posted on January 9, 2001 03:13:16 PM
Are there any of the payment services that offer 100% payment protection???
I thought about opening my own merchant account so I can take cc that way but there is still the risk of chargebacks.
posted on January 9, 2001 03:42:39 PM
Yes, it is called CASH ONLY OR a POSTAL money order only....as payment cannot be stopped on them. Short of that, there is no such thing as 100% seller protection.
There will ALWAYS be a risk of chargebacks, but with your own merchant account, at least you control the variables, not someone else. With a merchant account you KNOW if the billing address matches, and you can ship to that address.
posted on January 9, 2001 05:55:58 PM
In spite of the number of gripes you see here, I find PayPal's coverage pretty good, but you have to be willing to conform to the requirements of the Seller Protection plan. If you verify your account, don't accept multiple payments for an item, don't ship outside the US or electronically, and ship with online verifiable shipping (e.g. USPS Delivery Confirmation or Insurance, UPS, or FedEx), then chargebacks or stolen cards are PayPal's problem, not yours. Most of the problems I've seen with sellers and PayPal relate to the seller's refusal to upgrade or verify their account or to violating one of the terms of the Seller Protection plan.
posted on January 9, 2001 06:20:49 PM
pickersangel's advice is good but incomplete. Don't accept payment from a buyer who accepted payment from a buyer who accepted payment from a crook. If you do, your account will be frozen until PayPal sorts the mess out, if they are able to sort it out at all.
But wait, there's more. There is no way to know where your buyer's funds came from (a crook?). And even if you did know, you don't have the option of not accepting the payment. Nope, it just magically shows up in your account.
The bottom line is when you play with PayPal (or any on-line service, but PayPal is the worst of the lot), you have NO protection whatsoever. PayPal's buyer and seller programs are worthless.
The risks associated with using PayPal are minimal for a small-time buyer as the amounts that you stand to lose or have frozen are small. But any seller who chooses to use them had better really be on the ball or be able to stay afloat while a chunk of his/her operating capital is tied up in a frozen account. And to add insult to injury, PayPal continues accepting payments on your behalf (I'm laughing here) while your account is frozen. Their favors never cease.
posted on January 9, 2001 06:31:57 PM
Sorry Abingdon, but the number one payment service (I'm talking number one with crooks using stolen credit cards and number one in complaints) is not Paypal but Exchangepath. So Paypal is #2, which may explain why they're trying harder to become #1.
As for 100% seller protection, there is bidpay. There is also achex which works bank account to bank account. A buyer can do a reversal of payment but only within a short time and only by filing an affidavit claiming fraud. Unlike a charge back, filing this form falsely is a crime. Moneyzap also works through credit card but every buyer is individually verified upon making the first payment. Western Union told me they never processed a fraudulent payment, though they caught quite a few beforehand. They also told me that because every buyer is indivudally contacted and the rules are explained, they have never had a false charge back.
You're right of course about ExchangePath, but I'm trying my best to forget about them. Thanks a lot for reminding me... lol
What sucks big-time is that I was once a big PayPal cheerleader until they demonstrated their inability to tell the truth and competently run a business. Then I became an ExchangePath cheerleader only to have them pull the rug out from under us too. I think I'll retire my pom-poms for good. I keep backing losers...
posted on January 9, 2001 07:22:46 PM
Abingdon, I repectfully disagree. The seller protection is good, as long as you conform to the requirements. The one person who claimed to have met all the criteria and still got restricted has never reported back as to what the actual reason for restriction or the outcome was. I'm not familiar with any cases such as the one you describe, but I'll take your word that they exist. However, I'd like to know how many people have experienced an account restriction on a verified account simply because they received payment from an account that was later restricted.
OTOH, PayPal's Buyer Protection is a farce. The seller must be verified (I've found few buyers bother to check before making payment) and the buyer recovers only what PayPal is able to get back from the Seller. If PayPal can't help you, and you choose to do a chargeback on your CC to recover your loss, PayPal freezes your account too.
always pickersangel everywhere
posted on January 10, 2001 12:48:10 AMAre there any of the payment services that offer 100% payment protection???
NO. None of the payment services are into being the 'fall guy' for a seller.
Learn your liabilities, and learn the rules. BillPoint and PayPal will work fine, they don't give you a license to be reckless or stupid, none of them do. By the same token there is no reason to become paranoid over $20.00 items either.
posted on January 10, 2001 06:47:43 AM
>>The [paypal] seller protection is good, as long as you conform to the requirements<<
Which requirements? The ones posted today or the ones from yesterday or the ones from last week? PP has changed their TOS so many times, even their own employees can't give you a straight answer. But PP doesn't follow its own TOS anyway.
I know a verified seller who had her account restricted with no warning because a buyer charged back something several months later. Buyer claimed non receipt of item. The buyer went directly to his credit card and did not contact the seller or paypal. This is in direct violation of PP TOS. PP did not contact the seller, another violation of their TOS. The seller sent PP a copy of the USPS delivery confirmation. PP said this was not acceptable because it did not have a signature. But USPS DC is specifically named in the TOS as acceptable proof. So despite the seller following the rules, PP and the buyer violated the rules and screwed the seller. This is not some annonymous email I received, I know this seller well and have done lots of business. She is experienced, very honest and until this episode, had only excellent ratings. PP destroyed her reputation.
When PP gets a charge back, they are concerned with one thing only, getting their money. If they have to violate their TOS and screw the seller, they will do so. When you
verify your account, you don't become their "valued customer," you become their "valuable scapegoat." Your money is now available for them to take to cover their own losses due to their own incompetence.
While we're at it, let's not forget the seller who got a payment from a stolen credit card and sent it back. PP took the money out of his bank account, claiming that by returning it, he "laundered" it. Did he have a choice? After all, PP has refused to provide an accept/reject button. But PP puts you in the position of either keeping stolen money and having your account frozen or return it and having your account frozen and your bank account accessed.
