posted on April 27, 2001 07:56:40 PM new
PayPalDamon wrote in the other thread:
In order to remain verified, the verification must be tied to an active bank account.
Damon, this is directly contradictory to PayPal refusing to verify active accounts at CompuBank, First IB and NetBank.
As has been pointed out in above posts, the only difference between those banks and others is that PayPal is only permitted to deposit, not withdraw.
User Amy wrote an excellent post that you selectively ignored in the other thread. In part she wrote
If all paypal needs is the bank account information to prove the user is who he says he is then why can't I get verified WITHOUT aggreement to the blanket DEBIT authorization?
Your response once again maddeningly repeated that PayPal would never withdraw funds without permission. But you refuse to address why you need to have the debit authorization at all for verification.
Since PayPal refuses to address this issue, how can you expect me to trust PayPal?
Moderators, this question has not been answered and was never answered in the other thread either.
posted on April 27, 2001 09:33:25 PM new
This is starting to get old.
1. To the many people who have posted that PayPal isn't permitted to withdraw from CompuBank accounts, that information is completely false. My business Paypal account was verified using my CompuBank account, it's still verified with my CompuBank account, and Paypal withdrew money from that account last week:
If CompuBank ever blocked transfers in either direction from Paypal, I'd close the account immediately, and move to a new bank. Same thing goes for transfers from Billpoint, or any other payment service I may choose to use in the future.
2. To everybody who has suggested that Paypal change its policy to require a credit check and/or social security number to become verified, I vote an emphatic NO! I'm not giving out my social security number, and I'm not undergoing a credit check in order to send $10 to somebody to pay for bubble wrap.
3. Does it really matter to anybody that when your x.com account was closed, Paypal required you to enter new checking account information in order to stay verified? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the problem. My personal Paypal account was verified with x.com, and when x.com closed, I opened a new checking account, and entered the new account information in my Paypal account. No big deal, no reason to spend hours posting a sob story for the world to read, and no reason to issue a thousand press releases to the world media.
The only place that I can see this being any sort of problem is for people that bounce too many checks, and can't open a new checking account. If you have a bad report with ChexSystems, no bank will allow you to open a checking account, so you can't stay verified. As far as I'm concerned, it's not a bad thing that people who can't manage their money won't be Paypal verified.
4. Why require an active account in order to remain verified? I can think of two reasons. First, sellers can set their preferences to accept only eCheck payments from verified accounts. If you're verified, but unable to send an eCheck payment, that could cause problems in settling auctions. Second, if someone was somehow able to defraud Paypal out of a large amount of cash, Paypal could subpoena bank records or the person's address on file at the bank. If your bank goes out of business, or you close your checking account and then move, there's a disconnect, and it's much harder to track down the offender.
5. There's a really good reason why Paypal requires the debit authorization in order to verify accounts. First, there's the eCheck issue I mentioned above. Second, and much more likely, maybe Paypal doesn't want to spend $1,000 an hour to have a team of lawyers write up 100 different versions of the TOS for every conceivable combination of user requests. If you want to use the service, then agree to the TOS, and use the parts of the service that you want to use. If you don't want to transfer money to/from your bank account, then don't. If you don't want to do what's required in order to get verified, then don't. If you're the conspiracy theory type, and think that Paypal was created for the sole reason of obtaining YOUR checking account number and doing bad things to you, then don't use the service. You can always pay for everything with a money order and only write checks to specially trusted parties. That's all up to you.
Can we end this now? Paypal doesn't take money out of your bank account without permission, and they require users to go through a very simple verification process in order to get a cute little gold ribbon. If you don't want to (or can't) go through the verification process, then don't! If you hate Paypal so much that you'd like to see them shut their doors, then don't use them! I, for one, like their service so far, and I'd like to not have to wade through pages of fire-spitting ranting to get more information about new features.
posted on April 27, 2001 10:44:16 PM new
OK thompjo lets go through the garbage you posted point by point,
1) What you seem to fail to understand is that PayPal wants to be able to initiate the request for funds from my account electronically. PayPal says the problem is that they can't pull money from these accounts. I can send money and have, from NetBank in the form of a visa check card. Sending money is as easy as funding my account via credit card option even though it is a check card, and that works fine. Basically PayPal already takes electronic money from NetBank now, just in a different flavor and this is the basis for being not verified.
2) I can agree with the not providing Social Security numbers or credit checks to become verified, so we'll leave that one alone.
3) Here is where we get to have some fun. First you say in part 1 that your account was verified with a CompuBank account and in 3 you say you switched your existing verified account from x.com to CompuBank. That’s nice for you but I never had a x.com account, I never was verified, I don't see why an FDIC insured bank is not good enough but it isn't. And "just because" is not good enough an answer.
Second in 3 is that you assume that my ChexSystems look up wouldn't be clean. Well it is squeaky clean, I just feel that I shouldn’t have to open a second bank account just to remove the unverified stigma from my good name. I haven't bounced a check in years and years, maybe back in college if I try to remember when the last one was. And just like you sated earlier that you think I must have a bad ChexSystems report, and I must not be able to get a bank account since I am not verified. So the point I've been making all along is just been exemplified by your assumption. I don't want my customers to make this same assumption. I have an account in a Federally approved bank, NetBank, and if they don’t feel that they want to allow any entity to take money from my account I like that, but obviously PayPal is retaliating and I am paying the price with the stigma of being "unverified". Thank you for making my point for me.
4) This one doesn't make sense at all;
"Why require an active account in order to remain verified?"
I can't even find where this is even being proposed in the string????
5) This one is just un-American. What is great in this country is; my god and first amendment given right to bi*ch about things I think are wrong or unfair or whatever. You also say "I'd like to not have to wade through pages of fire-spitting ranting to get more information about new features." Well I think from the title of this string it is painfully clear that there will be no information about new PayPal features in here. And just like you espouse if you don't like it don't read the string, if you do like it read the string, if you think polka dots are pretty, wear them.....get it? I see you think you need to point out our options but you know what I think we can figure them out on our own. Thanks anyway and please keep your condescension to yourself.
And one last time since I guest you missed it. I don’t want to fund my account from my bank account. I flip enough cash through my PayPal account that I never need to send money to it, my customers do that for me. Block the feature and then I fill all other criteria to be verified, so verify me. I personally don’t think it is a lot to ask. But I am allowed still to have an opinion, so I will.
posted on April 28, 2001 06:09:01 AM new
Last year, the issue of why PayPal needs withdrawl authorization on users' bank accounts for verification purposes was discussed many times. It was even proposed that PayPal allow users to opt out of authorizing withdrawls, permitting only deposits into their bank account.
PayPal NEVER offered a satisfactory answer to this question, nor did they enact the "deposit only" option mentioned above. While PayPal will claim that they will never access a bank account without the user's authorization, I suspect that they want withdrawl access for several reasons:
1. PayPal would prefer users to make payments via funds in their PayPal accounts or their bank accounts rather than use their credit cards, simply because the fees that PayPal incurs are much higher for credit cards. Note how payment by credit card is not prominently featured as a option to send funds. That is by design rather than oversight.
2. PayPal would like the ability to perform a "deposit reversal," i.e. recoup funds from users' bank accounts as part of a fraud investigation, etc. If PayPal didn't have withdrawl authorization on users' bank accounts, they wouldn't be able to perform a "deposit reversal."
Now, just wait, and you'll see Damon reply to this that "PayPal will never access a bank account without the user's authorization," blah blah blah... but he WON'T answer why PayPal requires WITHDRAWL authorization on users' bank accounts if the verification process only requires two DEPOSITS.
In any event, you could always open a checking account, verify it with PayPal, and then close the checking account. It's not as if the bank is going to notify PayPal that you closed your account. The only way PayPal would be able to figure this out is if they attempted to deposit or withdraw funds from the account, which they claim that they won't do without your authorization.
- Dan
This message has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit your brain.
posted on April 28, 2001 02:55:34 PM new
Solomone,
Please understand that nothing that I posted was directed to any specific person, including you. I replied to a number of posts from a number of different people.
But, regarding your comments:
1. I do understand exactly what you're saying. Paypal can deposit to your account, but can't debit it via ACH, so you're unverified. That's their rules. They'll do everything they can to avoid charging credit cards because of the fee involved. If NetBank's policy is causing you trouble with your PayPal account, change your bank. NetBank has bought CompuBank, so my CompuBank account will soon become a NetBank account. As a result, I went to another bank and opened a new account with a bank that won't cause me difficulty transferring money to and from my PayPal account. It was easy. If you're not happy with NetBank's decision to block some transactions from Paypal, your complaint is with NetBank. That's why I'm closing my CompuBank account before NetBank can take it over.
It's difficult to express tone when typing, but I'm not accusing, or yelling, or anything else other than stating my opinion of your situation. I think that the problem you're having is with NetBank, not PayPal. Paypal shouldn't be expected to change their terms and their software for every bank that wants to make a policy change. I don't want my 2.2% fee to be increased because Paypal needed to cover the cost of hiring lawyers and software developers so that you don't need to change your bank. As I mentioned, it's not difficult or expensive to change banks, and I've already done so for exactly the same issue you're having.
2. I'm glad you feel the same about the SS# issue, I think most people would agree with us on that.
3. To clear up some confusion, I have two accounts, one business and one personal. The personal account was verified with x.com, and the business account was verified with CompuBank.
Regarding ChexSystems, that comment was directed to those who are upset that they can't keep a verified account when the bank that they used to verify their account has closed (in particular, x.com). Obviously, these people would have had to go open up another checking account, and could have easily given the new account number to PayPal. This wasn't directed toward you.
4. Again, not directed toward your comments, but toward the former x.com account holders who are losing their verification. Paypal requires an active checking account in order to remain Paypal verified.
5. I'm more concerned that Paypal will no longer want to have a company-authorized representative posting here if the company is bad-mouthed in 5 pages of posts every time their rep says anything. I like having Damon around, and I think that he gets way too much abuse around here. I'd also like to see reps from eBay, Yahoo, and Billpoint here, but that's not likely.
I understand the "change the channel" analogy, and I've said that many times myself. I'm more concerned that Damon will be "taken off the air", and he's much too valuable to the community to let that happen. Ask a question, and get the official company response from Damon. It may or may not be a direct answer, but it's what the company wants to tell you. If Paypal's corporate response is a non-response, it's not going to change by asking the question 15 times. And please understand that Paypal's official response is not going to be "we're not going to tell you".
Damon is not an undercover informant, he's authorized by the company to repeat official company statements.
[ edited by thompjo on Apr 28, 2001 02:57 PM ]
posted on April 28, 2001 04:14:46 PM newI do understand exactly what you're saying. Paypal can deposit to your account, but can't debit it via ACH, so you're unverified. That's their rules.
Yes, but Paypal touts this as a verification of identity. If this isn't what "verified" user is supposed to be, then Paypal should be more upfront about it. The round about way that questions are answered comes across as sneaky and disingeneous.
If NetBank's policy is causing you trouble with your PayPal account, change your bank.
Again, is isn't that Netbank's policy is causing problems, it's that Paypal hasn't provided a reasonable explaination as to why they would need unmitigated debit access to my account in order for me to be verified.
... If you're not happy with NetBank's decision to block some transactions from Paypal, your complaint is with NetBank.
No, I am completely happy with Netbank's policy. I (we?) have a problem with Paypal's appearently disingenous use of the "verified/non-verified" label.
... I think that the problem you're having is with NetBank, not PayPal. Paypal shouldn't be expected to change their terms and their software for every bank that wants to make a policy change. I don't want my 2.2% fee to be increased because Paypal needed to cover the cost of hiring lawyers and software developers so that you don't need to change your bank.
This arguement is specious in light of what questions we are asking Paypal to address.
As I mentioned, it's not difficult or expensive to change banks, and I've already done so for exactly the same issue you're having.
If the issue is truly identication verification, there is absolutely no reason we should have to switch banks.
Again, not directed toward your comments, but toward the former x.com account holders who are losing their verification. Paypal requires an active checking account in order to remain Paypal verified.
Yes, an active checking account that they can access (debit). This is the issue.
I'm more concerned that Paypal will no longer want to have a company-authorized representative posting here if the company is bad-mouthed in 5 pages of posts every time their rep says anything. I like having Damon around...
Damon isn't getting bad-mouthed from me, I just want the truth about verification brought out. Honest, straight-forward answers would go a long way.
Ask a question, and get the official company response from Damon. It may or may not be a direct answer, but it's what the company wants to tell you.
The company can give me boiler plate responses via their FAQ. If Damon is to be a valuable resource, he should be providing clarification when it is requested.
If Paypal's corporate response is a non-response, it's not going to change by asking the question 15 times. And please understand that Paypal's official response is not going to be "we're not going to tell you".
True, but by keeping these issues in the forfront, people can more fairly judge the validity of Paypal's official corporate response.
posted on April 28, 2001 04:59:29 PM newIt may or may not be a direct answer, but it's what the company wants to tell you. If Paypal's corporate response is a non-response, it's not going to change by asking the question 15 times.
Maybe not. But every time the questions are asked in a straightforward manner and the responses are unrelated double-speak, a few more people see what is happening with PayPal and what kind of company they're dealing with.
As for keeping Damon around, I will just say that having Damon around does little good if he is unable (most likely reason for the evasiveness) or unwilling to answer our questions in a straightforward manner. Helping customers with problems and answering questions are a customer relations rep's job. If that job isn't performed in a manner that actually helps the customers, there is no need for the rep.
This isn't a personal attack on Damon. He seems to be a very hard-working individual and keeps his cool well under obvious pressure. The problem lies in the way that PayPal (through Damon) exercises a total lack of candor and a level of evasiveness that makes Bill Clinton look like Mother Teresa.
[ edited by dubyasdaman on Apr 28, 2001 05:01 PM ]
posted on April 28, 2001 05:42:03 PM new
Instead of trying to fight "City Hall", maybe it would be simpler to just add another bank to your PayPay account. It will get you verified, but you won't need to use it for anything. You will still be able to sweep funds into the online bank you are using. Also helps the blood pressure!
posted on April 28, 2001 05:49:42 PM new
The issue of adding another bank account is moot (im my case). I became verified long ago by registering a bank account.
The issue at hand is the refusal to answer questions in a straightforward manner. It makes me wonder if I was wise to verify in the first place.
Fighting "City Hall" often works out well in the long run. And it ALWAYS brings unwanted bad publicity even if it is ultimately unsuccessful. Besides, it's just plain fun when you know you're right.
posted on April 28, 2001 06:47:36 PM new
Thompjo, I just want to thank you for your response. I take this thread a little personal since I initiated it. Also, I felt you were taking the points of many other strings and incorporating them here. Not what I was after at all. I see now there was nothing being directed at me or anyone else in particular. No tone involved except peaceful gratitude.
For the most part to you and anyone else out there listening (reading) When you find yourself happy to be an American it is because people like George Washington and his pals didn't listen to people who said things like; "Don't make waves or our taxes might go up", or "Shh, take it up the *** and say thank you." No people like GW stood up to the British and we are here today as a result. This country has always had people try to tell the muckrakers to be quiet but the quality of life in this country has always improved as a result of the voices of a few rallying the less vocal behind their battle cry (as you read the rest please hum America The Beautiful). I will not sit quietly, be lied to, in the hopes of getting BS answers from someone who has no authority to be honest. What is wrong with your sense of fair play. Don't you think it is wrong that I should have to switch banks to satisfy a clearing house? Don't you think it is wrong that I should have to open a second account to fool their system and in effect commit a fraud? Fortunately for myself and others who think the same as I do are making their voices heard, and now to a wider audience than just the people who are subscribed to this string. That is what I think is right and silence and acquiescence and complacence and are not the tenets this country was founded on. You may think this all a little hokey but I truly believe these truths to be self-evident and will not back down.
posted on April 29, 2001 06:53:19 AM new
I am not sure that PayPal is worth putting up such a fight for. There ARE alternatives... take your business there.
I haven't accepted PayPal for my auctions since last November, and have noticed NO drop in sales. Many customers like to pay by credit card, but they couldn't care less what the mechanism is, so long as it is secure. I accept Billpoint, WU MoneyZap and BidPay, and I've heard no complaints from my buyers. I also indicate in all my auctions that PayPal is NOT accepted.
As far as all the "frills" that come with a PayPal account... thanks but no thanks. I have a debit card, and it's from a REAL bank. I don't have to worry about having the account frozen for weeks or months either, or trying to contact customer service for weeks without getting the problem resolved.
The bottom line is this:
You're going to get charged transaction fees for accepting credit card payments regardless of what on-line service you use (WU MoneyZap is ending their free promotional period in the middle of May).
So, the question is whether you want to do business with a reputable company that has decent customer service, or a bunch of sleazebags with lousy customer service and absurd Terms of Use.
Additionally, if you want the services of a bank (debit card, money market account, etc.) use a REAL bank.
And, if you really feel politically motivated, work to get legislation passed so that ALL on-line payment services are regulated as other financial institutions are.
- Dan
This message has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit your brain.
[ edited by dblumenfeld on Apr 29, 2001 07:12 AM ]
posted on April 29, 2001 05:40:39 PM new
I did hear a reason why former X.com members are no longer verified.
When you open an account in a B&M bank, they usually ask you for documentation and even something with your photo. Internet banks aren't that thorough and as others have pointed out, it is possible to fool the system. It would be too great an effort for paypal to go through their records and unverify everyone who used an Internet bank. They also wouldnt have much of an excuse. However, since they know that x.com closed, it is relatively easy for them to unverify all of these users and talk about "gaming the system." The real reason is that they are aware of shortcomings in x.com's verification.
Now this reason is purely speculative but since Paypal won't give us a real answer, speculation is all we have. And it does make sense because it fits with Damon's explanation.
posted on April 29, 2001 07:57:21 PM new
No, doesn't really fit.
I had to fax my driver license several times to X.com (which was the same company as PayPal) to add external accounts for transferring in-and-out. They knew who I am.
Wells Fargo is the largest internet banker in the U.S. with 2.5 million internet users and I also believe you can open an account with them without ever going into a branch.
You can also open an account with CitiBank without ever going into a branch and they are the largest bank in the U.S.
We won't see PayPal restricting those customers.
I am willing to concede that maybe the policy does not have an agenda but is actually just pure stupidity on the part of someone at Paypal management - and without an explanation for something that makes no sense - they simply choose not to explain it.
posted on April 30, 2001 12:21:15 PM new
[i]I did hear a reason why former X.com members are no longer verified. When you open an account in a B&M bank, they usually ask you for documentation and even something
with your photo. Internet banks aren't that thorough and as others have pointed out, it is possible to fool the system.[/i]
I've opened two accounts at very large B&M banks over the telephone and gave no further proof of my identity than I gave to the two internet banks I use to verify my PayPal accounts.
Again, identity is clearly not the issue.
PayPal already has the social security numbers of members who signed up for the money market account. Why isn't that sufficient proof of identity?
It's enough for the money market fund company and the IRS.
Ability to regain control of funds can't be the issue either. Too many of us opened dummy accounts into which we deposit our PayPal funds... then immediately withdraw the money to stash it in other bank accounts to which PayPal does not have any access whatsoever.
Perhaps PayPal doesn't want to admit this "bank account verification" policy is so fatally flawed as to be useless. My guess is some consultant was paid a large amount of money to come up with this policy.
posted on April 30, 2001 03:09:45 PM newAbility to regain control of funds can't be the issue either. Too many of us opened dummy accounts into which we deposit our PayPal funds... then immediately withdraw the money to stash it in other bank accounts to which PayPal does not have any access whatsoever.
I don't know. That's probably only the old hardcore PayPal customers - probably doesn't represent the vast majority of their customers...
posted on April 30, 2001 05:35:30 PM new
The fact that this thread continues with answer from the Paypal folks really bother's me. Bank or not, regulated or not, Paypal is a financial services company. I want to be able to TRUST the financial services companies that I do business with and I want them to give me the warm fuzzies to make me feel good about dealing with them. My primary business is manufacturing, and when my customers can't get an answer from me about an order or a quote, they freak out! Not after days--after hours! How does Paypal think we feel about our money after being unable to get a response for so long?
C'mon, Damon, give us a real answer or tell us that company policy will not allow you to give us any other answer. Please? Pretty Please?
