posted on July 9, 2001 12:52:18 AM newLoggia Uaru wrote: One of the things the BBB reported was a high incident of accounts being opened for people without their permission (the BBB doesn't even understand the service they are rating LOL.)
I do not see that in the report. What's your source? And if it was true, why would mean the BBB doesn't understand the service?
Sure loggia, here's the article. Even you might agree that it is and always has been impossible to open an account for a third party on PayPal. So either the BBB had no idea how baseless that complaint was or the news article misquoted them badly. The BBB's latest report on PayPal said that the unsatisfactory rating is due to "a pattern of complaints alleging that accounts are being opened without the consumers' consent and by third parties."Article Link
Purplehaze,
Hey you can voice your displeasure all you wish, I'm not stopping you. I can point out that in the same thread you are voicing your displeasure because you felt you were owed a refund as a buyer and at the same time you're joined in your complaint by a seller that feels they were wronged because a refund was given to their buyer. I'm sure there will be a service someday that will be able to satisfy both the buyer and seller with their decisions when disputes between a buyer and seller arise. Maybe they can call themselves PaySolomon.com. Till that day the disatisfied buyer or seller in any dispute can click on the BBB link (provided by loggia) and enter their complaint. Then they can whine for weeks or months on the message boards to vent their frustration at PayPal, because no other parties in the transaction offer any such 'vent release'.
posted on July 9, 2001 04:53:06 AM new
>>>Even you might agree that it is and always has been impossible to open an account for a third party on PayPal. So either the BBB had no idea how baseless that complaint was or the news article misquoted them badly.
Sure it's possible to open an account at PayPal in someone else's name. A thief could do this if he obtained stolen credit card information. If he stole a credit card from Joe Smith, he could then go to the PayPal website and open an account in the name of Joe Smith so that he could use the stolen credit card. This is probably why PayPal now severely limits the amount of money that can be spent in an account before verification.
[ edited by SnowDog2001 on Jul 9, 2001 04:54 AM ]
No. This is about sellers that think PayPal has intercepted their money when they don't have accounts. A buyer can't open an account for a seller, not with PayPal, PayDirect, MoneyZap, or C2it. With any of those services a buyer can send money to a seller that can collect the funds if they choose by opening an account.
This is probably why PayPal now severely limits the amount of money that can be spent in an account before verification.
Have you been keeping track of that? PayPal has just raised the amount from $250 to $1,000 that can be sent without verification.
posted on July 9, 2001 01:37:05 PM newHey you can voice your displeasure all you wish, I'm not stopping you.
No, you aren't stopping me. However, you are popping in on a thread that has nothing to do with you, and making condescending little 'sighs', apparently trying to minimize my position. Why? I have never said anything to or about you.
If you don't like my comments, go find another thread to post in. Until PayPal satisfies me (which I know will never happen), I'll be here as a beacon of bad tidings, adding another voice to the leigons of dissatsfied PayPal users. I suppose we are all wrong, and you are right, eh?
Again, why do you play the role of 'PayPal defender'? Are you personally wounded when anyone has a less-than-positive experience and dares to post it here? If I love PayPal and would never pay using another service, or hate PayPal and never use them again has zero bearing on you, right?
I don't intrude on positive threads to naysay, so how about you recprocate, ok? Just ignore me and all my posts from here on in...is that too much to ask? Especially since you seemed to ignore my challenge re: your claim that PayPal answered my questions.
Maybe you should get a job at PayPal customer service. You seem to exhibit all the necessary traits.
I can point out that in the same thread you are voicing your displeasure because you felt you were owed a refund as a buyer and at the same time you're joined in your complaint by a seller that feels they were wronged because a refund was given to their buyer.
Uhh...wrong again. I asked for some legit questions to be answered. All were totally ignored. This decision has the consequence of keeping me dissatisfied, and here to continually publicize this dissatisfaction. You don't like it...too bad.
I'm sure there will be a service someday that will be able to satisfy both the buyer and seller with their decisions when disputes between a buyer and seller arise. Maybe they can call themselves PaySolomon.com.
Hahahaha...I guess. I don't give a rat's patootie what happens in any other transaction. Those disputes are between PayPal and the 'wronged' individual. I do care what happens to me in my transactions.
I feel that PayPal fell woefully short of even providing average customer service. Lots of other posters happened to agree. Since you apparently don't, please free yourself of the burden of dealing with my by ignoring all my past, present and future posts, on this or any other board. There are plent of 'happy, happy, joy, joy' posts for you to occupy your time.
Till that day the disatisfied buyer or seller in any dispute can click on the BBB link (provided by loggia) and enter their complaint.
Wow! Thanks for the insightful advice. If you had bothered to read and comprehend my first post in this thread, you'd see that I did just that, and was asking what to expect from the BBB.
Please save any future nuggets of wisdom you care to dispense for the cheering masses desperate for a PayPal t-shirt. I'm sure they'd be much more appreciated there.
Then they can whine for weeks or months on the message boards to vent their frustration at PayPal
Wrong again, pally. When I get poor service, I publicize it where and when I can. In most cases, the company that I have a problem does something to help rectify the situation. At that point, I go away, relatively happy and continue to give my business to that company.
Here, I have received nothing but a slew of ignored phone calls and e-mails, lies, non-answers and endless regurgitations of TOU. Not good enough. Not by a longshot.
If PayPal would have had an iota of business sense, they probably could have come up with something to satisfy me. But if they are going to stick steadfast to '0', then I am going to stick just as hard to '100'. There is no '50', unless both parties are willing to work with each other.
My only recourse is to help give PayPal bad publicity where and when I can. You can 'sigh' and call it 'whining' all you want, but it does not change the facts, nor does it change the minds of those who see my point here. I am truly soory I had to sever my customer relationship with PayPal. But I am not sorry that you have so much trouble with my posts here. Go do something else.
Again I'll ask: Why do you care so much? Is it taking $ out of your bank account every time I post negatively about PayPal? I really shouldn't even have enough impact on you to even have you waste your time with me, espically in a thread that was not for you and did not reference you in any way.
because no other parties in the transaction offer any such 'vent release'.
PayPal is the one who authorized me to file, knowing I was outside the window in the TOU. PayPal is the one who lied about the reason for denying my claim. PayPal is the one who trapped me in a maze of ignored emails, non-returned phone calls, non-answers, ignored questions, and endless quoting of marginally relevent sections of TOU. Explain to me why I should care about what any other entity offers?
posted on July 9, 2001 02:10:51 PM new
UARU - I believe that the situation that you refer to with the seller complaining about a buyer is my case and it does not take a Solomon like attribute to have known what the right thing to do here was.
PayPal refunded a crooked buyer his money after telling me themselves that this was a fraud being perpetrated on me and that the buyer had defrauded several others in a similar manner. They then compound this indecency by telling me that they have no intention of assisting me by providing me with their evidence of this situation without my obtaining a subpoena.
I have a lawyer considering my case now and that may well be to sue PayPal for complicity in a fraud by virtue of the fact that I have their emails informing me that they knew about this buyers fraudulent activities before they brokered the exchange and took their service fees.
I joined in on the thread with Purplehaze because I share his/her sentiment regarding the inadequacy of PayPals customer focus or lack thereof. I also share the point of view that any activity that I/we can take to make others aware of their shortcomings and to educate potential customers of PayPal is a valued service to those individuals. For myself, the PayPallies, all of whom seems to resort to qouting barely relevant sections of the TOU and ignoring the core issues, puzzle me. Why would anyone spend their days and nights scouring this board and defending the indefensible? Those of us who feel wronged have a purpose, we seek the understanding of those similarly wronged and to share possible solutions. What do you get out of it? Sorry, by you I mean the PayPallies, not wishing to incur the wrath of the moderators here.
I only wish that before using PayPal I had done my homework and read some of these threads I would be better off today, but if I had read them then and had not experienced a negative result I cant see me spending my valuable time trying to undermine those who had.
posted on July 9, 2001 02:34:51 PM newBecause you've seized on what was, at worst, a mistaken statement by a PayPal employee and you're trying to make a federal offense out of it.
Ok...let's assume you are right (even though you are no expert on my dealings with PayPal, and you have no more knowledge as to what 'Shannon' meant that I do, and I do not appreciate your claim that you somehow do), PayPal made a mistake here.
Continuing on this little train of thought...when PayPal told me that my claim was denied, since the transaction happened before August 1, 2000, when it did not, that was another mistake, right? And every ignored e-mail and unreturned phone call? Just more mistakes? And ppd's firm insistence that all my questions have been answered, when in fact none of them had? Simply a few mistakes again? This is acceptable to you?
Would you continue to go to a restaurant that routinely made several mistakes with your transaction every time you were there?
PayPal needs to do something to make up for this. Not a full refund, but certainly not the endless b.s. they heap on me in the name of customer service. Honestly and completly answering my legit questions would certainly help. I am owed that much, no matter what you or any of the other smiley-faced gladhanders seem to think.
When my kids do that, they might get sighed at.
That's nice...but who gives a flying rip about you or your kids? Buh-bye...
[ edited by purplehaze1967 on Jul 16, 2001 02:14 PM ]
posted on July 9, 2001 02:55:59 PM new
Roofguy wrote:
It seldom seems difficult to decide if one considers only one side of a story.
I don't know, you seem to do quite well at it.
PayPal in my case have both sides of the story but are refusing to provide the other side. As I know my side of it and know that I acted legally and ethically and I have PayPals statement that the buyer acted fraudulently I guess there must be some devine insight on your part to infer that there is some justification to their position or something else that could be a factor that would justify them collaborating with the buyer to defraud me.
Its not that difficult a situation. They knew the buyer was a fraud, they brokered the transaction regardless and took their fee and now they shield the buyer behind them quoting their privacy policies. I think that any ethically minded person would agree that one who sets out to defraud another gives up his rights to that privacy. And before you even say it, this buyer is not an american and protected by our rediculous laws that protect the guilty and further victimize the innocent.
posted on July 9, 2001 05:25:17 PM new
Fortnum, I'm not saying those growth numbers aren't around in various places (and they seem to vary), but I don't think in another year PayPal is going to have 17 million users.
eBay itself only has 22 million registered users (they added 12 million in the past two years). After a certain number, it gets harder to acquire new customers. But if I'm wrong next year, then hats off to PayPal!
* * *
Uaru I see the article but I'm not sure I understand your meaning.
posted on July 9, 2001 07:57:44 PM new
Loggia - I hope that you are right. I wonder what percentage of those accounts are retained past 1 transaction, 1 month, six months etc.
If you consider your point, which I believe is that there will be a finite point to the growth and that it should somewhat mirror the auction site membership and my point which is that they do not appear to be too concerned with account retention then one would have to surmise that the business plan would be to hit hard, milk the source then cut and run. Mike Milkin would be proud.
Have you noticed that the real banks have stayed out of this arena. Certainly PayPal, by virtue of not being a real bank benefit by avoiding the federal regulatory requirements. It would be interesting to run an analysis from the standpoint of operating as a real bank would, with hightened security and adequate customer services, and see if it is possible to survive and make profits. My first sense is that I doubt it or the major banks would be in on this already.
posted on July 9, 2001 08:42:41 PM newfortnumHave you noticed that the real banks have stayed out of this arena. Certainly PayPal, by virtue of not being a real bank benefit by avoiding the federal regulatory requirements.
How about the banks that have invested in person to person payments services, like Providian, CitiBank, Bank One, Wells Fargo?
posted on July 9, 2001 08:51:41 PM new
Well, investing in is not quite the same as conducting business as but I would be interested in the details, what have you got?
posted on July 9, 2001 08:58:13 PM newLoggia-[Fortnum, you might want to contact the American Arbitration Association at 1-800-778-7879 and ask them how you go about entering into arbitration with PayPal and if it can be done without a lawyer.
I contacted the American Arbitration Association today and gave them my details. We shall see if that achieves anything positive. Thanks for the tip.
posted on July 9, 2001 09:13:19 PM newfortnumWell, investing in is not quite the same as conducting business as but I would be interested in the details, what have you got?
Providian (and several international banks) are invested in PayPal, Citibank owns C2it, Bank One owns eMoneyMail.com, Wells Fargo owns 1/3rd of BillPoint, First Data owns MoneyZap.com.
----
BTW PayPal's money market fund is operated by Barclays.
posted on July 9, 2001 09:29:36 PM new
Damon,
The following is taken directly from your web site. Why then am I being told that I must get a subpoena in order to have you provide me with the details of the fraudulent activity that impacted my account.
We disclose information that we in good faith believe is appropriate to cooperate in investigations of fraud or other illegal activity, or to conduct investigations of violations of our Terms of Use.
[ edited by fortnum on Jul 9, 2001 09:30 PM ]
posted on July 16, 2001 01:31:41 PM new
So Damon, are you saying that your policy statement is not completely accurate and in fact should read:
We disclose information that we in good faith believe is appropriate to cooperate in investigations of fraud or other illegal activity, or to conduct investigations of violations of our Terms of Use. BUT ONLY IF YOU GET A SUBPOENA!!!
or are you saying that in my case where you are shielding the identity and details of a known defrauder so that I cannot take the appropriate legal action against them, seeking recompense and preventing them from doing this to others, that you do not "in good faith" believe it "appropriate" to cooperate.
posted on July 16, 2001 02:07:06 PM newSo Damon, are you saying that your policy statement is not completely accurate...
Remember, PayPal TOU can supercede any statement, verbal or written, from any PayPal rep at any time, without prior notice.
By the same token, any statement from any PayPal rep, verbal or written, can supercede PayPal TOU, at any time, without prior notice.
Basically, PayPal will do or say whatever benefits the the most at the time, then change gears the minute a new statement might benefit them more.
[ edited by purplehaze1967 on Jul 16, 2001 02:15 PM ]
All customer information is considered proprietary and will not be released without a legal document. If this wasn't in place, any person could simply contact us and ask for information on another person's account. You would actually find this to be the norm at all companies.
posted on July 16, 2001 05:31:05 PM new
>>All customer information is considered proprietary and will not be released without a legal document. If this wasn't in place, any person could simply contact us and ask for information on another person's account. You would actually find this to be the norm at all companies.<<
Sorry Damon but this is incorrect. "Customer" information is proprietary. Crooks who open accounts in order to defraud should not be considered customers. If someone stole one of my checks and cashed it, my bank WILL send me the check so I can see who cashed it. They won't hold the check and tell me I need a subpoena to get this info. When someone tries to charge back a sale I made from my merchant account, the merchant bank WILL contact me and give me the name and address of the person making the charge back. They don't need a subpoena. Only Paypal and Billpoint seem to think that they should be protecting thieves.
Your response about "any person can simply call" is silly. We're not discussing "any person" calling. We're discussing the victim of the fraud. Paypal KNOWS there was a fraud, they KNOW who the victim is, they KNOW who the crook is and they choose to protect the crook.
posted on July 16, 2001 05:53:14 PM new
>>There is the problem... you could accuse anyone of being a crook. <<
First of all, we're not talking about mere accusations here. We're talking about where paypal is telling a user "we have resolved this matter in your favor. Unfortunately, we gave the seller every opportunity to empty his paypal account, so we can't recover for you. But we'll protect his info unless you get a subpoena." or the seller is told "the user paid you with fraudulent funds so we're taking it back but we're not telling you who he was unless you get a subpoena."
But while we're on the subject of accusations, a customer complains to paypal about a seller and paypal's immediate reaction is to lock the seller's funds. It doesn't make a difference if the seller has over 500 positives and no negatives or how many hundreds of transactions the seller has processed with no complaints. It doesnt make a difference if it is only 5 days since the auction and the seller hasn't even had a chance to look into whatever problem the buyer is complaining about (in violation of Paypal's own TOS) or if the buyer does a charge back without ever contacting paypal (again in violation of PP TOS). Why don't you need a subpoena for that?
