.
Anyway, I cannot recall my last NPB. Even though the majority of my orders are
paid offsite (and all are auto-invoice), they always pay. In my experience the
time between placing an order and getting an invoice has higher NPB risk than
after the invoice is sent.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 13, 2021 16:54 | | Subject: | Re: How to restrict shopping to low-rated users? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Selling | |
|
| In Selling, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Selling, Teup writes:
| | […]
| | 1. With Instant Checkout, the deadline is 0 days. So just use the option showned
by Cob earlier and the deadlines will be shortened for new members
|
Unless the store has offsite payment methods. Because, well, we already figured
out BL's own terminology is inconsistent, but in the case of the "Show only
Instant Checkout methods to new buyers" option, that does include the option
to pay offsite.
|
So what does it actually prevent? Only auto-invoice?
*sigh*
|
As far as I understand, yep, it restricts shipping methods but not necessarily
payment methods, so buyers just can't select manual invoice methods. Once
they select an IC method, I think they can then select any of the payment methods
that the seller supports.
(I'm not actually 100% sure so correct me if I'm wrong anyone)
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 13, 2021 13:13 | | Subject: | Re: How to restrict shopping to low-rated users? | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Selling | |
|
| In Selling, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Selling, ck.brick.lego writes:
| | I am a seller too, a relatively small one though. I understand new members are
relatively more likely to be NPB (in those cases, the buyer just wanted to try,
and changed mind for unknown reasons), but I agree everyone needs a start, and
it's unfair to assume new buyers are NPB.
I would say, you can specify payment must be sent within a short timeframe
(like 1 or 2 days), and I myself would emphasize if they need any help, I
am there to help, just to make sure unfamiliarity with the purchase procedures
is not a reason for disappearing; and, most importantly, they would need you
help indeed. BrickLink is quite complex from my point of view when I placed the
first order.
Also, cancel the order and restock if no response is heard in 72 hours
from purchase--and leave a neutral (or negative depending on the context)
feedback like "placed order then cancel/disappear" to remind other sellers.
If they are aware of the problem (the item is reserved for the buyer), they would
probably respond and apologize, and I myself would accept and withdraw the negative
feedback (if so)
|
Very well said.
| | In short, I won't assume new buyers are NPB, but I agree shorter payment
deadlines (for all buyers) plus a reminder would help protect the seller.
|
Two things:
1. With Instant Checkout, the deadline is 0 days. So just use the option showned
by Cob earlier and the deadlines will be shortened for new members
|
Unless the store has offsite payment methods. Because, well, we already figured
out BL's own terminology is inconsistent, but in the case of the "Show only
Instant Checkout methods to new buyers" option, that does include the option
to pay offsite.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 13, 2021 10:13 | | Subject: | Re: Can't mark order as shipped | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Technical Issues | |
|
| In Technical Issues, Remko100 writes:
| | A buyer ordered with paypal onsite. I sent an invoice, buyer paid. I marked the
order as packed yesterday. Shipped it today and now I can;t change the status
to shipped or completed. Could this have to do with the paypal-onsite, but buyer
paid regularly with paypal? So the system doesn't recognize the order as
paid and doesn't give an option to mark it shipped?
If so @admin, please turn this off. I wasn't happy with all the automated
stuff to begin with, this would be a great example of a system making disicions
I don't want it to interfer with.
If it;s something else: What then?
Anyone?
Kind regards,
Remko
Its a Bricky World
|
Yeah, a while ago Bricklink had some plan to overhaul the order status workflow,
but the project kind of stranded in a situation where we just had what we had
before, but some updating statuses is now a bit bugged. You can click "edit order"
at the bottom of the order page, there you can control payment status and payment
method. Playing around with that should allow you to set the correct order status
afterwards.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2021 18:21 | | Subject: | Re: Seller requesting bank transfer not Paypal | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Payment Methods | |
|
| In Payment Methods, Badger6 writes:
| | Maybe I am missing something but how come a seller will not accept my money via
Paypal. He said due to the cost of the order I have to send the money to his
bank account rather than through paypal but this sounds like a potential scam
to me. For info I am American buying from Russian seller and the dollar amount
is around $250.
|
It could be bad news even if the seller is not an actual scammer. Not counting
Africa (or Russia-like countries), Russia possibly has the worst postal service
in the world. Talking about incoming mail, anyway. Maybe outgoing is just as
bad. The seller could have figured there's a lot of risk involved and they
have no intention to carry any kind of responsibility for that. Since he's
asking for it exactly because of the value, it's probably that. I wouldn't
do it.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2021 04:31 | | Subject: | Re: Weapon?? | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | In Catalog, The_RealRedHex writes:
| |
These are all classified as weapons, however, they more look like either bars
or utensils to me!?
thoughts?
|
I agree. These parts should be recategorized.
David
|
But then where to categorize the multipack that they're part of? Because
multipacks are also considered "parts", and parts have a category. If a multipack
consists of parts of different categories, it would be difficult to decide where
to put it.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2021 03:53 | | Subject: | Re: How to restrict shopping to low-rated users? | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Selling | |
|
| In Selling, Brickroom writes:
| | Hi there,
as a seller,d I have to say that "low rated" /small amount of purchase/ buyers
are most demanding in operation, time, and requirements.
Is there any way how to restrict purchase options for users with fewer feedbacks?
|
Is it a serious question? Very surprised to see this coming from someone with
so much feedback. You have as much responsibility as other sellers have in dealing
with customers. You can't just let the other sellers do the dirty work for
you. Thankfully, there's no setting for this.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2021 04:56 | | Subject: | Re: Being Charged VAT TAX as a US Seller | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Help | |
|
| In Help, MinifigureLand writes:
| | In Help, peregrinator writes:
| | In Help, peregrinator writes:
| | In Help, MinifigureLand writes:
| | yeah i saw the same. Thanks for the reply. How certain are you of this.
|
As certain as one can be from a Google search ... also I've never paid VAT
on any order I've placed from an EU seller.
|
This is an interesting thread:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=255747
And here is the relevant rule from the EU:
https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/taxation/vat/vat-rules-rates/index_en.htm
"For EU-based companies, VAT is chargeable on most sales and purchases of goods
within the EU. In such cases, VAT is charged and due in the EU country where
the goods are consumed by the final consumer. Likewise, VAT is charged on services
at the time they are carried out in each EU country.
"VAT isn't charged on exports of goods to countries outside the EU. In these
cases, VAT is charged and due in the country of import and you don't need
to declare any VAT as an exporter. However, when exporting goods you will need
to provide documentation as proof that the goods were transported outside the
EU. Such proof could be provided by presenting a copy of an invoice, a transportation
document or an import customs record to your tax authorities.
"You will need to provide this proof to be able to fully deduct any receivable
VAT that you have paid in a previous related transaction leading up to the export.
Insufficient documentation may mean you won't have the right to a VAT reimbursement
when exporting goods."
So yes, in the sense that sellers have to abide by applicable laws, it would
seem to be a violation of BrickLink's terms.
|
Thank you for your time and the reply. Its exactly what my thinking was but wanted
to make sure as the seller (funny enough is from Poland) won't budge and
claims that BL doesnt understand their VAT laws. Which is BS because VAT is a
Entire European tax. Not just set on one country.
I will inform them and just cancel the order most likely.
Thanks again!
|
I think it's not very rare for EU sellers to do this. No VAT is due on exports,
but that means of course that the seller must be able to prove that the goods
did indeed leave the EU. If they are using an "analog" shipping method, like
stamps, you could argue that you won't exactly have proof that it did. Also,
some countries may be more strict with this than others. That's what makes
some sellers decide to just treat all purchases as if they were made domestically
- as if you were a tourist visiting the shop - and charge VAT on everything.
Whether this is right or not, and allowed or not, I'm not sure.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2021 08:04 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback Etiquette and Retaliation | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Help | |
|
| In Help, cosmicray writes:
| | In Help, Teup writes:
| | I guess it's a bit of a gray area. On the one hand, the seller has no control
over what goes on at the postal service, on the other hand, the seller is the
person who chose to contract them and is responsible for the entire process.
The buyer can complain to the seller, and the seller can complain to the postal
service.
|
But that ignores buyer choices. Buyers almost always want cheap and fast. You
can have less expensive and slow, or you can have more expensive and (hopefully)
faster movement. If the buyer chooses the least expensive option, the seller
should not have to work harder to make up for the buyer's choices.
|
I'm not offering choices any choices at all, since over here most webshops
don't. But when offering them, you can add a description what you will get.
You can simply add a description saying the cheap option can take months, and
then there's no reason to leave neutral or negative feedback, because the
buyer got what they could expect. I think postal services often have some statement
or indication on delivery time, so you can just copy that.
| |
| | But yeah, it's about finding a reasonable compromise... if the seller would
be involved and kept in touch about what the next steps would be, I would still
leave a positive. If they don't respond, I might leave neutral. Another problem
is that any negative feedback for long international delivery time isn't
relevant to domestic customers.. so I guess it's another one of those discussions
that ends up with: we need a better system than a positive-neutral-negative feedback
profile..
|
We need a system that clearly delineates the seller's performance, and does
not conflate it with the delivery service. If the buyer chooses a slow method,
they have no right to blame the seller for that.
|
I guess the fundamental question is: What question are you answering when you
look at a seller's feedback profile? Since you're using the word 'blame',
I guess for you that question is "is this seller an OK guy to do business with?".
That's a legitimate question, but as for me, I'm checking it to answer
"Do I end up getting what the seller's terms are stating?"
For example, if a seller would have a message saying they 100% guaruantee delivery
the next day, no matter what, I will want that feedback profile to reflect how
accurate their claims are. If people are getting it 3 days later, then IMO that's
a fair reason for negative feedback. Because it violates the created expectation.
If a seller says shipping is very slow (regardless of who is causing that), then
getting slow shipping can never be a reason for negative feedback. Finally, if
a seller has NO description, I'd say it's down to what you can reasonably
expect, without additional info. And that's where IMO several months does
not match what is reasonable to expect. So for me, feedback is just extra verification
info to figure out if what I am being presented (quality, speed) matches reality.
But again, just a matter of how you interpret what feedback means, I guess.
| | We also need a better shipping system on BL, one which will provide uniform service
choices, and clearly indicate what to expect from each. Leaving it to 6,000 odd
sellers, each presenting in their way, is bound to confuse the customers.
Nita Rae
|
Yeah, many of these dilemmas disappear if the archaic terms and feedback systems
are overhauled. For example, buyers could leave a specific score whether delivery
time matched the terms - besides rating the seller as a good person to do business
with. And if terms were not a free text field but a series of multiple choice
options, like BrickOwl has, it's all much clearer. You would see directly
"ah, this seller indicated they are slow" "oh, this seller indicated they are
fast, though the delivery score shows me it might actually take much longer"
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2021 07:02 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback Etiquette and Retaliation | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Help | |
|
| In Help, yorbrick writes:
| | In Help, Teup writes:
| | In Help, yorbrick writes:
| | | | Well, I've never had packages taking 2 months. If the package didn't
arrive 2 weeks after what the postal service indicated as delivery time (which
is going to be some 20 days in total), I would consider it lost. I am not going
to ask the buyer to wait even longer. I would either resend it or send a refund,
and tell the buyer to pay it back once they get the items.
|
So how can the seller have know it would take two months at the time of posting
in this case? Sometimes random delays happen. Should the seller be responsible
for informing the buyer before they order that sometimes there are delays of
two months?
|
Well, if it's a random delay, and the seller refuses to consider the package
lost (which I would have done), then it's still only 1 negative saying delivery
time was long. It will be just that: a thousand people in their feedback profile
saying they're happy and one person saying it took very long. What will future
buyers think? That there's a high likelihood it will be fine but there is
actually a small chance it can take very long. I think that's a pretty accurate
reflection. I don't think that one feedback is going to suddenly make buyers
believe the seller is all bad.
And yes, if it is more than just an incident, then the seller should indicate
it. So it's either going to be the one or the other. Seems fair to me.
As a buyer I will want to know as much information as possible about ordering
at that store. Whose fault it is doesn't matter to me, just like I don't
care about how much of what I pay for shipping goes to the seller for handling
and how much goes to the postal service. I just want to know what it costs, and
what I can expect.
|
Sure, it is just one negative feedback. I doubt it matters.
What I was responding to was that the seller should have told the buyer how long
it would take to reach the buyer at the start of the order. The seller doesn't
know that. They might know how long on average it would take, they might know
how long it could take, but they don't know how long it would take. Especially
as we now know the buyer had the tracking number, and so should know where it
was stuck, leaving a negative for the seller seems even worse.
|
I guess it's a bit of a gray area. On the one hand, the seller has no control
over what goes on at the postal service, on the other hand, the seller is the
person who chose to contract them and is responsible for the entire process.
The buyer can complain to the seller, and the seller can complain to the postal
service.
Personally I am not using DHL because I know they're pretty good at beating
up packages. Would it be my responsibility if they do? Not really, but I am
responsible for the consequences of it. If a part is broken, it doesn't really
matter for the buyer who broke it, so in a similar vein, it doesn't really
matter who caused the delay.
But yeah, it's about finding a reasonable compromise... if the seller would
be involved and kept in touch about what the next steps would be, I would still
leave a positive. If they don't respond, I might leave neutral. Another problem
is that any negative feedback for long international delivery time isn't
relevant to domestic customers.. so I guess it's another one of those discussions
that ends up with: we need a better system than a positive-neutral-negative feedback
profile..
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2021 03:06 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback Etiquette and Retaliation | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Help | |
|
| In Help, calebfishn writes:
| | In Help, Teup writes:
| | In Help, firestar246 writes:
| | In Help, Teup writes:
| | my place? Keep in mind feedback reflects your own experience with the transaction.
Anything you want to post is fair by definition, as it is your own experience.
|
I can see your point, but don't agree 100% with it because sure, maybe the
shipping time wasn't positive, but it isn't fair to blame that negative
aspect on the seller because they had no control over that point. Just like it
wouldn't be fair if the package arrived completely destroyed because the
delivery man backed over it and the buyer leaves negative feedback to the seller.
The seller had nothing to do with it.
|
That's true but my point was that feedback isn't about the seller, it's
about the community. Sure the seller is not to blame, but if what you get significantly
deviates from what you could expect, it's relevant info for future buyers
to know. I'm thinking as feedback simply as a tool for doing that, not for
blaming.
|
Sorry, I don't agree that feedback isn't about the seller. Of course
it is about the seller, because the seller wears the negative feedback, and the
seller's feedback score is affected negatively.
It is about the community also, but feedback given based on the actions of third
parties, or natural disasters, etc. rather than about the seller and the service
the seller provided, provide no helpful information to the community at all.
|
But I can't see any purpose for the seller. Just for future transaction partners.
Messages are for the seller. If you want a seller to change something, you message
them. Feedback, even though it's called "feedback", isn't really feedback
to the seller. You can give them feedback in emails or messages if you want to
give tips or tell them to change something. A feedback post is a marker for the
community. By far the most users do not address the other party in the feedback
post but direct them at the community ("did not ship order", "did not pay", "beware",
etc)
| | I don't agree that a buyer's or seller's subjective expectations
are relevant at all. They are irrelevant, because again, the seller does not
usually have control of the buyer's expectations. If I order from you, but
have an unrealistic expectations about what you can provide, how can that be
relevant to the community? It isn't and it gives the community of buyers
no guidance about what to expect from the seller.
|
It's about non-conformity. If something is significantly off what you can
reasonably expect, you can mark that. That notion is not really that subjective
that it becomes impossible to work with, there's actually consumer rights
legislation based on the concept of (non)conformity.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2021 18:26 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback Etiquette and Retaliation | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Help | |
|
| In Help, yorbrick writes:
| | | | Well, I've never had packages taking 2 months. If the package didn't
arrive 2 weeks after what the postal service indicated as delivery time (which
is going to be some 20 days in total), I would consider it lost. I am not going
to ask the buyer to wait even longer. I would either resend it or send a refund,
and tell the buyer to pay it back once they get the items.
|
So how can the seller have know it would take two months at the time of posting
in this case? Sometimes random delays happen. Should the seller be responsible
for informing the buyer before they order that sometimes there are delays of
two months?
|
Well, if it's a random delay, and the seller refuses to consider the package
lost (which I would have done), then it's still only 1 negative saying delivery
time was long. It will be just that: a thousand people in their feedback profile
saying they're happy and one person saying it took very long. What will future
buyers think? That there's a high likelihood it will be fine but there is
actually a small chance it can take very long. I think that's a pretty accurate
reflection. I don't think that one feedback is going to suddenly make buyers
believe the seller is all bad.
And yes, if it is more than just an incident, then the seller should indicate
it. So it's either going to be the one or the other. Seems fair to me.
As a buyer I will want to know as much information as possible about ordering
at that store. Whose fault it is doesn't matter to me, just like I don't
care about how much of what I pay for shipping goes to the seller for handling
and how much goes to the postal service. I just want to know what it costs, and
what I can expect.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2021 18:21 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback Etiquette and Retaliation | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Help | |
|
| In Help, firestar246 writes:
| | In Help, Teup writes:
| | my place? Keep in mind feedback reflects your own experience with the transaction.
Anything you want to post is fair by definition, as it is your own experience.
|
I can see your point, but don't agree 100% with it because sure, maybe the
shipping time wasn't positive, but it isn't fair to blame that negative
aspect on the seller because they had no control over that point. Just like it
wouldn't be fair if the package arrived completely destroyed because the
delivery man backed over it and the buyer leaves negative feedback to the seller.
The seller had nothing to do with it.
|
That's true but my point was that feedback isn't about the seller, it's
about the community. Sure the seller is not to blame, but if what you get significantly
deviates from what you could expect, it's relevant info for future buyers
to know. I'm thinking as feedback simply as a tool for doing that, not for
blaming.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
Netherlands, Utrecht
![https://www.imgup.cz/images/2021/11/14/MINIFIGURE7bad8529e7e35e7d.png"](https://www.imgup.cz/images/2021/11/14/MINIFIGURE7bad8529e7e35e7d.png"){kind=link}