Time to forget Ebay?

[CWatters]

How long before they offer their own currency I wonder?

[magwitch]

Preeecisely. They still went ahead though and got another £250 from the credit (secondary) card on their records.

NO! PayPal were fully aware of the situation and exploited it as far and for as long as they could. Nice people.

[Bob Eager]

But it doesn't work. Last year I bought an item and paid by PayPal. Seller never sent it. Paypal closed the seller's account and said "there's nothing in his account so we can't do anything". I got the money back by tracing the seller's father and writing to him. Paypal are still saying they can't get the money.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 22:48:31 on Fri,

28 Dec 2007, magwitch remarked:

What I'd be most interested in is any correspondence from eBay where they try to explain why they thought the transactions *were* authorised.

You'll have seen me replying to another thread, and I wonder if there's something in their T&C about people pulling DD's on transactions they've asked for, and subsequent recovery from your CC. As far as PayPal is concerned, you asked for the money to be sent, they sent it, and then you stopped the funds. In their position I think I might freeze everything until the dust settled as well.

The way you told it in the other posting you were only ever £250 extra out of pocket in the bank. The other transaction was CC.

I'd be very cross at being £500 adrift as well. But some of the problem seems to be "finger trouble" (not just you) with transactions being cancelled backwards and forwards.

Two is not seven. And see above for a possible explanation.

PayPal continues to be regulated by the FSA.

[Bob Eager]

It varies; at present, some CCs use the cash advance model for Paypal, and some don't.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 22:54:36 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, magwitch remarked:

You misunderstand my question. Having got the money they had (and the way it happened is quite clear now we've explored it [2]), why would they want *yet another* £250, so there was no need to go round cancelling CCs.

They were aware that you'd asked to send some money, and then grabbed the money back. Why wouldn't they want to restore the money from your secondary funding source [1], and then wait for the dust to settle (for example, to see if you then did a CC chargeback on the CC funds). For all they knew you and this other chap were working some sort of PayPal scam, and they need to make sure they didn't end up out of pocket themselves. Sadly, there are people who do operate scams like that. No doubt the scammers also protest their innocence loudly, so it's difficult to tell the blacks and white hats apart.

[1] Always assuming their T&C allow them to - this small part we haven't yet nailed down. [2] £250 that was rejected by the seller, and took a while to get back to you. Another £250 on your CC, after you'd grabbed back £250 originally direct debited as your second attempt at paying.

Hmm, so you were only ever *one* lot of £250 out of pocket? Please explain again which account had £750 taken from it, and when (you claimed to be £500 extra overdrawn, plus the original £250).

[The Natural Philosopher]

Voluntary means ignoring it when it doesn't suit you.

[Si]

In message , Roland Perry writes

festive: oh yes there is

[Lobster]

Damn right I did. I can only presume other punters haven't bothered to read it.

Actually there's another issue about the feedback system... typical ebay punters hate receiving negative feedback, and on 99% of occasions it's dished out, it is immediately reciprocated - as it was with me. With my rogue seller, there are a lot of transactions over the last few weeks where no feedback has been left at all for the seller; I strongly suspect they were bad deals, but the buyers didn't 'neg' him to avoid damaging their own feedback - basically, 'negging' someone is a completely altruistic act.

What would you recommend... ebay/paypal certainly don't want to know, and I can't imagine Plod being interested at this low level?

David

[the_constructor]

Use

they have FREE listings. Yes, it is in it's infancy but if enough people use it, then it will grow to be better than ebay

[magwitch]

Why indeed? They wanted it, they still had an option to take it as I couldn't remove my credit card (although I tried) and they took it.

But as neither of us had any of the several £250 that they took

*unauthorisedly* from us, it was sitting in PayPal's coffers for 3 weeks, on what basis did they consider us to be the scammers?

Oh get lost Roland. Over a 3 week period, I had a total of £750 removed from 2 accounts by PayPal, and it took 17 days to get the £500 back.

[Dave Liquorice]

That tells you when and where the item passed from office to office? That is tracking. Recorded Signed For is just proof of delivery.

Just proof of delivery, nothing else.

So why does Paypal use the phrase "trackable online proof of delivery" in their terms & conditions if they only require "online proof of delivery"?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

They ain't a UK company?

[Andy Hall]

Tax and financial opacity. Same as Luxembourg.

[Richard Perkin]

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Go here:

and search for "recorded signed for" to see the very limited info that PayPal requires...

Kind regards

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 23:22:36 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, The Natural Philosopher remarked:

I don't think it does. It means you volunteer to be under their jurisdiction, not that you'll pick and choose which disputes they are able to adjudicate. There is a long history in this country of industries that volunteer to be under an Ombudsman.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 23:14:55 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Bob Eager remarked:

This is very interesting. Does a list exist? What part of the CC T&C allows them to make a decision like that - is there something about payments made through/to intermediaries in general, or can they finger specific intermediaries like PayPal.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 23:07:49 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Bob Eager remarked:

Well, I did say "better monitored", not "completely hog-tied". Some might say that if a rogue seller has got to the point of being expelled, then that's a good result. Compared to carrying on and scamming via Western Union outside the remit of PayPal.

I get the feeling that you would like PayPal to *also* be an escrow service. In other words, to freeze the funds sent to the seller until you have confirmed that the goods were received OK, and as described. While I do think that could be a useful extra service, perhaps the sellers wouldn't want to have the delay in receiving their funds; and being at the mercy of tardy buyers - although there'd probably be a [say] 10-day timeout. Then you'd get complaints from buyers who were on holiday and only realised the item hadn't arrived, at some point more than 10 days later. (rinse and repeat).

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 23:23:51 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Si remarked:

Sorry, that was badly put. Yes, you can add a note to any negative feedback, but you can't get it removed even if you are entirely innocent.

[Bob Eager]

I know of no list.

The T&Cs on one of my cards use the phrases 'electronic transfer' (with some exclusions) and 'e-money'. Gambling payments are also included.