posted on April 27, 2001 04:00:46 PM new
Hi yisgood,
Charge back liability is explained in the terms of use, as well as the recovery process. The funds, per your suggestions last year, are isolated until the details of the Seller Protection Program are provided. If the Seller can't provide this, then they have a negative account balance, or a liability, that needs to be recovered.
This is no different than other payment services and charge backs. However, we are relatively unique in providing charge back protection and the right to defend against the charge back. We don't just assume the charge back is legitimate without doing a pending reversal first and asking for documentation. Most merchant accounts (or many other services) simply remove the funds.
posted on April 27, 2001 06:43:07 PM new
Paypal has released the funds back to me so I now have access to the funds again. Thank You Damon, that is appreciated!
I still don't agree with Paypal doing that before any one offers any valid proof. I think both parties should have to verify the complaint before action is taken. They are treating their customers as if they are in the wrong, before proving they are indeed in the wrong. I don't agree with that.
However, If Paypal won't budge on having both parties verify and show proof before they take action, what about doing a "pending-reversal" to both accounts? At least that way it would affect both parties, and not give the buyers another tool against the sellers. If the buyer has to deal with the same consequences as the seller, they may be less likely to use it as a tool against the seller to have their demands met.
posted on April 28, 2001 06:43:49 PM new
Glad to know that Paypal finally seems to be working the way it is supposed to. It was a long wait. Now did it work because it has been fixed or because the seller posted publicly here and Damon stepped in? It appears that the seller got nowhere going through paypal's regular channels. In other posts right in this section there are still reports of account restrictions going on several months. I still don't understand why Paypal doesn't have a direct phone number to someone with the authority to investigate and deal with restricted accounts.
As to this particular situation, I disagree with Damon's answer, "Most merchant accounts (or many other services) simply remove the funds."
Three charge back attempts were made against my direct merchant account. Two were for non-receipt of goods and all it took was my sending proof of delivery. The third was a case of buyer's remorse and the customer expected me to issue a call tag and pick up the item because he had found something else he wanted. I told him it didn't work that way. So he made a charge back claiming that it didn't work (a quality issue very similar to this one.) The charge back was denied because the issuing bank pointed out that he had to return it FIRST. When he returned it, I refunded him, as I had promised to do even before he made the charge back. In all three cases, no money was ever withdrawn or frozen in my account, even temporarilly.
So I ask Paypal again, from a point of view of customer service or logic or whatever, what is gained by freezing funds in such a dispute? If the seller is honest, there is no reason for the freeze at all. If the seller is a crook, the money has already been taken out of the account. I don't see that a freeze in this situation accomplishes anything other than angering a good customer and giving irrational customers another method of extortion. Particularly when your TOU says you will not get involved in quality disputes. If you are going to make sellers prove their case, you should also make buyers prove their case. This is what other services do.
posted on May 5, 2001 01:37:56 PM new
<<Now did it work because it has been fixed or because the seller posted publicly here and Damon stepped in? It appears that the seller got nowhere going through paypal's regular channels.>>
I had received no reply from Paypal. I personally think it is because Damon stepped in and helped. If not for Damon I think this would have taken much longer than it did.
<<If you are going to make sellers prove their case, you should also make buyers prove their case. This is what other services do.>>
Exactly my points Yisgood, except you stated / made them extremely well!
One other thing I would like to point out as well. Paypal does not get into disputes over merchandise. In my case, where the buyer complained about "fraud" and stated that the item received was not the item bid upon, Paypal "restricted" that specific transaction. (Although I disagree with that because the restriction did affect other transactions in my opinion) All Paypal required me to do was to send them proof of shipping. Once that was done (and Damon gave them a push) they took the "restriction" off of that transaction. So, in this case, what was the point of restricting the account for a complaint of fraud? Proving that the item was shipped and received has no baring on the complaint of fraud, so what was the purpose of restricting the account and starting an investigation of the situation?
posted on May 8, 2001 03:42:51 AM new
Charge back liability is explained in the terms of use, as well as the recovery process. The funds, per your suggestions last year, are isolated until the details of the Seller Protection Program are provided. If the Seller can't provide this, then they have a negative account balance, or a liability, that needs to be recovered.
Quoted from paypaldamon
Let me ask a simple question.
Ok this pending thingie had a value of $500 and her account didn't have $500 in it and was temporarily frozen.
If for example her account had $600 in it would she have been able to get in the account and deal with the other $100 in the account? and the $500 with a hold on pending the outcome?
http://www.lovepotions.net
