posted on August 23, 2000 07:47:24 AM new
I'm sure there are a lot of avenues to correct the problem. I keep thinking the buyer could/should call the seller and make sure their IS a problem.
I notice the same post has been made to one of the eBay forums today. I guess bringing attention to your problem brings some satisfaction, but isn't it logical to call the seller in such a problem as this?
posted on August 23, 2000 08:47:10 AM new
Maybe you should go back & re-read their first post in this thread? It seemed pretty clear by their email contact that this seller wasn't going to go to any great lengths to try & resolve this.
And further down the line Datcha posted this:
" I have his info. I have not talked directly but will be doing that later today/this afternoon. I have done another email, to both email IDs known for this person/group, and have now provided him with an easy way to "send" the funds back by using the "request for money'. If nothing is followed up by noon or so I will be placing phone calls. (I also did this to give a "literal" opportunity
for the seller to essentially say-by responding or not-"yes I will send funds" or "no...I am refusing to refund your money" by refusal or ignoring of the send money request. It's just another way to stack
up options/proofs against the seller."
posted on August 23, 2000 09:47:15 AM newAt least this whole thread has become an object lesson for getting help from Paypal for simple mistakes. Even eBay has a system for retracting bids that are placed in error...you'd think there'd be some mechanism for the same when dealing with cash money on Paypal.
TRC, you have got to be kidding. A retraction for a payment?? I'm seriously assuming this was a joke, and will take the rest of your post as such.
[ edited by jrscharton on Aug 23, 2000 09:47 AM ]
posted on August 23, 2000 09:57:17 AM newNo problem. Let the buyer show proof of shipping a hundred more of these items, after he produces an order from buyer for a hundred more items. The bottom line here is that eBay auctions are well documented. All correspodence between the 2 parties (with full headers) can be forwarded to Payal. This should be a very easy issue to resolve.
abingdoncomputers, I agree that this should be a very issue to resolve, and the focus needs to be on why the seller is not resolving it. While I understand everyone's knee-jerk reaction "have PayPal take care of it", the problem I see with that, is it's the foot in the door to future similar situations. I've heard so much complaining about PayPal's involvement with the Buyer/Seller Protection Guarantee, I can't understand why so many want them to get involved with this type of situation.
posted on August 23, 2000 09:58:52 AM new
"At least this whole thread has become an object lesson for getting help from Paypal for simple mistakes. Even eBay has a system for retracting bids that are placed in error...you'd think there'd be some mechanism for the same when dealing with cash money on Paypal."
This might not be a bad idea and maybe should be considered. As an example, look at BidPay's system. When the buyer pays, you are sent an e-mail informing you of that. They then send you a second e-mail a day or two later. Payment is guaranteed to the seller...BUT ONLY AFTER THE SECOND E-MAIL! During the time between the first and second e-mail, THE BUYER CAN STILL CANCEL THE PAYMENT! Rather than call it a "payment retraction" how about a 24 hour waiting period before the transfer actually takes effect...giving the buyer plenty of time to realize a mistake like this one and correct it before it gets to the point this one has.
posted on August 23, 2000 10:11:00 AM new
HI auctionee,
Not a bad idea, but let me give a scenario.
You send a check to someone.
The check has been cashed.
Can you place a stop payment on it if it was the incorrect amount?
This would allow you to modify the payment information after it has been authorized. I truly do feel for the user in this case, but I think you see the issue.
The Bidpay example is good, but no transaction has taken place. You are probably not allowed to modify it after the second email (from my guess).
posted on August 23, 2000 10:28:47 AM new
HI abingdoncomputers,
No, this really is an issue between the buyer and the seller. The cost of the item is available to see, but there may have been other terms that we are not aware of (phone call,email).
I am not pointing to that for this specific case, but it does point out the importance of making sure what you are inputting is the amount you want to send. I do feel for the user, but this issue needs to be resolved between the buyer and seller.
posted on August 23, 2000 10:45:33 AM new
>>No, this really is an issue between the buyer and the seller. The cost of the item is available to see, but there may have been other terms that we are not aware of (phone call,email). <<
I really have to disagree with PP on this one. What is the difference between a buyer saying "the seller never sent the item" or a buyer saying "I paid $1300 and got a $10 item"? In either case there is a serious fraud that is very simple to prove. My CC company charged it back when a similar situation happened to me and it wasnt a thousand dollar difference, either. It seems that after all PP's promises about safety, the bottom line is they wont actually do anything to make it safe other than a lot of promises. Does PP really seriously believe that buyer won a $10 video and because of something said over the phone it became $1300? Come one! It is PP who tells sellers to get documentation.
>>Not a bad idea, but let me give a scenario. You send a check to someone.
The check has been cashed. Can you place a stop payment on it if it was the incorrect amount? <<
But a PP payment is NOT a check. It is an electronic transfer which takes several days to complete. And it can be transferred back. And there are several days during which you CAN stop payment on a check. The problem is that PP is telling the buyer "tough luck" and the longer they drag it out, the better opportunity they give the seller to abscond with the money. This is the precise situation where they should freeze that payment and ask the seller to provide proof of a $1300 purchase.
But there is a separate issue here outside of whether PP should or should not stop the payment. The fact is that someone here is using PP as a vehicle to commit fraud. Even if it is the buyer's mistake, the seller is legally obligated to return it. If he keeps it, he's a crook. PP should make some effort to boot crooks off their system. It's a lot less expensive than all their other measures.
Is this seller verified by any chance? I have been pro-PP on every thread here but this one sounds like PP allows known crooks to continue operating and that scares me.
posted on August 23, 2000 10:47:13 AM newI have been accused of working for Paypal, but I think this post will put that rumor to rest. I have to admit that I cant understand PP at all. They spent millions on this verification thing and are trying to tell everybody that they are protected when using PP. Then along comes an obvious mistake and PP says they cant get involved.
Hi yisgood. This has nothing to do with verification, however, I would think that it might fall under the Buyer Protection Guarantee, especially if the seller fails to deliver the $1000 product paid for.
PP refers you the the CC rules, as if claiming that they will abide by the decision of the CC company. The CC company in this case will almost certainly allow a charge back.
In which case the buyer should initiate a chargeback through his CC company. Unfortunately, for this particular buyer, it was through a debit card. His bank has let him know that he can send them written info regarding the situation and they'll review that.
I once had a company overcharge my CC on an item. Their ad stated Free shipping, my sales receipt stated free shipping and yet they charged me $96 for shipping. I sent my CC company a copy of the ad and the receipt and they charged back the shipping.
In this case, the buyer was buying a $10 video. It should be pretty easy to prove. If the seller did get $1000 from the buyer, that seller should be able to show what they sold for $1000. Have they shipped a box that was insured for $1000? It won't take Sherlock Holmes to get to the bottom of this.
Absolutely. This is where I think the Buyer Protection would come into play. Unfortunately for the buyer, there is the waiting period of 30 days.
Frankly, if I was PP and worried about scams and bad press, I would close the account of whichever party is lying in this case. PP is spending millions with verification and rules. Some of the methods to prevent fraud are much simpler, such as restricting known crooks.
At this point, I do not think PayPal should get involved. This is currently an issue that the buyer and seller needs to resolve between themselves. Once datcha has received (or not received) his order, then per PayPal's TOU, they should be involved.
With that aside, if I was personally in datcha's situation, I would want to get help from both PayPal and eBay, even if it was just an email from both companies expressing that the buyer was concerned over getting a refund on a possible overpayment. But I don't think it's either company's responsibility, just that it would be nice if they could help out that way.
edited to fix ubb error
[ edited by jrscharton on Aug 25, 2000 02:49 PM ]
posted on August 23, 2000 10:47:53 AM new
Actually, I have no problem at all with a stop payment button on the paypal screen (or a retracted bid on eBay) and think both would be a good idea if there is a time limit imposed.
If you send money and somehow, at the end of all the screens, you notice the improper amount was sent, what is the problem with being able to cancel a payment then and there? I'm not thinking that someone should be able to retract a payment three days or three weeks later, but what about right then, for the duration of that little cookie PP puts on your computer? I would think, not to get too off topic, that it would be a good way to handle bid retractions on eBay as well.
Either way if you have made a legitimate mistake, you can correct it before it becomes a major problem, like this one has the definite potential to become (if it hasn't already).
----
TRC
[ edited by TheRedCircle on Aug 23, 2000 10:49 AM ]
posted on August 23, 2000 10:52:51 AM new
I'm sure it will always be "an issue between the buyer and the seller" as long as there is a thousand bucks gathering float interest for Paypal...the longer it takes, the more moolah for them.
posted on August 23, 2000 10:59:13 AM new
theredcircle:
a stop payment button is unecessary. There are TWO screens you have to go through to send a payment. This buyer was just not paying attention. You cant allow buyers to take back money once it's been sent and they have two opportunities to review it before it is sent. Maybe PP should introduce a new feature "for people who are easily distracted, how many times do you want to be asked to confirm before we send out your payment?"
>>I'm sure it will always be "an issue between the buyer and the seller" as long as there is a thousand bucks gathering float interest for Paypal...the longer it takes, the more moolah for them. <<
You keep harping on this and that's plain silly. I bet the seller has already withdrawn the money and it's not in PP any more. That's why I think PP should act before the 30 days. People seem to think that PP is making fortunes off the float. I dont see how that's possible. There is a cost to making the transaction. Even if it's only .5 percent. Think about it. You send $1000. It cost PP $5. The money is in their system 7 days. Even if they make 20% on it, it's still less than $5 for those 7 days.
posted on August 23, 2000 10:59:40 AM new
HI Yisgood,
I understand that. But it a dispute came into play, the buyer and sender records reflect it. Buyer claims, if non-receipt of merchandise, that they sent ten dollars and they didn't get it. They want the ten dollars back.That is what they are disputing. If they are stating an entirely different amount, we don't know what transpired to make the amount different than what the auction said.
Logically, it may not make as much sense, but you would see why we would not want to get involved in the AMOUNT sent verus product not sent.
posted on August 23, 2000 11:04:37 AM newMaybe you should go back & re-read their first post in this thread? It seemed pretty clear by their email contact that this seller wasn't going to go to any great lengths to try & resolve this.
Yes, at this point it did not seem as if the seller was going to any lengths at all to resolve the problem, at least via email. Which is why it was then recommended that the buyer contact the seller via phone.
And further down the line Datcha posted this:
" I have his info. I have not talked directly but will be doing that later today/this afternoon. I have done another email, to both email IDs known for this person/group, and have now provided him with an easy way to "send" the funds back by using the "request for money'. If nothing is followed up by noon or so I will be placing phone calls. (I also did this to give a "literal" opportunity for the seller to essentially say-by responding or not-"yes I will send funds" or "no...I am refusing to refund your money" by refusal or ignoring of the send money request. It's just another way to stack up options/proofs against the seller."
Yes, datcha left this post after uaru's suggestion to contact the seller after via phone. datcha let us know that this was something he was planning on doing, in addition to my feeble suggestion to send a "Request Money" for the overpayment.
Maybe you should go back & re-read their first post in this thread, and each subsequent thread in the order they were posted?
edited to fix ubb error
[ edited by jrscharton on Aug 25, 2000 02:51 PM ]
posted on August 23, 2000 11:09:14 AM new
>>Logically, it may not make as much sense<<
You're right, it doesnt. You spent millions on verification and then won't step into a situation that can be resolved in a few minutes.
>>but you would see why we would not want to get involved in the AMOUNT sent verus product not sent.<<
I would see it if it was a difficult determination. This one is a piece of cake.
So despite PP's great new protection, the bottom line is if you pay for something and get nothing, you are protected. If you pay $1000 and get a $10 item, tough luck.
posted on August 23, 2000 11:23:20 AM new
Hi yisgood,
I know the answer isn't good at the moment, but I did ask if the protection program is going to be extended to issues where the user sends an incorrect amount and the recipient is not assisting.
This is pretty cut and dry, but it contains a fair amount of murkiness as well. This really does, at this point in time, need to be resolved between these two parties.
If I sent you a check for the wrong amount and you cashed it, is the bank going to correct it? No, because the transaction has been completed per your instructions.
posted on August 23, 2000 11:29:24 AM new
>>If I sent you a check for the wrong amount and you cashed it, is the bank going to correct it? No, because the transaction has been completed per your instructions<<
But there are several days in between where you could still stop payment. Why is PP pretending that the second the buyer presses send, it's too late? PP is telling this buyer he has to wait 30 days before they will act. Of course at the end of 30 days the money will be long gone. My bank doesnt wait 30 days to process a stop payment. I am not advocating that PP jump into action any time anyone makes a claim. However, when it is a claim that can be easily checked, they should do more than step aside.
posted on August 23, 2000 11:41:45 AM new
Reddeer,
I did read the first post, and I still believe that a call to the seller would be the wisest move the buyer could make. The seller may indeed be unwilling to correct the matter, the seller may be worried it's part of a scam and he doesn't want to be an accessory, the bottom line is the buyer isn't sure of the seller's intent.
At this point I guess maybe PayPal would save themselves some grief if they made the call the buyer should have made at the beginning. It is possible the seller doesn't want to be part of some cash advance scenario (the seller doesn't know if it came from a debit card or credit card) I do think the logical order for a solution wasn't followed in this incident.
posted on August 23, 2000 11:44:09 AM new
I can think of 2 ways to prevent something like this in the future.
1) Require all amounts entered to be written out to 2 decimal places. $10 would have to be entered as $10.00 . This would prevent errors from dropped decimal points. If I was sending 10.25 and entered it as 1025, I would get an error message stating that the amount entered didn't include 2 decimal positions. When I examined the amount, I would easily see that I dropped the decimal point.
2) Let each user set a warning limit. Whenever a user tries to send an amount over their limit a warning would pop up. So, if I set my limit at $100.00 and I meant to send a payment of 11.25 and accidentally hit the "1" a third time, making my 11.25 payment a 111.25 payment, a warning would pop up saying, "WARNING! The payment of $111.25 exceeds your limit of $100.00. Please confirm that this is the correct amount." This would give the user a chance to correct his mistake.
posted on August 23, 2000 12:41:23 PM new
The buyer in this scenario has indicated that a debit card was used, and that the funds were/will be deducted directly from his checking account.
Wouldn't a visit to his bank's office be in order, especially in view of the amount involved here? Aren't debit cards covered by the same sort of consumer legislation as credit cards? Couldn't the buyer simply initiate a chargeback in this case?
posted on August 23, 2000 01:52:23 PM new
"You send a check to someone.
The check has been cashed.
Can you place a stop payment on it if it was the incorrect amount? "
I see your point, but I don't see how writing a check can be compared to this situation. If you are distracted while writing a check, it can be just as easy to write 1300.00 when you intended to write 13.00. However, when writing a check, you also have the added protection of being required to write the amount in long hand. It is not easy to write "one thousand three hundred dollars" as opposed to "thirteen dollars". It I write 1300.00 and "thirteen dollars", the "thirteen dollars" is going to be paid, not $1300.00 even though I did make a mistake and write that amount. If they did pay 1300.00, YES I would expect a refund from the bank! There's another idea, when you go to the confirmation screen, instead of just clicking "submit", how about requiring the sender to enter the amount a second time and verify that the 2 amounts match? I agree that in this case, PayPal only did what they were requested to do and as such are not responsible for it. However, I do feel that maybe an e-mail from PayPal to the seller is in order to at least hear what the seller's side of the story is. Especially since the only response that the buyer has received from the seller is "haven't had chance to contact Paypal....still trying to straighten problem with them + don't want to confuse them.....". I think that everyone here, including the buyer who made the mistake, realizes that PayPal is not responsible for the mistake, but there are ways which PayPal could "go the extra mile" and try to help a customer as well as several ways to reduce the liklihood of this type of problem from occuring again.
posted on August 23, 2000 01:53:55 PM newAren't debit cards covered by the same sort of consumer legislation as credit cards?
Some, but far from all credit card protections are available to debit card users. Banks have generally applied the same rules however, as a way of keeping the feds from getting riled up. Needless to say, banks prefer debit cards to credit cards for people who pay their bills promptly.
Couldn't the buyer simply initiate a chargeback in this case?
Yes. There is no credit card company in the world who would refuse a chargeback in the case of a $1015 charge when buyer, in buyer's mind, was authorizing $13.
We have however observed that one has to play the game correctly.
That is correct. However, the issue just happened and nobody knows what is going on with the seller or what has transpired since that time. For all anyone knows, they were on vacation and unable to return the call or emails. The whole thing has been directed at guilt first without giving the other party the chance to redeem themselves. I certainly hope that this is resolved. But, as it relates to transactional amounts, we can't get involved in the dispute because it is an issue between the buyer and the seller to resolve.
The case in point with the check is that action can be taken in between the time the check was sent and cashed, but once cashed, the recourse has to come between the two parties. Payments through our system are cash transactions and care needs to be taken whenever sending money to someone. If we were to allow modifications on the amount sent based on one person's feedback, we would open the door for more troubles.
posted on August 23, 2000 03:40:31 PM new
Hi Damon:
At the very least PayPal should put a hold on the disputed amount and give the buyer time to pursue help if PayPal isn't willing to do what we all know to be the right thing.
This seller could request a check, or God forbid order $1000 worth of merchandise with the ill gotten gains and immediately close his PayPal account and his bank account. In my opinion, if this happens, PayPal has knowingly allowed fraud to take place.
At the very least, PayPal can freeze the disputed amount but leave it in the sellers account until the situation is resolved by whomever. It is beyond belief that PayPal will simply do nothing after going to such lengths as of late to try to ensure confidence in the safety of the PayPal payment system. It seems as if PayPal is trying desperately to shoot themselves in the foot, but their aim is just a little off and it just drags on and on and on.
posted on August 23, 2000 04:02:45 PM new
HI abingdoncomputers,
I understand the scenario, but I am going to present you with one.
You sell me an item.
I send you money. The key word is I, whether I sent it via check, cash, money order, etc. I determined the amount I sent. I either wrote down the amount that I wanted to send or I had a machine send it.
The money is off and received by the party. They deposit it based on the instructions you had given the money order or the check.
Can I contact the money order company after the item is cashed to say it was the wrong amount?
No.
That is why we have two screens for sending money. The first one is the input field, where you state how much you want to send and the email address. The second page asks :
Please check that the information displayed below is correct and click "Send Money."
Recipient
(This recipient is not yet registered or verified. He or she will receive the money after opening an account with this email address.)
Amount
$0.01
It waits until you verify the money before taking an action, which is complete when you hit send money. That is the user's instruction to do the transaction.
Can you tell me what more we can build into the system to prevent an end user from entering the incorrect information more than twice?
As a reminder, we don't know what has happened with this issue yet. The buyer seller has not told us the outcome.
And you don't think there is enough information provided for PayPal to even freeze the account for 72 hours to give the seller a chance to present his side of the story (and evidence of shipping a $1000 item as opposed to a $10 one? What kind of message does this send to the PayPal user community?
"Gee, I read today where PayPal has let a seller keep, without challenge, a $1000 overpayment due to the buyer's mistake. Let's see, do I ever make mistakes? Why yes, I think I have made one or two in the past myself. Do I really want to take a chance by sending payment for this $800 computer via PayPal? I think not."
Comparing this scenario with that of a check or money order is completely invalid. With a check or money order, if the buyer owes $13.00 for an auction, you and I both know that he isn't going to buy a $1300 money order or send a $1300 check. There are inherent safeguards built into these payment methods, such as having $1300 cash to buy a money order with when you know the item costs $13. And when you write a check, you have to write out the number AND the words. I can't see anyone making a $1300 mistake here. But with PayPal, like the buyer said, after you use the service a few times you just sort of go through the motions. Should you? Of course not. Do we all do it? Of course we do.
The short time-frame involved with a PayPal transaction and the laxness that comes with repetitive use of computer programs, anyone can make this mistake, verification screen or not. The entire process of sending payment to a seller takes about 1 minute. Often the hand (clicking the mouse) is faster than the eye and the brain.
This is exactly the kind of case where PayPal should get involved to prevent fraud. This is not simply a case of he said/she said. There is documentation to prove what the correct amount should be. And please don't insult our intelligence by saying that PayPal doesn't know what the buyer and seller agreed to over the phone or in email.
If a transaction changes by $1000 on a $13 item, there WILL be something in writing. Just ask buyer and seller to present copies of all communications with full headers. Ask seller to provide insurance and shipping receipt. Simple matter to resolve. Ask buyer to open package at the post office while a witness (postmaster?) watches. Ask buyer to open package in the presence of the UPS delivery man. Simple matter to resolve. But by not freezing the sellers PayPal account until buyer has a chance to prove his case, PayPal is allowing potential fraud to take place when it would be SOOO easy to prevent it.
posted on August 23, 2000 04:42:02 PM new
HI abingdoncomputer,
This is not fraud. This is a user mistake and I am hopeful that the party that this happened with will come back and tell us the outcome with the seller.
suggestion to send a "Request Money" for the overpayment.