posted on July 18, 2001 07:34:22 PM new
I received the following email from paypal. I have had numerous shipments "lost" in the past month. I have reshipped them to the verified address with paypal using USPS delivery confirmation. The email doesn't mention a particular transaction. How do I respond to this?
Some of the reshipped items were received weeks ago. How long does it take to get my money back in my account?
Your account has been restricted due to recent complaints we
have received regarding non-shipment of merchandise, or problems
with merchandise shipped. Specifically, we have initiated an
investigation into transaction on behalf of the buyer. To assist
us in resolving this matter and to remove the restriction on your
account, please respond to this email with the following information:
1. The item or service that was purchased and the value
2. The name and address given to you by the buyer
3. Whether or not you have shipped the item or performed
the service
4. If an item was shipped, the company used for shipping,
date of shipment, and tracking number of the shipment
5. Daytime and evening contact information
Any additional information you may have, including emails between
the buyer and you, would help to expedite the investigation process.
posted on July 19, 2001 09:00:19 AM new
Here is another rare one. Same thing has happend to me this past month. I have had 5 people claim no receipt.
I e-mailed all 5 of them and ask them to confirm their address and I would gladly resend their package ASAP. I would also file with the post office about the first package not ariving and they could expect a post card from the USPS to sign that they did not receive the first package.
4 of them showed up the next day, (even though mailed weeks apart) and they left me positive feedback. I am resending one of them.
posted on July 19, 2001 09:20:48 AM newpaislydaisy
I'm assuming, since you've enclosed lost in quotations, your customers have been claiming non-receipt.
Although I've never had a shipment disappear in the 15 years of my R/W business, I guess anything can happen
Lanefamily explained a good way of "re-discovering" these shipments...
IMO, some people's lifestyles haven't yet caught up with the descending economy and they're trying to live it on the backs of you and others...
It's an interesting world out there...
BTW, for Lanefamily....have you used the "Signature Confirmation" service from the PO or has DC continued to serve your needs well? I was comparing the cost/benefit ratio of that service on lower cost items that I normally would self-insure or insure for under the 50.00 minimum....
posted on July 19, 2001 08:21:23 PM new
I had one package lost in a year on ebay. Now I have at least eight just from last month. I never used DC unless requested and didn't see much use for it since the only problem I had was that one package. I just reshipped the item.
The eight were more expensive items $60.00-$100.00 each and were not all paid with paypal. In all cases I offered to reship. One paypal payment was reversed before I reshipped so I didn't send it. The rest were reshipped at my expense. Now I'm out the two items for each lost auction with no payment.
One customer went through his credit card company not paypal for the chargeback. He wants the item but says he cant find a way to reverse the chargeback.
posted on July 20, 2001 06:46:21 AM new
Delivery confirmation costs 40 cents for priority mail and 50 cents for medica mail and is free for priority and only 12 cents for media mail if you use a service like Endicia. If you send out 100 packages, you will spend no more than $50 for all the confirmation. Isn't that cheaper and easier than refunding? In two years and hundreds of packages shipped, only one didn't make it and it was going overseas. I had a few customers claim non-delivery and then I sent them to the USPS website and the package suddenly showed up.
According to the thread in paislydaisy's other post--"proof of shipment, Damon help!"--you are then SOL if you need to use PP's seller protection plan. As I understand it, by using Endicia you don't have the PO scanning your shipment in, thus you have no "proof of shipment" even though you bought the Delivery Confirmation service!
The PO's website WILL show a "proof of delivery", but this isn't good enough to prove you SHIPPED it, according to ppd.
posted on July 22, 2001 10:31:47 AM new
I don't understand the confusion. Damon has said over and over that delivery confirmation is acceptable proof. It also says so on PP's site. So you do run a risk with Endicia if your package has never been scanned, which according to someone happens about 7% of the time. But 93% of the time, Endicia is no greater risk than shipping it direct.
But what difference does it make whether PP rules recognizes a delivery scan or not? There are many posts here and on other sites that prove that the rules at PP are constantly being broken.
posted on July 22, 2001 10:38:59 AM new
Why don't you get it? DC is only acceptable if the item gets scanned into the PO's system at the start of the process. This means that ALL Endicia-generated mailings PLUS the 7% native scanning-error rate at the PO are all SOL. Thus, DC is NOT always acceptable to PP when it comes time use their seller protection plan.
Let's at least agree we both think PP is less than perfect...
[ edited by vobistdu on Jul 22, 2001 10:40 AM ]
posted on July 23, 2001 08:04:49 AM new
I dont understand where you get this info. Paypal says it has to be trackable. If it gets scanned anywhere along the line, it is trackable. It does NOT say "we only accept the first scan but not the last."
If you use endicia, at 10 pm that night you will see "item accepted at xxx (your local PO) at 10 PM)" that IS the first scan for all purposes. Then there is another one when it gets delivered. Why would anyone think this is any different than if you brought to the PO and got it scanned immediately?
But the real problem is that PP's "seller protection" only works if the buyer claims non delivery. Then you have the scan to prove it was delivered. If the buyer claims "quality of merchandise" I think PP tosses a coin and decides whether the buyer or the seller should win.
I get this info from paislydaisy's other post--"proof of shipment, Damon help!". Read that thread carefully, especially ppd's responses and the real experience of others re this seemingly easy-to-comply-with requirement--NOT!
You can huff and puff and insist that proof of delivery is the same as proof of shipment--makes sense to me, too!--but ppd says they're NOT the same.
posted on July 23, 2001 08:20:32 AM newIf the buyer claims "quality of merchandise" I think PP tosses a coin and decides whether the buyer or the seller should win.
That's nonsense yisgood, and since you read all the reports, it's not clear how you could have been confused.
PayPal passes on credit card chargebacks if the chargeback resulted from the item not being as described.
They protect seller a whole lot more than Billpoint, who passes on all credit card chargebacks, regardless of reason. The most common reason an internet transaction results in a chargeback is unauthorized use of the credit card.
At one time, PayPal protected sellers from this chargeback too. This proved to be overly generous, and the generosity was removed. The previous recipients were understanably sad to see the change, but some of them turned on their benefactor.
Maybe it was a mistake for PayPal to have EVER covered such chargebacks.
posted on July 23, 2001 08:40:16 AM new
>>PayPal passes on credit card chargebacks if the chargeback resulted from the item not being as described<<
So you finally admit that PP IS charging back the sellers? It's about time. Paypal's "protection" is just about worthless. They should be honest about it and just say "we offer almost no protection." But they pretend to offer protection and then send Damon here to provide spin every time someone gets taken.
If you read the posts I provided, they have told buyers that they can't make claims for quality of goods. Then they have told sellers that they are not protected for claims of quality of goods. Well, which is it? Is the seller protected or the buyer? Every time Damon is asked to explain how the decision was made, he disappears.
Let's look at their TOU:
"Buyer protection:
This Additional Protection does not apply to disputes about the quality or attributes of delivered goods, goods that have been lost in the mail as shown by seller's presentation of proof of shipment, payments for services, payments to Unverified sellers, or a seller's failure to deliver intangible goods. In order to be eligible for the eBay Additional Protection, you must have paid for the undelivered goods with a single payment from a single PayPal account. The seller's Verification status will be displayed to you on the PayPal website when you confirm the details of your transaction, giving you the opportunity to cancel the transaction prior to sending payment if you do not want to pay an Unverified seller. "
Seems pretty clear that buyer is only protected against non-shipment of goods. Now let's look at seller protection.
"Seller Protection Policy. Beginning August 23, 2000, PayPal agrees to indemnify sellers of physical goods for chargeback liability resulting from a buyer's unauthorized use of a credit card and/or false claims of non-shipment of goods, for payments received by the seller through PayPal of up to $5,000 per year"
seems pretty clear that seller is NOT protected against claims of quality of goods. PP left this huge loophole in place so they are free to do whatever they please. Now let's look at what the seller has to do to get this so-called protection.
"if the following conditions are met:
The seller is a Verified Business or Verified Premier Account (U.S.).
The seller ships to the buyer's Confirmed Address.
The seller can provide reasonable proof-of-shipment which can be tracked online. This documentation must show that you shipped to the Confirmed Address. (Most U.S. carrier companies offer this service, including the U.S. Postal Service.) "
USPS delivery confirmation does NOT show the address, only the zip code. So while PP tries to pretend that DC is good proof, they can always weasel out and say it doesn't show the address (something they DID to a seller I know.)
So to Paypal and all its cheerleaders, stop talking about the so-called protection. It's meaningless.
I do have to agree with most of what yizzy said just above, especially the continuing problem of weasel-room that's left in (or out) or the terms.
As I read the TOU, the Buyer is NOT protected in disputes about the quality or attributes of delivered goods.
The Seller Protection Policy indemnifies sellers from a buyer's unauthorized use of a "credit card and/or false claims of non-shipment of goods", but--yes, it's true--they don't SPECIFICALLY exclude quality of merchandise as a reason to pass through a chargeback to the seller. So are we to assume the negative--if it isn't listed as an exclusion, it IS included despite no mention of it??
posted on July 24, 2001 09:00:18 AM new
The reason why the buyer and seller protection plans are not symmetrical is that there is a credit card company involved in the seller protection plan, but not the buyer one.
Buyers always have their credit card chargeback rights in place.
Additionlly, buyers are protected in some cases from seller fraud. In such cases, PayPal will take money from the seller and give it to the buyer. None of those cases involve quality of merchandise disputes.
The SELLER protection plan is protection from credit card chargebacks. In such cases, PayPal itself will absorb any credit card chargeback, when seller has followed the rules. Seller is not protected from quality of goods related credit card chargebacks.
In no cases does PayPal pass judgement regarding the quality of goods.
I know you're a staunch PP defender--and that ok. Someone needs to take the unpopular side in any debate.
Would you concede that your statement "The SELLER protection plan is protection from credit card chargebacks" should now be rephrased to read: The SELLER protection plan is protection from SOME credit card chargebacks?
I guess basic html doesn't work on this board!
[ edited by vobistdu on Jul 24, 2001 09:44 AM ]
