posted on April 27, 2001 12:36:17 PM
Hi mrpotatohead,
The number of complaints, according to what I have heard recently, has dropped in half. Many of the complaints had to do with customer service response time, which has been addressed with the addition of sevety-five new representatives (around 400 answering calls and emails). We also have an executive working with the BBB to bring this rating up and to address areas we can fix. However, there is also a healthy percentage of these complaints from first-time users that may have made a mistake (sent payment to the wrong party,etc). We are working on increasing messaging, wherever and whenever we can, to reduce the possibility that an end user will make an error.
I have also covered account restrictions fairly in-depth because they are extremely rare items.
To put it in perspective:
7 million + users.
20,000 new accounts daily.
To expect no problems to occur is almost out of the question (You would also note that most users do not come back to advise as to why their account was restricted in the first place.) Account restrictions, when they do happen, are done to deter fraud and they are cleared up quickly with the proper documentation, which requires cooperation on the part of the user to get it resolved.
posted on April 27, 2001 12:40:08 PM
Hi mrpotatohead,
I posted the information, from all areas of the web site, showing that verifying your bank account IS NOT blanket authorization.
I showed the quotes from :
1.From the terms of use.
2.Verification page.
3. Q and A.
I have shown it to you. I have stated it publicly and this has not changed your mind. Verifying your bank account does not give us unilateral access to your bank account and all bank account access requires user permission. This will be my last comment on the matter with you, because the information I have provided has not been contradictory to what is stated by me or the web site.
I posted the information several times yesterday and I repeat:
PayPal will not access your bank account without your permission. ALL customer transactions require the end user logging in and requesting it.
Please show me where you are getting this from. I need it from the web site. I posted the information from the TOU, the Qand A, and from the sign-up page, while also mentioning the fact that this is a federally regulated item.
I posted the information, from all areas of the web site, showing that verifying your bank account IS NOT blanket authorization.
That's all very interesting, but you must have me confused with someone else, as that is not my question. I have tried to get you to explain why I am more of a fraud risk now, due to XCOM's closure, than I was while they were in business.
posted on April 27, 2001 01:45:11 PM
There is old news, people who don't want to follow the rules, and thieves. Sure, things went wrong a year ago. Sure, you have to follow the rules or Paypal will be very frustrating. And no, a thief cannot expect to hide behind some protection.
For millions of regular people, Paypal works fine.
It sure seems that none of the complaints are from regular people.
posted on April 27, 2001 02:19:46 PM
"Unless you are a thief, you have nothing to fear"
Apparently whoever wrote this did not fully read my last post.
Its ONLY if you are a thief that you have nothing to fear with PayPal having access to your bank account. If you are a thief you would quickly withdraw your money as soon as the fraudulent transactions have paid off.
If you are not a thief, you have everything to fear. Scammers can trick you into signing into false pages, and with your password they can clean out your account of everything. And PayPal can do it too, whenever it feels like changing its TOS.
But everybody missed my point. A BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT AN IDENTIFICATION METHOD. And there is no place on earth other than PayPal that makes this a requirement for identification verification. Simply because it is not. If you are a thief, a fake bank account is a trivial thing to set up. If you are not a thief, it simply puts you at greater risk and 'verifies' nothing. Funny thing how the big companys are happy with just your credit card number (also easily faked for thieves) but those companies would never allow the kind of behaviour that PayPal has exhibited.
All this nonsense and double-talk is due to the simple fact that PayPal does not want to send checks, and wants access to your checking accounts. It is after all owned at least in part by a German bank. Perhaps there the rules allow users to be more easily screwed out of their money if the company goes belly up, as is likely if they continue with their horrid business practices and worse customer support.
I will continue to remain proudly UNVERIFIED and advise my customers to do likewise (or downgrade) for reasons of security.
I myself have had no problems with PayPal, since it does not have my bank account, nor will I use its expensive services. I do not being lied to. ALWAYS FREE means just that.
But DOZENS of my PayPal customers have readily related horror stories in their dealings with this questionable company.
And to repeat myself: Bank accounts are NOT a valid means of identification and do not prevent GAMING of anything!
posted on April 27, 2001 02:40:31 PM
Hi mrpotatohead,
I did explain it. In order to be verified, the verification must be linked to an active bank account. This is to keep identity current (to prevent gaming of the system).
X.com is no longer a valid institution, therefore the verification is not valid.
You can speculate all you want about the why, but I have stated the same thing (probably close to 50 times in this thread alone)---bank accounts will not be accessed without user permission and I have give you the reasons behind the policy. You can accept it or you don't have to accept it, but I am telling the truth.
posted on April 27, 2001 02:54:44 PM
Someone who doesn't want to follow the rules goes on and on about what might happen. It just doesn't happen that way. If you follow the rules like regular people do, things go smooth.
Thieves are mentioned not because I see any around here, but because some people steal money from Paypal and think Paypal can't come get it back. They are mistaken, but regular people have nothing to fear. Paypal doesn't just grab money out of your account, ever.
posted on April 27, 2001 03:06:01 PMI did explain it. In order to be verified, the verification must be linked to an active bank account. This is to keep identity current (to prevent gaming of the system). X.com is no longer a valid institution, therefore the verification is not valid.
Damon, surely you realize how ridiculous statements like this make PayPal look!
Identity is a constant. Barring a name-change it is ALWAYS current. Likewise, VERIFICATION of a person's identity is a constant. Once you verify that I am who I say I am, you know my identity. My identity doesn't change just because X.COM died a premature death. I'm still the same person no matter what happened to X.COM. mrpotatohead has asked the same question repeatedly in this thread. You have provided the same nonsense answer each time the question was asked. Why not come clean and get this monkey off your back for good?
PayPal doesn't do the bank account verification to establish identity. Not even close. I know it. You know it. You know that I know it. Yet you make statements like the one above over and over again, hoping at some point that they are accepted as valid. Well, they will NEVER be accepted as valid because they aren't valid.
PayPal has the right to run their business as they see fit. But please stop the lame attempts to pass fiction off as fact. We see right through it. You know that we see through it. Why do you continue wearing a veil that is so thin that we can see right through it? It reminds me of the old childhood story "The Emporer's New Clothes". The King was naked and everyone knew he was naked but he was also King. PayPal IS NOT King. Your ridiculous attempts at double-speak are at best amusing, but really sort of scary when one considers that you are making them on behalf of a financial institution handling the money of over 7 million users.
[ edited by dubyasdaman on Apr 27, 2001 03:07 PM ]
posted on April 27, 2001 03:09:28 PMFor millions of regular people, Paypal works fine.
Someone's got a severe case of denial. And I suppose, roofguy, all those poor folks who lost everything to the bank failures in the Depression were thieves? I seem to recall that's about when the FDIC was created, to cover trivial stuff like that and all.
Actually, your blind faith is rather quaint. I just hope for your sake it isn't misplaced. There are plenty of posters here (regular, trusted users, not one-post specials) who once sounded like you (well, maybe not so naive), but have since encountered the darker side of PP.
As I tell every customer who wants to use PP: It's probably fine for an occasional purchase, but sellers accepting large volumes of payments and/or allowing balances to accumulate in either their PP account *or* their verified checking account are in immediate need of a contingency plan that provides for the distinct possibility that they, at some future date, will have no access to their money for several weeks or months.
posted on April 27, 2001 03:24:48 PM
Hi,
I have purposely stayed out of this thread.
I have all my funds transfered to my checking account and I LOVE IT! I have NEVER requested a check.
However I have this to say....I signed up a month ago for eBay's BillPoint and the results are 3 out of 4 online payment transactions, people choose BillPoint. My PayPal payments have dropped off drastically.
Why do you suppose that is?
One thing I don't like about BillPoint is the auto sweep transfer. I like to build my dollars up and then transfer to my account. It is much easier for me to keep track of that way.
These are just my thoughts.....you'all can carry on with what you have been discussing.
I really haven't a clue, because I have'nt read the entire thread, and I'm not going to.
posted on April 27, 2001 03:25:56 PM
One more thing, roofguy. You're pretty content in classifying all the users who've had problems with Paypal as thieves.
Please remember that *most* users who've encountered problems are the victims of the thieves. Innocent bystanders who happened to have a thief win their auction.
You don't say if you're a seller, but that's something that might behoove you to keep in mind.
posted on April 27, 2001 03:27:00 PMI did explain it.
No, you did not. Either you need to re-read the posts or get someone else who is willing to look at this situation objectively to help you out.
I get it that you require a bank account in order to verify a user. What I have asked numerous times (and so have other posters, so it's not just me) is how I can be considered as being identified one day and not identified the next, when PayPal chose to close XCOM.
I get it that you think that people would somehow "game" your system if they were given the option of verifying an account, closing the account, and remaining verified, but the situation above is not the same.
Let's consider users who were verified using their XCOM accounts. Overnight, a whole group of people were downgraded from verified to unverified. Assuming that none of those users knew ahead of time that XCOM would close (ESP notwithstanding), this leads to the following conclusion:
You believe that some (many?) of those users, who were responsible with their accounts while XCOM was in business, would decide to become criminals once XCOM closed. Otherwise, you would never have removed their verified status. If that is indeed the case, why don't you just say so? Your actions already have.
So now, I'm to register another bank account with PayPal in order to become verified again? At least, I'd have practice at opening bank accounts for the time when PayPal decides that online accounts (and then, brick and mortar accounts at banks with the letter "R" in their name, and after that, banks with ugly logos) are no longer acceptable, and I need to repeat the process.
How would you feel if your bank sent you a letter saying that you could no longer use your check guarantee card because they were deciding to merge with another company?
PayPal seems to have no trouble whatsoever potentially damaging my reputation with the people who buy from me by changing my status because of their business decisions- just the kind of company I'd be happy to trust with my money.
posted on April 27, 2001 03:33:04 PM
Hi mrpotatohead,
I do believe I stated that the verification has to be tied to an active bank account at an active financial institution more than once.
This is to prevent gaming of the verification status, where a party becomes verified and then removes their bank account, but still retains their verification status as being current identification. This could cause major issues for buyers wanting to be protected under the Buyer Protection Program.
That is that same answer I have given. Regardless, your bank account will not be touched in any manner without your consent.
You have spent more time arguing with me about a change that has been explained (X.com is no longer a financial institution that is active) to the best degree possible.
Bottom-line answer-if you want to be verified, it needs to be to active bank account. If this is removed, your status will be removed.
posted on April 27, 2001 03:37:56 PMI did explain it. In order to be verified, the verification must be linked to an active bank account. This is to keep identity current (to prevent gaming of the system).X.com is no longer a valid institution, therefore the verification is not valid.
One more time -- with feeling: how is this better identification than a social security number?
Anyone who has signed up for the money market account has given PayPal their SSN. Why isn't that --along with my street address verification-- enough?
It's because PayPal wants us to fund our PayPal accounts with a checking account instead of a credit card. An ACH transfer doesn't cost PayPal squat, but it can charge recipients the same 2.2% that is charged for a credit card transaction.
Just be honest about it!
I can have 10 checking accounts opened within an hour... each and every one obtained without ANY tangible proof of identity... just a name, address and social security number. No one has to see my face or my drivers licence. It's how I opened the checking accounts linked to both of my PayPal accounts.
Just how do these accounts prove who I am?
Simple:they don't.
How do these accounts keep me from "gaming" the system -- or ripping off unsuspecting PayPal users.
Simple:they don't.
If PayPal wants to survive and thrive in the long run, it had better start being honest with its users and start practicing some real fraud prevention, instead of pointing to this useless "buyer protection policy."
posted on April 27, 2001 03:42:56 PM
Hi fountainhouse,
The probability of a seller having their account restricted is very small provided they follow the terms of use.
I can back that up statistically if you would like and I will put it in perspective.
Let's say that the boards produce 1 account restriction per day, if that. That would equate to about 7 per week in this forum. However, it must be noted that the board poster is posting that they were restricted, not the reason that there account has been restricted.
7 per week multiplied by 52 weeks in a year=364 possible account restrictions mentioned.
Some of these account restrictions mentioned have included:
1. Users using the service in a country not approved for servie. This is a fraud measure to protect our users.
2. Some have had numerous claims for non-delivery of merchandise. Of course, this information is not released.
3. User has been requested to provide documentation relative to a dispute or perhaps their identification doesn't match what is on the account (fraud measure).
Account restrictions can be cleared up quickly if the user provides the documentation requested, provided that they respond to the inquiry.
At the moment, there are more than 7 million PayPal users. This users are added at the rate of nearly 20,000 per day. What would your final percentage be using 364 account restrictions?
Secondly, do you know the reason the account was restricted and has this information been given to you? (for proprietary reasons, I can not.)
This fear is a valid one, but it is not a probable one.
posted on April 27, 2001 03:45:10 PM
I didn't classify anyone as a thief. Most of the active complainers are people who don't want to follow thr rules.
To explain why they don't want to follow the rules, they bring up old news and stories involving thieves, as if that means that they shouldn't have to follow the rules.
Life is very frustrating if you don't want to follow the rules.
I might be naive, but there is no story I have ever seen of Paypal taking money from an account except that the money had been stolen from Paypal in the first place. I don't care what Paypal does to thieves.
I have covered this issue, in-depth, to the largest degree that I can, giving you the policy reasons and fraud concerns. As far as I am concerned, this topic is closed because the right answer has been given, as well as an honest answer.
The choice for a user to fund their PayPal account using a checking account is theirs alone. This is not done without the user requesting it.This is in the terms of use and all the material signing up for verification about why adding a bank account supports identification. I have also given the reason why it needs to be kept current.
Your fears, however valid they may be, are not the reason for verification.
I have pointed to the terms of use more than once. I have provided the wording on the web site. I have provided the wording in the Q and A. I have pointed to the federal regulations. I have pointed to the gaming concern.
That is all I can do.And yes, I am a being a little short right now because I am tired of being called a liar and I am tired of repeating the same thing about the same issue.
If you think you're bank account is going to be accessed without your permission just because you are verified... that is your right. I am telling you, however, that it is not correct relative to the company and what we use it for and why it needs to be current.
posted on April 27, 2001 03:52:58 PM
Hi mrpotatohead,
Yes, I read the posts. Regardless of how you change the wording around on your end, my response is the same because it is the correct response. And it is not going to change because you want it to or you see something sinister in it.
posted on April 27, 2001 04:19:06 PMRegardless of how you change the wording around on your end, my response is the same because it is the correct response.
I disagree. I have been changing the wording around in my posts because your cut-and-paste answer is for a different question, and I have been hoping (in vain, apparently) that you would actually address the topic I am discussing rather than the topic you would prefer to address.
PayPal Logic:
A man and a woman get married. The man gives an ATM card and PIN (identification) for his bank account to his wife. One day, the man suffers a heart attack and dies. When the bank finds out, they cancel the ATM card's PIN, and require the wife to open a new account.
PayPal Motto (with apologies to Mr. Orwell):
VERIFICATION IS IDENTIFICATION - REPETITION IS VALIDATION - ALWAYS FREE
