posted on June 4, 2001 12:40:30 PM new
I (and I believe others) have made a suggestion that payment services institute a feedback system similar to auction sites. However, rather than expect every buyer and seller to make a comment, only the service itself records if complaints were received. A buyer or seller should be able to check the "rating" of the other party and see something like:
member since: January 2000
payments received: 17
payments made: 36
total transactions: 53
Complaint status could be "verified" if the complaint appears to be true, "unverified" if there is no evidence one way or the other or "withdrawn" if it is shown to be false. (Buyer says item wasn't shipped and seller shows proof of shipping).
With a "report card" like this, fly-by-night operators who open a quick account, cheat some people and disappear might find it more difficult to do so. Repeat offenders could be tracked. Buyers and sellers can determine who they want to avoid. The service could more easily defend their position of not wanting to get involved to the extent that some folks expect them to. It becomes the decision of the parties to the transaction to decide if they can trust each other and the report card would give a more accurate picture.
posted on June 4, 2001 06:44:44 PM new
>>Dispute resolution is incredibly expensive, and no one wants to pay for it.<<
I am not asking for any extra dispute resolution over what is already being done. I am just saying that instead of the results getting "lost in the ozone" they should be reported somewhere. I have seen many posts where sellers complain that Paypal shut down their account over one charge back or complaint. Damon responds with insinuations that the seller had numerous complaints. Well, wouldn't it have been nice if the buyers knew that before they sent him money? Aren't we supposed to check feedback before bidding? How do we check feedback on sellers who sell off a site and don't have a rating? And what about buyers, like the woman who used billpoint or another woman (maybe the same one) who used paydirect to purchase many items and then her husband charged them all back. If paypal or billpoint or paydirect posted a "report card" that showed how many complaints this person made or had made against them in how many transactions, we would be able to avoid the bad apples, and that will save EVERYONE money, including the payment service. Of course, they will lose the fees that they can charge the poor sellers for first receiving the money and then getting hit with the charge back. Could that be the reason they don't do this?
posted on June 4, 2001 08:00:44 PM new
I agree! I got a negative today and after much digging have determined this person never PAID for the item....Hello......Over 350 transactions and this is neg #2....Go figure!
posted on June 4, 2001 08:32:52 PM new
Yisgood, it's that "verified" concept which costs a fortune. That's the step which is not done and won't be done, not by PayPal, not by eBay.
It would be really great if God could stamp complaints "verified" or "didn't happen", but short of that, there are no affordable ways to get there.
What you're left with is the complaint system which medicalme reports is flawed, and even that is expensive due to the requirement to handle, one way or another, incoming demands to remove complaints.
The count of payments in and out is mechanical, not much subject to dispute, and low cost.
posted on June 5, 2001 06:50:50 AM new
>>Yisgood, it's that "verified" concept which costs a fortune. That's the step which is not done and won't be done, not by PayPal <<
Why not? It's already being done in most cases.
Customer says item never received. Seller sends trackable proof of shipment (DC, UPS, Fedex). Status: complaint invalid.
Seller has no proof: complaint valid
Customer says wrong item sent. Status: complaint unverified. The same customer makes the same complaint about several sellers, it becomes pretty obvious that customer is lying. In that case I would suggest that the service either change the complaint on the sellers' records to invalid or remove them.
None of this requires hiring private detectives or any unusual expense other than a little computer programming. But the end result is that for once buyers and sellers will have a "real world" look at the folks they are dealing with. This should cut down on fraud and save everyone money in the long run.
posted on June 5, 2001 08:31:40 AM newWhy not? It's already being done in most cases.
What is done now is a decision regarding whether seller is protected from chargeback.
In the most common kind of chargeback situation, seller is the victim of unauthorized credit card useage.
If seller has followed the rules, seller is protected from such chagebacks. However, if seller has decided to ship to an unverified buyer, seller is not protected from chargeback.
If publicized, how would such a scoring help anyone decide the character of a seller?
In summary, what is being done now is only mildly associated with how good a seller is.
posted on June 12, 2001 01:09:55 PM new
Well at least we could start and see how it develops. The current method is UNFAIR.
I was sent defective product. I was paid by Lloyd's (ebay's insurer) the $175 max, because I proved my case. I then instituted a chargeback on PayPal to recoup the remainder of my loss. I had success in that attempt also, but PayPal restricted my account. To my knowledge, the SELLER has had no disruption to her accounts at either eBay or PayPal. I am still RESTRICTED on this claim that started in Sept. 2000, 9 months ago. What a waste of my time. But let's not penalize the seller!! Let's stop wasting time and just TRY IT.>
posted on June 12, 2001 01:26:17 PM new
Hi awkrueger,
Did you follow our Buyer Complaint Process before filing a charge back and did you provide the documentation showing that your claim (through eBay's insurance) was valid?
posted on June 12, 2001 02:13:48 PM new
.... and did you provide the documentation showing that your claim (through eBay's insurance) was valid?
I was asked for the electronic proof of delivery to Lloyd's months after it was actually delivered and could not produce it due to site archiving. I do have confirming emails from Lloyds.
Buy the way, are you aware of my settlement and Paypal's offer to pay the "Stop Payment" on my original check to paypal?
posted on June 12, 2001 02:52:20 PM new
awkrueger,
I have deleted your lengthy post for 2 reasons. It is against the CG's to post emails without the express permission of all parties involved and it is against the CG's to post personal information.
Please consider this a warning that to post that information again will place your message board privileges in jeopardy.
posted on June 12, 2001 02:59:53 PM new
Got it.
However this is typical of the PayPal process. They ask for information. They ask for it again. They wait. They bide their time. They ask for it again. Obviously if he works for Paypal, he knows that I followed THEIR RULES, that were in effect at that time in October 2000.
posted on June 13, 2001 07:25:11 AM new
To [email protected]
Coming your way under separate email is all 48 emails up until I returned the product to Lloyds. These include:
Ebay
Square Trade
Paypal
The Fraudulent Seller
Lloyds
posted on June 14, 2001 06:54:11 PM new
If it costs too much to help the consumer and the seller then I say don't bother doing business here. I wouldn't eat at a restaurant that didn't provide napkins.
