posted on June 9, 2001 08:46:22 PM new
If you're trying to obtain money by threat and harassment, that may be criminal. Surely, you're free to tell your story to anyone who will listen.
"does not apply to disputes about the quality or attributes of delivered goods..."
If there was the slightest doubt regarding the nuance of the word "promised" in your citation, this clears it up.
Is it truly not clear to you that your dispute regards an attribute of the delivered goods?
I apologize if my last message seemed less than polite! All this policy quoting and word play has me worn out.
Yes, I admit that my complaint does involve the "attributes" of the item I received, but that section of PayPal's Buyer Protection Policy does not apply to this transaction.
As I stated before, the often quoted reference to the "quality or attributes of delivered goods..." appears in Section 2 which is titled, "Additional Protection for eBay Auctions."
The full wording of this section appears as follows:
"This Additional Protection does not apply to disputes about the quality or attributes of delivered goods, goods that have been lost in the mail as shown by seller's presentation of proof of shipment, payments for services, payments to Unverified sellers, or a seller's failure to deliver intangible goods."
I am not eligible for the provisions in this section (even if they were in my favor) because my item was not purchased through an eBay auction. Am I mistaken or does the "quality or attributes of delivered goods..." wording appear elsewhere in the policies? I searched, but I couldn't find it.
Please understand that this is my frustration with the interpretation of the policies. You can no more take a single sentence from this section and apply it to my transaction than I could demand the coverage listed here if my transaction didn't meet the criteria laid out in the title itself. Can you see my point?
Also, with all respect, are you an employee of PayPal or just a user that really believes in their service? I want to understand why you so strongly feel the way you do.
Thanks!
[ edited by chansen on Jun 9, 2001 09:50 PM ]
posted on June 9, 2001 10:45:13 PM new
I am not an employee of PayPal. Our credentials are equal. We're posters to AuctionWatch, no more, no less.
Also, I apologize if I suggested that you might be a criminal. I agree, there is no chance that filing a complaint with the BBB might be criminal.
How about, "you're grasping at straws".
You've seized upon "promised" as meaning that PayPal guarantees any promise made by seller. Ok, I can see how you make that interpretation, but it's a highly biased interpretation. It's also such a crazy interpretation that no one would agree that that's what PayPal was guaranteeing. How might PayPal guarantee every single promise? And what if those promises were subjected to this kind of word-crunching, yielding promises never intended by a seller?
The fact that the clarifying clause is in a section which would not apply to your particular case does not mean that the clause does not clarify the situation.
Ok? One cannot seize upon a slight ambiguity of wording, add in a refusal to consider the whole context, derive a conclusion dead against everything PayPal has ever said on the matter, and expect this word game to hold any water.
I can understand why you feel disappointed by the buyer's protection plan.
My exact interpretation of these policies probably comes from working with criminal laws here in Oregon. In the ORS, laws are written in such a way that there is very little room for misinterpretation. In short, they mean what they say!
I know laws don't make very interesting reading, but PayPal could clean up their policies to avoid this type of confusion.
I still stand by my interpretation of the policies as they pertain to "quality or attributes of delivered goods..." You can't take one law relating to burglary and apply parts of the trespass statute to it. Each section should stand on it's own. The wording here clearly states, "This Additional Protection does not apply..." and it is clear to me that this section applies to eBay auctions only.
Also, I never expected PayPal to "guarantee" this guy's promises. I'm only asking, given the clear documentation I have, that PayPal make a reasonable effort to process a refund from this individual. When the advertisement, e-mail prior to the purchase and the PayPal payment itself doesn't match the item indicated on the shipping invoice, my feeling is that I never received the "promised goods." A reasonable effort is all I ask from PayPal. That would be what I call "Buyer Protection."
Why should it have taken thirty days to deny my claim based on existing policy? It would seem that PayPal does delay these denials until the last minute to reduce credit card chargebacks (not an option in my case).
After I filed my PayPal complaint, I was contacted by an individual that "almost" bought a car from this seller, only to discover that there were no air bags. The seller had repaired the car after an accident and the air bags were never replaced, nor was it disclosed in the advertisement. The seller's response when caught was simply, "I never advertised that it had air bags."
Is it right that this person still has an active PayPal account? Don't you feel that PayPal has an obligation to cancel his account to protect future buyers?
I'm still grasping at straws, but thanks for the chance to vent some more.
posted on June 10, 2001 09:54:11 AM newDon't you feel that PayPal has an obligation to cancel his account to protect future buyers?
Obligation? In the sense that PayPal would agree to be sued if they failed to act aggressively enough? No.
But I can see what you're saying.
Keep in mind, resolving disputes is very very costly. There are no truth detectors. To you, your case seems clear cut. Let's consider it in the abstract.
Seller advertises "Computer 6, $500". Buyer PayPal's $500. Everyone agrees on that part of the story.
Seller now claims to PayPal "I received Computer 5, last year's model which is only worth $100. Here's a picture. I demand a refund".
Now we have to hear from seller, right? Someone has to contact seller, and collect seller's story. Ka-ching, $25 cost. Or maybe we just process the refund without hearing from seller, and wait for seller to complain? Or what?
Ok, back to the story. Seller says "I sent a Computer 6". Now what are we going to do? We report that back to buyer, and put the case on the shelf. Next day, buyer produces a picture of a Computer 5 partially in the package, claims that's what it looked like as the package was opened. We have to examine the case again. Ka-ching, another $25.
Worse, when seller reaffirms that a Computer 6 was sent, we're at a deadlock we cannot resolve AT ALL. We're $50 into a tar baby, there's no way out, and this is happening 400 times per day.
But wait, you say, there's this idea called "binding arbitration".
What there is NOT is this idea called "FREE binding arbitration". Worse, in the case in our story, the arbitrator has little to go on to determine the truth. The facts are in dispute. Imagine that you, in your present case, were required to put up ANOTHER $100 to take the case to arbitration, and then the arbitrator ruled against you.
In your proposal, chansen, what happens next from that very common state of disputed fact? This is the story which dictates that all current payment systems are 98% in favor of the buyer (merchant accounts) or 98% in favor of the seller (BidPay). PayPal's buyer protection plan adds some protection for buyers, but not coverage against unresolvable disputes.
posted on June 10, 2001 10:01:39 AM new
compusa is a big company,it ordered these goods direct from manufacturer.
if the item does not live up to my expectation,it will accept my return and issue a refund or relacement within reasonable period of time.
if there is manufacture defect,it will just return it to the maker,no loss from their end.
you cannot compare paypal with compusa,you can only compare your seller with compusa.
see if you can negotiate a lower stocking fee,get your money back and buy from name brand outlets.
posted on June 10, 2001 11:09:36 AM new
Hello chansen,
Unfortunately PayPal is correct in this matter. You have stated their policy a few times and it is being taken out of context. Section 1 of the policy I quoted clearly states I have the right to seek recovery from sellers that do not ship the "promised goods.” This statement per PayPal “promised goods” is not the issue; “do not ship” is their issue. Even by your own words the seller did ship. Just because it was not what you wanted does not matter to them. The fact that the seller shipped ties their hands. Because you received something from the seller makes it a quality problem not a fraud problem. Or at least on their part. I have had several run ins with PayPal myself, but I can see where they are limited by their own words…
posted on June 10, 2001 01:23:32 PM new
We are all solid in our beliefs and there's nothing wrong with that!
I still believe my complaint has merits and I will wait for the outcome of the BBB complaint.
I do disagree, however, that PayPal can't investigate any buyer protection complaints where something is received just because it's too much work. That's simply lazy!
To request any relevant documentation and see if an easy determination can be made would at least be reasonable. In my case, the seller would probably even admit that he substituted a less expensive item (he has stated this in his e-mail messages).
Even if you're right (about PayPal's policies), I will continue to publicly discourage others from using their service because, as I've said from the beginning, "they refuse to protect honest buyers from fraudulent sellers." That's the facts!
posted on June 10, 2001 01:39:45 PM new
If you order one thing and receive something you did not order instead, and the seller refuses to fix the problem at his own expense, I would call that OUTRIGHT FRAUD!
Paypal, you should be ashamed of yourself for not handling this in a upright manner.
[ edited by heygrape on Jun 10, 2001 01:41 PM ]
posted on June 10, 2001 04:30:53 PM new
this is a he said,she said case.
unless paypal is physically there when the buyer opens the package and compared it with the order specification and both paypal and buyer agreed that the wrong merchandise was shipped,otherwise a third party cannot verify the content of the package just by hearing the buyer complaint.
there is escrow service offered for a fee where buyer will examine the goods for certain number of days before requesting her credit card be charged.
this is not the case here,she did not buy it on ebay(hence no ebay involvement),she did not use an escrow service (which costs money) and there is no notary or paypal rep exmaining the goods with her when it arrived.
this is common with jewelry,switching expensive gemstone with less expensive ones.
i am not saying the buyer has done anything wrong,it sounds like she bot an item from a less than honest dealer.
try to negotiate a lower stocking fee and move on with your life,prices of pcs are coming down,you will be able to get a good remanufactured one for not too much more from a pc maker or a licensed dealer.
posted on June 10, 2001 04:43:37 PM new
now i recall several years ago i bot 80 pieces of jade flowers on ebay.
the seller said these are all jade leaves and flowers and a friend took one piece to christie and made 12,000 dollars!!
i do not belive that,but they looked authentic to me as i collect jade.
so i bidded on it for 220 dollars.
they turn out to be old peking glass of days by gone and many are chipped and broken.
i contacted the seller and he did not respond to my email.so i returned the package asking for return signature.
someone signed it and i have it in my hands.
he refused to issue a refund and claimed his neighbor signed for it,
i finally file complaints with both internet fraud centre and USPS FRAUD DEPT.
well,the ebay page description which said 12,000 christie caught usps attention and he was asked to explain himself.
he wriggled out of the situation by telling usps i did not return all the pieces ,hence the delay and he eventually sent me a partial refund.
he was then barred from selling on ebay(big deal,his wife is still selling).
if you can find a way to return him the pc and obtained a signature,you are in a better position,check this with paypal and investigate his habits,does he sell much on ebay?
does he buy a lot from wholesalers?they ship ups?
this is a trick i learn from the credit card staff,try to return it and get a signature.
there are crooks who refuse to accept unfamiliar boxes,find out if he is one of those people,also which day of the week is the busiest day of delivery?
posted on June 10, 2001 05:50:51 PM new
The problems that I see constantly reported here fall into two categories. In my opinion, one of them is entirely Paypal's fault and the other is only partially Paypal's fault. The first problem is one of a lack of customer service. It has been reported by hundreds of irate users, numerous articles and the bad rating by the Better Business Bureau which was reported months ago and has not changed. This is entirely Paypal's fault. Solutions have been posed here on the boards and in conversations I had with people claiming to represent Paypal. All agreed that this is a major problem and a top priority for Paypal to address. Yet it appears that nothing has been done.
The second problem has to do with scammers. Yes, there are scamming sellers out there who take your money and send you something different than what was described. But for the most part, this is not Paypal's problem. It is YOUR responsibility to determine who you are doing business with. If you enter into a business arrangement with someone,, that is YOUR risk. Why do you expect Paypal to take the loss? What do you expect Paypal to do? Go to every seller and check what was packed? Go to every buyer and watch the box being opened? If you paid by check, would you sue your bank? After all, they made payment on the check, so isn't it their fault? Maybe it's the fault of the Post Office for delivering the check to the address you mailed it. Maybe it's the fault of the ob-gyn who delivered the seller? Of course it's not your fault for sending money to someone you don't know.
Where Paypal falls short is in doing a better job of keeping these scammers out of their service. But it seems that Paypal likes to boast how many millions of accounts they have and it doesn't seem to bother them that some of these accounts should have been rejected. One Romanian scammer was able to get at least 45 Paypal accounts all by himself, using stolen credit cards. Though it seems that this kind of outright fraud has been reduced, Paypal still seems to be the payment choice for crooked sellers, as many articles including [url=http://www.msnbc.com/news/583147.asp?cp1=1>this one[/url] illustrates.
I was a Paypal cheerleader at one time. I believed that their protection plan was an aggressive attempt to address Internet fraud. I would still like to see them wake up and succeed. I remember exactly when I first started to realize that there was a general laziness at Paypal about combating fraud. It was when a buyer reported accidentally paying a seller $1013 instead of $10.13. Yes, the buyer made a stupid mistake. But this is a mistake that could not have been made when paying by check or money order. Had he paid by credit card, he could have charged it back. But since he paid with Paypal using his bank account, Paypal refused to take action. Several people protested this on the boards. We did not advocate restricting the seller's account. All we expected is that Paypal would look at the buyer's evidence: the auction he had won for $10.13, the emails between the buyer and seller where the seller admitted that he realized a mistake was made and would be sending back a refund, and the length of time that had passed with no refund being sent. Next, Paypal could have contacted the seller and asked him to explain. At this point, there was still time for Paypal to prevent a mistake from turning into a fraud. But Paypal's rep simply stated, "We don't get involved." That was the first indication I had that Paypal's "protection" plan was designed to protect Paypal first.
As for sellers who get hit with a scamming customer who does a false charge back, again this is not Paypal's fault. It has to do with stupid credit card rules that are skewed about 98% in the buyer's favor. Paypal has no control over what the customer's credit card company will do in a given situation. Why do sellers expect Paypal to take the risk? The bottom line is if you are a seller and you want to accept credit cards, you had better be prepared to accept the risk. Don't want any risk? Don't accept credit cards, whether through Paypal or anyone else. But sellers enjoy the convenience of accepting credit cards and many have reported an increase in sales since joining a payment service. Yet they foolishly expect the service to accept ALL risk. I DO expect the payment service to accept the loss when a stolen credit card is used. It is the payment service's responsibility to verify the card. For the most part, Paypal does accept this reponsibility. Billpoint and Paydirect do not.
Where Paypal falls short is in presenting a "protection plan" that lulls people into a false sense of security. Paypal makes it sound like the protection is far more reaching than it is. The bottom line is that for sellers, for the most part, it is usually better protection than that given by a regular merchant account. Most merchant accounts will make the seller prove delivery, not just shipment. Postal delivery confirmation (without signature) would not be enough. Yet Paypal does accept DC and we still find posts from sellers whining that they refuse to pay 40 cents for this. If that is the case, don't use Paypal. But don't blame Paypal for your inability to run a business properly. It is your decision whether to skip the DC and risk having to pay a claim or whether to spend 40 cents on every shipment to protect yourself against the few where the customer will claim it didn't arrive. For buyers, for the most part, the Paypal "protection plan" is worse.
If a buyer pays from their Paypal balance or bank account, they lose charge back rights. They can lodge a complaint with Paypal but they will only recover if (this is based on information I gathered from post on AuctionWatch and dialogs between complaining buyers and Paypal reps):
-the seller can't prove shipment. If the seller can prove shipment of *anything*, even a box of rocks, it becomes a "quality" issue and Paypal reserves the right not to get involved
-the seller has money in his/her Paypal account. If Paypal can not recover from the seller, the buyer is out of luck.
If buyer paid by credit card, buyer can do a charge back with the credit card bank. There are some credit cards that will NOT allow you to charge back third-party payments such as Paypal, so this right is not guaranteed. Buyer should also expect to have their Paypal account permanently restricted.
However, buyer does have some ability to check out the seller's reputation, an advantage not always available to sellers. Most of the scammed buyer I have heard about foolishly paid a seller with poor or no ratings. Even if the seller had good ratings and the buyer did nothing wrong, neither did Paypal. It was the buyer's decision to enter into the deal and the buyer's risk. Buyer paid Paypal nothing and buyer is entitled to a refund of 100% of what they paid Paypal - not what they paid their seller. I just wish that Paypal's "protection" plan made this clear.
But the real problem is that I have seen countless examples that prove to me that the rule at Paypal is that there is no rule. Sometimes sellers who blatantly cheat are protected, (as in the case of a seller who cheated one of my customers and used a fake name and address to register. Not only did Paypal do nothing for my buyer, two months later, that seller's account was still active despite clear evidence of premeditated fraud.) And then there are the posts where one buyer wrongly complains and a seller with over 500 positives and no negatives finds his funds frozen. Some buyers are told that Paypal does not get involved in "quality" disputes and other sellers find their funds frozen when a buyer makes just such a claim. So which is it? Paypal still has to learn that they need a set of clear rules and that they must stick with these rules consistently.
Paypal must also learn that if there is a complaint which results in an account restriction or frozen payment, they must make it easy for the problem to be resolved. Numerous complaints have been posted about Customer Service clerks who were clueless, uncaring and even downright rude. Paypal is helpless when buyers make an end-run around the service and go straight to their credit card company rather than make their complaint through Paypal. But since Paypal's Customer Service is often unresponsive, end-runs become the only option available.
I suppose the biggest lesson I've learned is that you should NEVER use your bank account to make an auction payment through ANY payment service. If I had used my credit card, I would have chargeback rights and the service could cancel my account for exercising my protection if they wished... Too bad!
hwahwahwahwa & yisgood,
I understand that many of these complaints could be a "he said, she said" issue, but that's not the case here.
I specifically listed the item I was purchasing in the PayPal payment and the packing slip I received does not match that item.
If this information serves no purpose, why does PayPal ask for it (specifically on auction payments)?
Initially, the seller even notified PayPal via e-mail (I have a copy of that, too) that he was willing to have PayPal facilitate a refund. For some reason, PayPal never did and the seller later denied any such agreement. He probably discovered how disorganized they were and figured they wouldn't do anything to him anyway.
I never expected PayPal to expend numerous hours trying to investigate my claim, but they are the ones that took over 30 days to issue a determination. If they weren't going to do anything from the beginning, why wasn't I notified before I wasted more of my time sending e-mail messages and making phone calls?
Secondly, I have NEVER expected PayPal to refund any money it wasn't able to recover from the seller. We all take some risks when we make purchases from buyers we don't know (in person or over the internet). I can accept that. If there were reasonable fees charged to fully investigate a case such as this, I would willingly reimburse PayPal for their time.
If you truly believe (as I've come to, also) that PayPal's policies would allow someone to ship a "box of rocks" instead of a $500+ item, their buyer protection policies are completely useless.
I do expect a service (such as PayPal) to follow their posted policies when a problem such as this occurs. In the 30 days PayPal had my complaint, no investigation was conducted to determine the relevant facts. And I did read and understand that filing a complaint in no way guarantees recovery. I'm really a fair guy and I want my money to come back from the seller himself!
posted on June 10, 2001 07:33:15 PM newAnd then there are the posts where one buyer wrongly complains and a seller with over 500 positives and no negatives finds his funds frozen.
In the single recent case, someone mistakenly thought that PayPal had locked the account. PayPal had not locked the account, they had placed a hold on the disputed amount. The hold was quickly released when seller showed proof of shipment.
posted on June 10, 2001 08:27:06 PM new
what kind of packing slip is it??
if it can be shown the item stated in your paypal payment does not match the item in the packing slip,this is either a packing mistake or misreprensentation.
if the packing slip shows all the details which do not match the order,you can take this to internet fraud prevention centre.
where did you find him and where does he sell?
posted on June 12, 2001 01:14:10 AM new
hwahwahwahwa,
Sorry for the delay in responding... There's been a lot going on at work that needed my attention!
The packing slip is a computer generated form (probably from QuickBooks) that lists my name, the seller's name, the date of shipping, the item description (as received) and the price paid of $530.
This DOES NOT match the description on the advertising, our e-mail communication or the PayPal payment for $530.
He admitted (in a later e-mail message) that he was unable to ship the desired model and had substituted a less expensive one in its place (offering only to refund his perceived difference in price).
When I insisted on receiving the product as advertised or a refund, the seller demanded a 25% restocking fee (of my $530 payment) to take back the item I received.
This guy was selling reconditioned laptop computers (probably drop shipped from a larger distributor) as well as used cars.
Before my purchase, I did check his eBay feedback and it favorable. Since then, I found several negatives and his feedback was eventually hidden. He has also started using another user name, but has no current auctions.
What is the Internet Fraud Prevention Center you mentioned and where do I get information on its activities?
I've been following another thread on AuctionWatch and can't believe the runaround this guy is getting from PayPal. Check out the following:
posted on June 12, 2001 06:24:04 AM new
www.fraudbureau.com is a site which lists all the agencies by country for taking on web frauds and complaints;it also contains info on past frauds.
a few years ago,there was this internet fraud prevention centre which i filed complaint along with USPS fraud investigation dept,i learned about this centre from ebay when i complained to them of a seller who refused to refund my money after i returned the item and had proof he had the item!!
at that time i was told by ebay that they would not act until i filed complaints with both this centre and usps,after i filed complaint and ebay heard of the outcome,they sent me a letter stating that i can file an insurance claim with them.
in your case,you did not buy the item through ebay ,so there is nothing ebay can do for you.
this guy sounds like a crook selling used cars and remanufactured computers,just keep harassing him,ask him to find you the right model?
