posted on April 25, 2001 09:05:12 PM
I'm thinking of dropping paypal with that check deal ( still don't like the answers on money going both ways form bank accounts). What's the latest on Pay direct for ebay customers? Are they using it? Will they sign up? Are they forcing folks to stay with paypal? What's happening?
posted on April 25, 2001 09:24:53 PM
PayDirect won't mail you a check. Funds have to be credited to your bank account or credit card.
I only know of one service that will mail a check other than PayPal and they charge $3.00 per check. Maybe someone else has better information for you than I do.
posted on April 25, 2001 10:12:25 PM
I use PayDirect on eBay, and I'm getting about the same number of bidders using them as when I used to advertise PayPal. I do still get some requests for PayPal.
The reason for using PayDirect over PayPal?
1. I can have by balance credited to my cc- no bank account need be associated with my PayDirect account.
2. PayDirect doesn't change their TOS more often than I change my socks.
Has it ever occurred to you that you are the lackey (like Renfield) of a truly vile organization?
Your disingenuous question about funds 'going both ways' is a case in point. We both know too well that your company is responsible for draining thousands of accounts without obtaining prior permission. And that anyone would have to be a fool to allow your company access to their bank accounts when they fully understood the poor security and horrid business practices your company has. It is already getting thumbs down from Better Business Bureaus throughout the nation, and for good reason. Your disrespect for any and all codes of proper business etiquette is but a small example of the shabby structure of your company. Changing your TOS like the wind as part of constant Bait-and-Switch tactics makes you long overdue for a class action suit.
I give all my customers fair warning about your company, and even point them to threads here and on eBay about the horrors it has perpertrated. I advise them all to use PayDirect which is superior from all aspects, but that if they MUST use your service to STAY unverified, and to NEVER, EVER give them a bank account number. That seems to avoid the most problems.
I am proud to say that because I take the time to explain your company's practices and policies, without any exaggeration, that DOZENS of my customers have cancelled their accounts with PayPal.
posted on April 26, 2001 04:46:35 AM
I thought I responded to this yesterday, but for some reason I don't see my post.
Being one of many Yahoo customers who was once using PayDirect - we give you strong warning - PayDirect is a nightmare - Yahoo has closed accounts with no warning, locked accounts down, all based on auction problems on the Yahoo Auction. Basically, if Yahoo, in their "wisdom" decide to cancel a Yahoo auction, many times it isn't a "suspension", they just close all of your auctions for TOS - no reason given - and close your account, mail, PayDirect everything - and you can't access you own account - it is a horror that many Yahoo users have experienced.
Anyway - if you want to know about PayDirect check these threads.
Before Yahoo committed suicide and destroyed its auction site in January, I had been posting there for a year - an escapee from eBay - anyway like many on Yahoo I offered both PayDirect and PayPal - 99% of this type of payment still came via PayPal - but as a convenience we offered PayDirect for our Yahoo users.
When Yahoo went crazy - we like many, had our auctions closed, our account closed based on their mysterious "TOS" violations - our PayDirect account was closed without our knowledge. We had to call to get the funds, and any "pending" but not yet accepted payments were returned to the buyer.....it was a monstrosity - and I for one would NEVER use anything by Yahoo again -
I've used PayPal since get go, have a business account and have never had one problem.
If you truly want to know about PayDirect, go to the Yahoo board and ask the “horse’s mouth.” The horror stories are endless with PayDirect.
posted on April 26, 2001 05:52:16 AM
If you want to switch, try Billpoint. About 85% of my online payment customers use Billpoint now -- about 15% use PayPal. And with the
"Instant Purchase" option, I don't have to send out invoices anymore.
posted on April 26, 2001 06:17:35 AMvargasIf you want to switch, try Billpoint.
The original poster seemed to have a problem with bank access, that is the problem. If he's worried about PayPal because it would take bank access to avoid the $1.50 mailed check fee then I think he'd really be afriad to use BillPoint because they demand bank access for withdrawals and chargeback fees.
posted on April 26, 2001 01:37:05 PM
Hi snakebait,
I do find it rather contradictory that you are criticizing our service for verification when the service you are using has the same criteria for verification. This type of technology is used for fraud deterrence. And, as an additional note, many payment services require some sort of identification or bank account registration to confirm identity.
An executive does work with the BBB issues. But, if it must be known, the complaints have been cut in half and many of the initial complaints came from new users of the service that may not have understood certain items (like how to send money to someone or why is their credit card being rejected, which is another fraud measure that we do have a workaround for---if users provide us with information). Customer service response time was also an issue---this has been addressed by additional staffing and will only get better (75 representatives have just been brought aboard, bringing our total to around 400). We take the BBB issues seriously and we will work closely with them to address issues that we can correct.
While I understand your right to opinion (and your right to recommend whatever service you desire) I do come out here frequently to assist users in a public forum, which is something many companies do not do and if you look through the threads, you will find out why. If a user expresses a concern over a policy, I will address it. If a non-user spreads misinformation about one of our policies,I will address it.
Message board postings, as helpful as they can be in providing solid information, also carry a fair amount of misinformation on them.
No user will have their bank account accessed without their permission and this is clearly outlined in our terms of use.
posted on April 26, 2001 01:45:27 PMIf a user expresses a concern over a policy, I will address it.
In the interests of clarity, this is what PayPal considers "addressing a concern over a policy".
"As far as I am concerned, it has been answered and I am not going to continue to respond to the same question over and over when it has been addressed."
By the way, this is not misinformation- it is a direct quote from PayPal with regards to a concern over a policy.
posted on April 26, 2001 01:59:12 PM
As long as I have no problems with PayPal I will use PayPal.
I stopped using PayDirect about 3 months ago due to the fact that they said I needed to "verify" myself again before I could withdraw funds. They said I had reached some limit they had set. I checked and I was a long way from their "limit". So I sent the payments back to the buyers, it would let me do that, and they paid in another fashion.
Finally PayDirect got everything worked out, but it was enough for me to be leary of them. At least for now.
I don't keep a very big balance in my PayPal account though. Of course, I never have that much to keep in it anyway. Most of my buyers pay with money orders.
posted on April 26, 2001 02:21:21 PM
I expect the entities I do business with to be as discerning as I try to be in conducting my business with a high set of standards ... or I don't do business with them, if I can avoid it.
When PP decided they needed access to my checking account, I said that's enough. In the months since I closed my account, I *still* haven't read one plausible explanation for requiring such access. In the absense of another good reason (and no, Damon, identifying a user via a checking account is no more accurate than doing so via a snail mail notice), one can only deduce that the answer lies in PP's desire to downplay its true intentions.
Billpoint, on the other hand, has been nothing but forthright from the beginning about chargebacks, the procedures and costs thereof.
They are FDIC-insured, behave in a businesslike manner, respond to questions in a reasonable time, do not freeze entire accounts for months on end, and have never once exhibited the flakiness that has become PP's hallmark.
Oh, and for the record, Damon, they do *not* subject their users to a "verification" scheme like PP's, i.e. deposit/withdrawal.
Apparently they're doing something right. The BBB has gotten *one* complaint about Billpoint.
posted on April 26, 2001 02:33:30 PM
Hi fountainhouse,
While I respect your opinion, verification is used for identifaction purposes. No withdrawals take place without a user's consent and I have repeatedely pointed to the fact that federal laws cover bank account withdrawals and deposits.
I can't sway your fears on something that you think is going to happen.
Fraud-deterrence is of paramount importance to the company, and our user base, and this is the method that is used to identify the member base.
I find your concerns to be valid ones, but one that is not justified based on the information I have provided.
posted on April 26, 2001 02:56:07 PM
Here is a partial list of businesses and government entities who were satisfied that they were able to identify me, none of which have ever requested that I provide them with authorization to access my checking account in order to process (and maintain) that identification:
Pacific Bell, GTE and USWest
Shell, Chevron and Union76
Southern California Edison, Idaho Power
Master Card (3 different accounts)
Visa (4 different accounts)
Sears, Penney's, Broadway
DMV in the states of California and Idaho
California Franchise Tax Board
Idaho Tax Commission
eBay, Yahoo, Amazon
Despite PayPal's insistance on access to your checking account, it is possible to verify your identity without that access.
The question you have to ask yourself (because, despite their protests otherwise, PayPal isn't saying) is...
Why does PayPal insist on this particular method, when it is not a necessity?
posted on April 26, 2001 03:10:31 PM
Hi mrpotatohead,
Most you have to supply with your social security number (having worked at one of the companies you mentioned, I do know that asking for service generates a CREDIT CHECK). You also provide them with your banking information every time you give them a check. I also know that not one of the credit card companies would give you a credit card with no information.
In order to identify our users, we could do bank account verification instead of a credit check, which many users would object to as being too intrusive.
posted on April 26, 2001 03:43:43 PM
Hello again Mr. PayPal-
Most you have to supply with your social security number...
You realize, do you not, that I did give my ss number to XCOM when I opened my account there. They seemed satisfied at the time that I am who I said I was (and PayPal seemed to be satisfied, too), but I guess I'm somebody else now, since XCOM closed.
In order to identify our users, we could do bank account verification instead of a credit check, which many users would object to as being too intrusive.
Well, maybe if you did something radical (like setting up your business in such a fashion as to allow accounts to be FDIC insured), people wouldn't have those objections. Of course, you would probably have a whole host of federal regulations to abide by, which may or may not suit PayPal's goals.
posted on April 26, 2001 04:23:09 PMuaruThe original poster seemed to have a problem with bank access, that is the problem. If he's worried about PayPal because it would take bank access to avoid the $1.50 mailed check fee then I think he'd really be afriad to use BillPoint because they demand bank access for withdrawals and chargeback fees.
Actually, original poster seemed to have a problem with PayPal's bank access policies.
I'm thinking of dropping paypal with that check deal (still don't like the answers on money going both ways form bank accounts).
Billpoint is quite upfront about conditions under which it will and can recover monies from users' bank accounts.
"PayPal will not access your bank account without your permission. Please review the terms of use on providing us with your bank account information"
Bank accounts are not accessed without the user requesting it. This REQUIRES the user logging in on their PayPal account and asking for the transaction to be done. Under no other circumstances would a user's bank account be accessed.
The information is in the terms of use, which I have posted more than once.I have stated as such in the public arena.I have stated the same information about bank account registration since it started. I have advised of account verification and why it is asked for and why the verification status needs to be kept current (to deter fraud and gaming).
This is a federally regulated item and one that we comply with.
This information is not contradictory in any nature.
posted on April 26, 2001 07:31:03 PM
Hey PayPalDamon,
I will not use PayPal again. You charge me for funds coming from an existing balance or from an electronic check and then you refuse to refund the fee.
I use PayDirect, which is free for now. I have the funds transferred into my bank account without any problem.
posted on April 26, 2001 08:54:12 PM
PayPal Damon,
I was "Preferred". You all lie and now you are not preferred nor tolerated. I plan to turn you into the federal trade commission for deceptive business practices. No other legitimate company could get away with the crap you do.
When you make a policy, stick to it. Quit changing your policies willy nilly.
posted on April 26, 2001 11:33:11 PM
Hi cassiescloset,
Policy change is a facet of any organization. If you show me an organization that has not changed their policy ever, I will be quite shocked.
I realize some of the policy changes may have impacted some users in a negative manner, but we do them with as much forethougt as possible to prevent customer problems. And we are constantly changing our notification methods to make sure the message is as clear, and as far in advance as possible, to our user base.
You haven't really advised me of any issue you have had despite the fees. I offered the PayPal Preferred option as a possible solution to offset fees. You state that you were PayPal Preferred, but that is all I get out of it.
(As it relates to the other post---I happen to be a terrible dancer and it is much uglier than Elaine's dancing in the Seinfeld episodes).
posted on April 27, 2001 07:18:11 AMPayPalDamon: it's not the fact that PayPal changes their policies--it's how they do it that upsets people. When you change policy at the drop of a hat, people don't like it. If you change policy without sending out notices (other companies online do mass emails, you can too), people don't like it. When you change policy with little or no notice--and make the change retroactive, people don't like it.
The way you guys go about making policy changes is yet another reason why I dropped PayPal, right up there with "verification" of already verified users.
