Precisely. if there is any dispute, they hang onto the money from everyone, and take weeks to clear it.
When I conduct a transaction with someone, I don't want a 3rd party in between.
Particularly one who won't let me have details of the counterparty.
And who tales my money, banks it for weeks, and charges me for the privilege.
For once Tim,. you have stated the issues clearly and accurately.
In message , at 10:49:27 on Fri, 28 Dec
2007, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
Why do you think that? Ever tried getting the Cambridge Evening News or MTV to intervene in a dispute with an advertiser?
In what sense did it fizzle out? Were you unable to get money back from a rogue trader that was covered by a PayPal guarantee? Or what?
The feedback system works fairly well, but it's a bit one-shot. If you leave negative feedback it's quite likely they'll trump up some negative feedback for you, and there's no right of reply. Although I could see that developing into flamewars quite quickly.
People's standards vary and it seems good feedback can be left even for people I'd regard as a bit frayed at the edges. I sold something recently to a lady who spent almost two weeks stalling over paying (it was only a tenner). Is that enough to get a negative? Some folks would say it's a good result you were paid at all.
Cut and pasted from their site.
In message , at 10:16:45 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Fergus O'Rourke remarked:
That'll be about disputes between the customer and the bank. Since when would they act as mediator between me and a trader over a dispute about something I bought?
Yes it has - it's a requirement of the FSA that they have to have a complaints resolution process and a complaints register.
PayPal is regulated by the FSA as well. Stories abound of them acting in a way that does not treat customers fairly (Google FSA "treating customers fairly"), however, and it surprises me that the FSA hasn't come down hard on them about it.
Chris Owens.
I wonder also about their requirement to have a direct debit arrangement with a connected bank account in order to be able to withdraw funds from Paypal and whether or not the direct debit guarantee applies.
One does wonder about having a company unregulated by UK law having access to DD facilities.
In message , at 10:43:44 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:
Vague innuendo. Such things rarely tell the whole story, or even both sides.
Ah, these are disputes with the bank, not disputes between you and a customer of the bank.
In case you hadn't noticed, the Internet tends to ignore physical borders. In some ways this is extremely convenient, in other ways it clashes with country-specific consumer protection law. Although more of it applies than people think.
And PayPal does?
And PayPal does? (Other than as a result of being the losing party in a dispute resolution?)
In message , at 11:44:38 on Fri,
28 Dec 2007, The Natural Philos>>> I don't think the PayPal fees are going to put off sellers any moreWhereas it is clearly preferable to let the guilty party do a runner with the funds, and leave the aggrieved party empty handed?
That's a bit difficult if you want to use a cheque, credit card or PayPal to buy something, I agree.
That's something that might need a little work.
I'm looking for a "test case", if anyone has such a thing. I'm fed up with mere innuendo and need something to get my teeth into.
Charges you more than it would just for handling a non-troublesome transaction?
In message , at 10:46:47 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:
I was more in the area of "would a shop let an employee put something of their own on the shelf to sell?", because I suspect the answer to your question would be "yes", and they wouldn't want the hassle. But there are still people who think life is different online.
Paypal are subject to the jurisdiction of the FSA.
Much good that it does.
"Special delivery" is, at £4.75 per letter.
In theory that is. At the moment the server is saying "too busy, piss off".
Exactly what I do when buying off an ebay seller,never leave funds in PP thats my motto. If you pay via PP and the deal is iffy you might just get a couple of quid back if the seller has not got the funds to cover the full amount in his account.
In message , at 11:36:05 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:
That's a step forward, and might scare the punter off.
I wish it was a crime! I'm chasing a debtor for whom I have recent pictures in his local newspaper holding an award and captioned "Mr X, CEO of Co Y", and yet when suing the company I have statements and letters from their solicitors saying he holds no office or shares in the organisation (and it was therefore impossible he commissioned the work). The second part is also wrong legally, but the first part is just incredible (literally).
The nature of such a crime is evading me at present. The closest I can come to is "passing off" against the good name of your company. But I think that's a civil matter, and it's rare (as you've discovered) for the underlying company name and address to be visible on eBay. Buyers only see what the seller chooses to put on his listing page. And it's vastly easier to lie about who you are there.
So what's the risk/crime here. You'll have to tell me in words of one syllable.
Why does registering an account on eBay, not even in the correct
*persons* name, facilitate *any* of the activities above?I can help tell you who to contact, if I understand what the risk is.
In message , at 11:52:16 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Chris Owens remarked:
For complaints between me and one of their customers?
When you are in a position such that you see both sides of most disputes, it becomes clear that there are "bad customers" as well as "bad companies". And you can see why it's necessary to act in various ways rather than prejudge the situation before the facts have emerged.
As stated earlier, I'm looking for case studies where people have a verifiable story to tell about being treated unfairly online. By email, preferably.
That it isn't an *essential* trading facility and that therefore may well not attract the interest of the monopolies police.
None at all. It's your choice. However, if you do choose to use it then it comes with its own set of rules and risks. If you are OK with that, then fine.
At the other end of the spectrum, you can buy goods from a bricks and mortar shop and pay by credit card, whereupon you have protection in UK consumer law or under the card company's purchase protection if you need it. You can also initiate a small claims action inexpensively if required.
In the end, it's a cost/time/risk equation.
No idea, I'm afraid that I am not familiar with the technical details of all possible scams. But it seems to me that if somebody is passing themselves off as an officer of the company in order to deceive in one context it is possible that they might also attempt to do so in others, and that it is responsible to guard against this possibility.
Quite. I think I have bought something with Ebay twice and sold something twice.
The purchases were things that I couldn't find elsewhere and the sales were for items that had some residual value that was worth capturing.
Even doing that was a PITA and time consuming without any fraud or dishonesty element.
That's because of that other universal excuse for poor service - Christmas.
Ne'er do well suppliers can make that one last from early November until the end of February at least
Ah. The same FSA that ensures reimbursement for mis-sold endowment policies.
THAT kind of regulator. (stolen unashamedly from Winnie the Pooh, like all of the best anecdotes about life).
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.