From the 'More Actions' menu on the order itself. Check the form before you submit as you can choose to put items back into your store's stock and have BO deal with the refund or not (in this case, not).
No, the order will show as 'Cancelled' and in my experience that should override any other status. I have a handful of cancelled orders, either requested by the customer prior to shipping (and luckily before picking!), or later down the line when it has failed to arrive or by mutual discussion due to other factors. None have ever caused further problems store-wise. By the way, you can use 'cancelled' as a search term in the All Orders list to find them in the future.
Hmm there is something very strange going on here. Customer requested to cancel orders (2) - not the first time tbh because he changed his mind about the colours which obviously is his perogative. Now i getting message after message requesting to cancel. I have done so, refunded him and replied to his messages but they still keep a coming lol. There is nothing more I can do is there?
@Pikka - just checked it out now and yes the same customer with same messages etc. - not happy about the situation as I am losing paypal charges. It has happened to me at least three times that i can remember from same customer.
SOOO sorry all of you are going through this... crazy! @Lawrence, while the ability to cancel orders is reasonable (we all make mistakes, or run into an unexpected $$ crunch), is there some kind of max a buyer can do before they are suspended or blocked from BO?
This buyer may have ZERO idea the $$ they are costing the sellers if say they are using this order/cancel approach in lieu of cart placeholders, in which case just making them aware of this may change the behavior. If not, it seems to me a policy of some kind may be worth considering when it gets to this extreme level?
@Calibrick For instance, if a buyer decides to cancel the order for no good reason, they won't receive a full refund, but only the amount after the PayPal fees.
@Pikka - that would not be legal in the EU, and possibly elsewhere. It's a restocking fee under a different name.
I completely agree though that a buyer's account should be restricted if they submit multiple cancellation requests within a short time period, though of course that doesn't prevent a user from creating a second account, it does at least put obstacles in their way that may deter the behaviour.
After checking my notes I am finding this customer cancels orders only to reorder the same parts with maybe 1 or 2 items added. This is so unfair. the cost of the parts may be minimal 1p or 2p but the cost of my paypal charges is so much more.
You can decide to not sell to anyone you like providing the decision is not based on a protective characteristic (gender, nationality, age, etc.) but you cannot add someone to a blacklist that is shared or referenced by multiple businesses. An actual "blacklist" would be illegal.
@Calibrick illegal across the EU, but in practice some smaller companies still charge them as they're either unaware and/or have never been challenged by a consumer.
As far as I know it is allowed, but you have to state it upfront (so in the terms of your store). At least that was how it was a year or 2 ago. So either it has changed (which could well be) or it is, under conditions, allowed.
Restocking fees are not legal in the EU for purchases made "at distance" - with the usual exceptions like perishable goods, personalised items, etc.
There are two things that might be considered similar to a restocking fee:
(1) if the consumer specifically asked for a costlier shipping method than the cheapest shipping method that was available for their order at the time they ordered, the retailer may choose to only refund the cost of the cheaper method.
(2) if the consumer steps beyond merely inspecting their order, a deduction can be made to reflect the reduced value of the goods - though the retailer would need to be able to justify it to the courts should the consumer object. Consumers are, for example, allowed to try on a t-shirt, carefully open the outer packaging of a toy, check the functionality of a feature if that does not detract from the item's value (an example of this might be checking the seat adjustment feature of a new car, checking the quality of an audio speaker, etc.).
Just in case it needs to be said, business to business sales are not covered by consumer legislation. But a secondary contract - such as one imposed by the marketplace or payment provider involved in the transaction - may impose similar obligations (because the seller effectively "opts in").
I think you are completely correct. I can only find something about the return shipping cost that does not have to be carried by the seller if stated upfront. My mistake, sorry.
Comments
This buyer may have ZERO idea the $$ they are costing the sellers if say they are using this order/cancel approach in lieu of cart placeholders, in which case just making them aware of this may change the behavior. If not, it seems to me a policy of some kind may be worth considering when it gets to this extreme level?
I completely agree though that a buyer's account should be restricted if they submit multiple cancellation requests within a short time period, though of course that doesn't prevent a user from creating a second account, it does at least put obstacles in their way that may deter the behaviour.
At least that was how it was a year or 2 ago.
So either it has changed (which could well be) or it is, under conditions, allowed.
There are two things that might be considered similar to a restocking fee:
(1) if the consumer specifically asked for a costlier shipping method than the cheapest shipping method that was available for their order at the time they ordered, the retailer may choose to only refund the cost of the cheaper method.
(2) if the consumer steps beyond merely inspecting their order, a deduction can be made to reflect the reduced value of the goods - though the retailer would need to be able to justify it to the courts should the consumer object. Consumers are, for example, allowed to try on a t-shirt, carefully open the outer packaging of a toy, check the functionality of a feature if that does not detract from the item's value (an example of this might be checking the seat adjustment feature of a new car, checking the quality of an audio speaker, etc.).
Just in case it needs to be said, business to business sales are not covered by consumer legislation. But a secondary contract - such as one imposed by the marketplace or payment provider involved in the transaction - may impose similar obligations (because the seller effectively "opts in").
My mistake, sorry.