posted on October 11, 2000 01:06:04 PM new
Damon -
Sellers taking money and not shipping product falls under US Federal Mail Fraud laws. That's the first place the buyer should go.
Delivery Confirmation does not help me if it's lost in the mail, insurance does.
posted on October 11, 2000 02:46:51 PM new
Hi lindajean,
I would believe that this is the exception and not the norm.
This information is needed only in the event of a dispute. It depends on the comfort level the seller decides to take when not sending it out in a manner that could impact their feedback rating or their PayPal account.
We would prefer that buyer and seller settle all disputes before it even came to us. We only get involved on a PayPal transaction after 30 days and no later than 60.
posted on October 11, 2000 05:02:43 PM newSellers taking money and not shipping product falls under US Federal Mail Fraud laws. That's the first place the buyer should go.
Not if the US mail was not used.
In particular, it is not mail fraud to accept money from someone using PayPal based on a promise to use the US mail, but then fail to use the US mail (or any other kind of delivery) as promised.
It may well be fraud, but it's not the federal crime of mail fraud.
posted on October 11, 2000 05:20:03 PM new
Hi lindajean,
That is the current threshold (which would be subject to change). Much of this will be mitigated when we can actually restrict the amount of the transaction in questio versus restricting the account. This has become top priority with engineering and the fix should be available soon.
As far as the threshold time limit, much of it is actually dependent on the information coming back from the buyer/seller in a timely manner.
posted on October 11, 2000 05:23:55 PM newI would believe that this is the exception and not the norm.
paypaldamon when the light turns green, do you put the hammer down, or do you check out reasons why that might be a bad idea?
One could point out that an oncoming car accelerated to get through the intersection is the exception and not the norm...
..but remains a real concern which we take a personal interest in avoiding.
In fact, despite being the exception, such a consideration is even more a part of dealing with stoplights than "stop on red and go on green".
So it is with fraud.
Fraud is vastly the exception, but dealing with fraud is a major analysis done by all financial services companies. Those who don't do a good job of that either end up with a mountain of fraud they're paying for, or they end up too paranoid to function.
Pointing out the relative infrequency of fraud is relevant to the analysis of fraudulent situations only to the extent that this observation suggests that one's policies need to be well planned enough to not instill fear and loathing into the good guys. That is where PayPal has failed, and continues to fail.
posted on October 11, 2000 05:26:12 PM new
Hi yisgood,
I am sorry you feel that way, but the information I provided is currently how things are being worked and this may not have been the case when your scenario occurred. I can only direct the concerns about the case back to the account management team to have it resolved or have an explanation offered as to the why (generalities do not apply to specifics, of which I am not privy to in this case)
I can only speak to the here and now, not what has happened in the past.
Engineering has numerous items being worked on at the moment:
1. International
2. Restricted amounts versus restricted accounts
3. Shopping carts
In addition to the other changes that have been occurring. We are working as fast as we can on all of the issues.
We had this discussion before. Months before as a matter of fact. A group of us suggested the Paypal should FIRST resolve the security issues BEFORE allowing charge backs. Like giving the sellers the ability to verify their buyers' addresses and accept/reject payments. Like locking just the payment in dispute and not the whole account. We suggested that Paypal FIRST add new functionality BEFORE adding fees. But all we keep hearing is "engineering is working on it." It looks like all paypal is working on is ways to hit us with new fees with no value added.
You keep saying it is supposed to work this way, it is supposed to work that way, but the bottom line is innocent people are having their accounts frozen, their bank accounts charged, their reputations tarnished with no explanation and no opportunity to respond. And it is beginning to look like the only reason for verification was to give PP a bank account to hit, despite their promises.
I feel awful because I recommended that people get verified due to your promises. And what is this nonsense that when someone's account is frozen without explanation, they first have to get through to paypal (not an easy task) where someone tells them to email [email protected] and wait two weeks for an answer because you can't reach them by phone? This is inexcusable!
While you're busy passing our suggestions to the blind man at Paypal who makes the decisions, suggest that there be an emergency number for people whose accounts were frozen and people who had money taken out of their bank account even though we know this never happens.
Paypal's heavy handed attitude is going to lead to lawsuits, if it hasnt already.
I feel bad about this because PP has made my life easier and has saved me lots of money and I dont like to feel like I'm repaying kindess with ingratitude, but I just cant keep on excusing this any longer. http://www.ygoodman.com [email protected]
