This was probably not a regular rogue seller, so they effectively cut off any way of me getting the money through them. Two years later, my Paypal account shows 'open issues' with no way of closing it.
No. I just want them actually to *do* something, and provide proper ways to communicate.
Like if I 'volunteered' to be subject to UK law, but 'chose' to live in a country that didn't have an extradition treaty with the UK?
Or, tell me how to mount a legal suit against a swiss company operating in switzerland, using UK laws.
In message , at 00:40:27 on Sat, 29 Dec 2007, Andy Hall remarked:
Given that they are servicing the whole of Europe, what country would
*you* locate the operation in? "Each one separately" is not an acceptable answer.In message , at
23:48:22 >And yet the Recorded Signed for slip has a number on it that you type into a box named "track item", on the Royal Mail *tracking* website [1] to follow its progress (which apparently includes tracking things like "postcard left" as well as "successfully delivered".
It tracks what's happened to it.
Because the T&C have evolved from USA T&C where they use certain expressions and make assumptions that are not entirely the same as we do in the UK. Their carriers sell "tracking services", and that's what they want you to use. And so does the Royal Mail (via Recorded Signed for and Special Delivery).
[1] track.royalmail.com.portal/rm/trackresults
You still misunderstand. Please correct me:
The first £250 was by Direct Debit, but the trader rejected the PayPal transfer. That means the money goes into "hold" (the best thing you could have done at this point was wait the 10 days until it came out of hold). Why does it go into hold - because if they sent the money back to you straight away they risk losing it, because you still have time to cancel the DD.
Meanwhile, you sent a second £250 by Direct Debit, but changed your mind and cancelled it. As that money had already been promised to the vendor they took the obvious course of action and used your backup - a credit card instead.
At this point they have "enough" of your money and there's no reason why they'd want yet another £250: unless you've told the story badly and you also cancelled the first DD, triggering them to also replace that with a CC charge.
We are getting a bit closer here. Not seven lots of £250, but just three. And at least one of those was because you'd reversed an earlier DD.
Finally, I'm not clear why you were expecting for *PayPal* to restore the second DD, or why it took 17 days, if as you say that was cancelled via the bank.
All you should actually have been waiting for was for them to take the
*first* £250 out of hold, which would have happened much sooner if you hadn't started mucking about.You had a bad experience, but nothing like as bad as you first claimed. And most it was self-inflicted because you clearly don't understand how these transfers work (and also because PayPal don't go out of their way to explain how and why they work the way they do).
For that latter reason I could understand people being cautious about using PayPal, but it doesn't demonstrate any evil intent on their part. If you really think it's worth their while to go through all those machinations for the interest on £250 for 17 days, then I'm afraid you need to rethink.
They are much more interested in one of the £250's not being in the wrong hands when the music stops. To which extent they are no different to the banks, who also have rules about when payments can be regarded as "cleared".
In message , at 11:32:12 on Sat, 29 Dec 2007, Bob Eager remarked:
Sellers get told the address of buyers Trade sellers are required by law to give contact details (in addition to any provisions via eBay) So the problem seems to be how does an ordinary buyer get details of an individual seller, or of a trade seller trying to pretend he isn't.
One answer is for people not to buy off what are clearly trade sellers, who don't give contact details in their listings; but a better one would be for eBay to automatically send the seller's details to the buyer, just like they send the buyer's details to the seller (it often does appear on the Invoice, but not always).
They can't get blood from a stone.
Better communications is something that seems to crop up over and over again. And not just for Paypal.
If they were an organisation physically moving goods then the answer undoubtedly would be the Netherlands because of its liberal import/export arrangements and logistics connections to the rest of Europe and beyond.
Of course, they are not.
This is an electronic communication and financial trading business, in essence, and so those considerations don't apply. Therefore the decision is clearly going to be based around which countries offer the most favourable corporate tax and financial and legal regulatory environment.
It's the same in the U.S. For example, over half of the Fortune 500 companies are registered in the State of Delaware. Why? No state income tax, sales tax, inheritance tax, anonymity for owners and a rich menu of other advantages.
Where does Ebay operate in the U.S.? California. Where is the company registered? You've guessed it. Delaware.
Luxembourg doesn't have much in the way of industry any longer (used to be steel) and has moved into private banking with tight secrecy laws and a favourable tax regime, much as Switzerland has done for a very long time.
None of this suggests that there is any impropriety, of course. However, these measures do provide a degree of insulation of a company from its customers and suppliers.
The point is that one is not dealing with a company within easy (read economically viable) reach of UK legislation and therefore, in effect one has to assume that one is dealing unprotected in the final analysis, with other buyers and sellers. There is nothing wrong with that as long as everyone understands that these are really the rules, but it is not reasonable to pretend that all is well because the company has signed up to a voluntary arrangement which if push comes to shove is unenforceable.
In message , at 11:37:09 on Sat, 29 Dec 2007, magwitch remarked:
Not at all. Have you actually spoken to the Financial Ombudsman about this issue? I have.
Plus they explicitly state that Recorded signed for is adequate.
If I was running a pan-European operation that didn't require local staff in each country, then what I'd probably do is put the operational HQ (ie, the place where the staff are) in Switzerland, for tax purposes, and have a legal HQ for regulatory purposes in an EU state that has a fiscal framework which encourages multinationals to locate there.
Which, oddly enough, is exactly what eBay has done.
Mark
It tracks its fate. It doesn't say 'at local depot, 'out for delivery', etc. as you get with a courier.
Just a query...why are you defending PayPal so strongly?
I suspect eBay is more interested in the hidden banking arrangements, the free Swiss citizenship offered to the directors of companies that bring employement to Switzerland, and the strong company law that has criminal sanctions for whistleblowers.
If tax, IT infrastructure and location were issues, Luxembourg would probably be the first choice.
In message , at 15:56:34 on Sat, 29 Dec 2007, Andy Hall remarked:
And whichever country they pick, there will be about 20 other European countries with eBay customers and contracts with a "foreign" company.
And where are its day to day activities policed? California (I've met the FBI officers from the local office).
Where is their user contract?
"If you reside in the U.S.A. you are contracting with eBay Inc., 2145 Hamilton Ave., San Jose, CA 95125, USA."
Not completely unprotected, but neither is PayPal acting as an escrow facility, however much people wish to imagine that it might be.
As ever, I'd be interested to hear of any rulings by the Financial Ombudsman that were ignored by eBay.
In message , at
16:10:20 on Sat, 29 Dec 2007, Mark Goodge remarked:
I wouldn't as they have very strict labour protection laws (from which the United Nations in Geneva is exempt!) and quite heavy personal taxation. But perhaps these things are mitigated by other advantages.
In message , at 16:10:09 on Sat, 29 Dec 2007, Duncan Wood remarked:
Hooray! (Whereabout is that, I haven't looked very hard but I've not tripped over it either).
In message , at 16:15:34 on Sat, 29 Dec 2007, Bob Eager remarked:
Which is what is required.
Indeed. And I don't think Paypal is interested in exactly where in transit some lorry driver misplaced it.
What they need is proof that a buyer who says it didn't arrive, is lying; so they can challenge a chargeback. That's all.
Of course. However, if the motivation was to be reachable by a goodly proportion of customers, then companies would be set up in the
4-5 countries with the largest population. This is not the case, which indicates that the motivation is legal and financial.I didn't say that Delaware registration was other than a financial arrangement.
Right. While this is in the small print, it is not clearly obvious to the average punter what his remedies really are.
The point is that the relationship is not the same as a straightforward consumer purchase. As long as people realise that they are effectively participating in an electronic car boot sale and act accordingly, then fine.
Roland Perry wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@perry.co.uk:
Taken from my post earlier in this thread...
Go here:
and search for "recorded signed for"
Hope this helps
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.