posted on December 11, 2000 05:29:17 AM
I was tired of seeing 'UNVERIFIED' every time I signed into PayPal so I submitted my account for verification. They said 2 to 4 days and 2 small amounts would be deposited into my checking account. How do I know when this happens? And after it happens then what do I do? And what exactly is the point of verifying your account?
posted on December 11, 2000 07:43:28 AM
The point of verifying your account is so that you check the little box that says you give PP the right to take money out of your bank account. Now if one of your customers uses a stolen CC or does a charge back, PP can go right into your account and take the money back. Doesn't that just give you a pleasant feeling?
posted on December 11, 2000 09:32:27 AMyisgoodI'm still accepting PayPal & had planned to until I reach my 500.00 limit.
Do you see a problem with this ? Also if I cancel my account can that stop PayPal from taking money from my bank account. I too verified my account when I saw "unverified" by my name. I thought it looked as though I was not a good risk to my customers. I wish I hadn't of done it, but don't think it can be changed. Thank you for all the links you posted on information about PayPal. They are very imformative, not to mention shocking.
posted on December 11, 2000 09:40:44 AM
The minute you accept the first payment directly into your bank account, PP has the right to reverse it. Usually this has to be done within a certain time limit, about 30 days. However, PP has been known to do this even months later and possibly they interpret that little box you check off on verification as "permission" to do so.
Cancelling your PP account does not protect you. If someone was to charge back a payment or pay you with a fraudulent card, PP can still take it back whether your PP account is open or not. But there are ways to protect yourself. Read http:/www.ygoodman.com/credit.html.
I discourage folks from paying me thru PP. If they insist, I will accept a non-cc payment or a cc payment from a verified account. I have gotten one in the last several weeks. I hope that over time either everyone stops using PP or PP gets their act together. But with an attitude of "we have 5 million users and only 200,000 of them are unhappy, so we must be doing things right," it doesn't look promising.
By the way, those numbers are from Paypal's own posts ("5 million users and only 4% have complained". Actual numbers may vary.
posted on December 11, 2000 10:25:58 AM
After all the doom and gloomers get done...
The real reason for verification deposits is so Paypal knows that your account works. You will see two small amounts deposited. Sign into your account, click on verify and put in the amounts of those deposits. This way when you request money be deposited to your account you know that the deposit will go through. The same is true for payments from your account directly.
Yes you can be charged back...an ugly fact of life for anyone accepting credit card payments. There is no such thing as risk free living.
posted on December 11, 2000 10:58:52 AM
Freddy57: Your info is several months out of date. When PP first posted the reasons for verification, I also fell for that explanation. Until the reports started coming in of both buyers and sellers ripped off via PP while PP just made excuses and offered no protection. A seller got a payment with instructions to ship to Russia. Knowing this was fraud, he refunded the payment. PP took it out of his bank account because they claimed he "laundered" it. What else was he supposed to do since PP has refused to provide an accept/reject payment option? A seller I know with a verified business account doing thousands of dollars a month had her entire account restricted over one charge back from several months back where the customer claimed non receipt of goods. Neither the customer nor PP ever contacted her and she had proof of delivery.
>>Yes you can be charged back...an ugly fact of life for anyone accepting credit card payments. There is no such thing as risk free living.<<
But when I get charged back, I would like:
1)to be able to respond. if I have proof of delivery, the charge back gets denied. With PP I have no such protection even though I am verified.
2) to continue doing business. My credit card account would take back the one payment, not freeze my entire account.
Since it is clear that PP does not protect buyers or sellers even when verified, it also becomes clear that the verification serves only to protect PP and give them additional bank accounts to hit. So all their talk about "buyer/seller protection" has been proven to be a lie. Why continue to take the word of a company that has proven to lie? Do you recall "always free?" "We will never go into your bank account without your permission?"
posted on December 11, 2000 11:01:18 AM
If you call your bank, they will tell you the transaction amount. Just tell them what you are looking for. Also ask them about paypal automatically withdrawing from your account. According to my credit union it would have to be authorized by me in writing at the bank. I also keep a special account just for paypal. The running balance in it is $5.00. What could they take?
The deposits take between 3-5 days to show in your bank account on average (depending on the processing time of the receiving bank). You then would log in to the site and put in the amounts that you received to verify your account.
We will not withdraw funds out of your account without your permission.Verification is an identification tool.
In the event of fraud like yisgood mentioned, we will place a hold on the money before it leaves our system.
posted on December 11, 2000 11:05:35 AM
I'm thinking that with all the hassles, rule changes, fee increases, fraud, and seized funds, only a masochist would sign up these days ... for ANY of these 3rd party payment services.
posted on December 11, 2000 11:34:13 AM"In the event of fraud like yisgood mentioned, we will place a hold on the money before it leaves our system."
Isn't it the truth that they will freeze
your entire account? And, while that account
is frozen, Paypal will accept money into the
account but the account holder will not have
access to any money in the account.
posted on December 11, 2000 12:11:49 PM
"Verification is an identification tool."
Then why are users whose identification was established through an X.com account being summarily UNVERIFIED now that X.com has shut down? I doubt their identities have changed.
posted on December 11, 2000 12:35:37 PM
"We will not withdraw funds out of your account without your permission."
But you have no compunctions about reversing deposits, et.al., do you oh Great and Powerful Damon? If you reverse a deposit, aren't you accessing and withdrawing funds from an account without permission?
Without getting too specific, I know what you are referring to and where you read it.
To be simple, here it is:
1. IF money is deemed fraudulent and it has not processed, a reversal request is placed against it. This is before the money leaves our system.
2. However, if a clerical error happened, either on our end or another, the request would have gone through to the bank and they would have either approved or rejected it.
The reversal request that was placed on it that same day was fulfilled later when the file hit the receiving institution.These orders were placed well before the money ever cleared out of our system, but were not fulfilled.
We do not withdraw money out of an end user's account without their permission. A technical glitch, or a human error, can lead to problems like the one you are mentioning, but it is not the norm and it is a situation we resolve if it occurs.
posted on December 11, 2000 12:46:05 PM
Geepers next time I stick to talking about sniping.
I've had PayPal for quite a while now and I've not had a problem with it. I dont mind the fee thing, it's so much easier for me to take PayPal, I get my payments faster and into my account faster. If I had problems, I'd stop using it.
I guess it's one thing to believe what you want but to post stuff like that when someone asks a simple question, particularly when you rant on and on about it...kind of backs me off from wanting to read anything you could possibly post again.
posted on December 11, 2000 12:53:51 PM
So Damon, when PP took back a few thousand dollars from Jshumko a month after it had been deposited, it was done with her permission? Or do you claim it takes the bank a month to process an ACH transfer? And when Gourmand received a fraudulent payment and refunded it and PP took it from his account even though he had already refunded it, was this done with his permission? Here is the thread http://www.auctionwatch.com/mesg/read.html?num=41&thread=3808. After over a month of posting on the boards he did get his account unfrozen, so we can assume that he did not commit any fraud.
By the way, anything bad I say about Paypal I am saying with their permission. Either that or I am reversing a previous compliment I made months ago that has not yet been processed through the system.
posted on December 11, 2000 12:54:30 PM
The point of verifying your account is to give paypal permission to
cover their assetts by obtaining permission to withdraw funds
funds from your bank account. In case of fraud or chargebacks for
example, they will be covered.
posted on December 11, 2000 01:09:19 PM
Libbyparsons
The issue of "verification" is a touchy one with sellers on Ebay.
Like you, we thought we were well identified. Money was being transferred
to a working bank account. But, without our knowledge, a message was
being displayed to buyers warning them that we were not "verified",
with the implication that we were shady dealers.
That, very briefly, is why your question lit up the thread.
posted on December 11, 2000 01:34:20 PM
Hi HJW and YISGOOD,HI yisgood,
I can't comment on the specific case and I wish I could (jschumko)
However, I did state what the procedure is and what is supposed to happen, in addition to mentioning the clerical aspect of it.
We do not ask for bank account information to withdraw money out of a user's bank account without their permission and we do not have it to collect liabilities from charge backs.
posted on December 11, 2000 03:19:38 PM
Hi HJW and jacqueb,
I have two advantages over you in this case (or any other one):
1. I can look at the records.
2. I can speak with other departments about why an account is restricted.
Should you wonder why I lurk more than interact, I would ask you to look at the comments typically directed my way.I work on the behalf of the company AND our users and I generally find civility lacking on the boards, thereby forcing me to interact far less with the users.Your concerns are noted and passed along, but I can't always guarantee they will fit your specific needs or be addressed in the manner that you want them to be.
We do not access a user's bank account without their permission. I have covered this in the past and it does require a user logging into their account and requesting a transaction. In the event there is a fraud concern, actions will be taken before the funds leave our system.
posted on December 11, 2000 03:55:03 PM
Damon,
Unfair. We were all beyond civil -- heck, we were downright friendly -- until PayPal started insinuating to our customers that those of us who did not rush to verification were not trustworthy. In fact, that nasty little message started popping up before most of us even knew about verification.
Then, YOU PERSONALLY, started calling users who had not upgraded (to what was originally billed as a volutaryset of services) less than honest and cheaters.
posted on December 11, 2000 04:15:43 PM
Vargas is right, Damon. If Paypal wasn't using you to tell us lies, you wouldn't get this kind of attitude in return.
It's obvious to everyone that verification was not about identification or fraud prevention (How interesting that fraud has gone up since Paypal switched from mail to bank account verification. How interesting that, when a user removes the bank account from their Paypal account, they become "unverified." Has their identity changed? Nope.)
Verification was a way to get users' bank account numbers into Paypal's database, using the equivalent of blackmail. ("Give us access to your bank account, or we'll call you an untrustworthy crook on our web site." Period.
If Paypal had been honest about this, explaining that they were trying to encourage users to fund payments from their bank account instead of their credit cards, most users would have accepted that.
But when you lie, and say that verification is only about identification, you raise all sorts of additional suspicions. Now we fully expect that some morning we'll wake up and find that the TOS has been changed to allow unauthorized account withdrawals, just as it has already been changed to allow Paypal to recover its losses through unauthorized charges to users' credit cards.
You're now implying (without mentioning names) that the JShumko withdrawal was a clerical error. Well, that would have been very easy to fix. Apologize, and imediately return the money to her account, telling JShumko and everyone else "Even if fraud is involved, when we make a mistake, we correct it at our expense. Two wrongs don't make a right." Within 24 hours, the controversy would have been resolved.
The loss that Paypal would have taken would have been small in comparison to the damage Paypal did to its public image. And you'd have had a much friendlier reception here than the one you earned by denials, denials, denials, all of which were patently false, because Paypal DID withdraw the money from her account long after the processing was completed.
So, yes, Damon, as Vargas said, you -- and your company -- have brought it all on yourself.
posted on December 11, 2000 04:19:55 PM
P.S. On another thread, you are claiming that "law enforcement" won't let Paypal return money to the users who were defrauded by Gametek. But you won't substantiate that rather silly claim with the name and agency affiliation of any law enforcement officer who told Paypal that.
Every time you tell one of these whoppers, your credibility goes down and your reception gets less friendly.
posted on December 11, 2000 04:33:11 PM
PayPal is a *Ananias*. Has been from the start and has become worse since.
Always free and we will never take money from a users account without their permission have become synonymous with "I never had sex with that woman." And, we know how much truth there was in that statement.
posted on December 11, 2000 04:45:30 PM
I shouldn't have said amen to bs. That was less than civil.
Otherwise, my remarks were an effort to answer the question at the top
of this thread. This answer was based on my experience with
Paypal during the verification process...a process in which
sellers were treated in a less than civil fashion.
posted on December 11, 2000 04:58:22 PM
Hello Everyone,
Part of the CG's for this message board reads:
Please remember that you are expected to treat your fellow Community members, as well as the Moderator(s) and AuctionWatch.com staff members with respect and consideration. Our Moderator(s) and staff members will also treat you with the same respect and consideration.
Realize that Paypaldamon is privy to the same respect you are expected to give each other as outlined in the CG's as noted above.
Also, his name in this forum is Paypaldamon and any derogatory variations will be viewed as a direct insult and moderated.
Thank you for your cooperation,
Joice
Moderator.
*typo
[ edited by joice on Dec 11, 2000 06:55 PM ]
. Actual numbers may vary.