posted on August 5, 2001 09:13:51 AM new
we recently shipped a item usps insured buyer reported that it arrived damaged and since she saw no damage to the box she would not file insurance claim with usps but instead shipped the itme back to us and now wants a refund.
Can she do a chargeback on this item ?
If there are no funds in our paypal account can they withdraw them from our bank acount ?
posted on August 5, 2001 10:08:21 AM new
Generally, if the item was returned as unsatisfactory, the buyer can force a credit card chargeback if the item was paid for by credit card.
PayPal does not remove money from your bank account without your permission. However, this does not preclude PayPal from using a wide variety of legal means to collect a legitimate debt. The uncollected chargeback becomes like any other debt, you have to pay it.
Surely you wouldn't claim that paying the chargeback was PayPal's responsibility?
posted on August 5, 2001 12:33:09 PM new
Up til a few weeks ago, PursePal claimed that paying the chargeback was its responsibility, if the seller followed its Seller Protection rules.
Guess what? PursePal lied. Again.
I suggest the seller get copies of Damon's posts to the boards, and PursePal's e-mail promising to keep sellers "chargeback free", and, if PursePal attempts collection, pursue a fraud case against them.
posted on August 5, 2001 01:45:30 PM new
I believe this is what you're referring to:
"Dear PayPal Seller,
Everywhere you turn these days, there are horror stories of Internet fraud. And online auction sellers are some of the biggest victims of fraud, often in the form of chargebacks. (Chargebacks occur when buyers reverse their credit card charges.) Sellers from all over the globe are writing about the financial burden of chargebacks:
"I had $1,485 yanked out of my account today for a chargeback from a customer, even though I have proof of shipping. My auction clearly states that I am not liable once the item is shipped...[and] I insured the package.
"[My] infant daughter may not have a place to lay her head since Billpoint took the rent money out of my checking account."
According to published reports, 2.64% of all online transactions are fraudulent, and auctions account for 9 out of 10 incidents of online crime. Chargebacks can double your cost of accepting online payments -- using a service that doesn't have chargeback protection could make you pay for transactions twice.
Fortunately, PayPal helps keep sellers safe from fraud. In addition to our sophisticated fraud-busting technology, PayPal also protects your money with the Seller Protection Policy -- a program designed especially to shield you from costly chargebacks. Just follow a few simple precautions and you can stay chargeback free.
Unfortunately, most online payment services don't offer similar fraud protection and burden their sellers with the cost of chargebacks. It really doesn't pay to trust your payments with anyone else! "
- Dan
----------
This message has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit your brain.
[ edited by dblumenfeld on Aug 5, 2001 01:46 PM ]
Even AFTER Damon acknowledged that Paypal had been misleading sellers about the extent of their protection, Paypal has continued sending out misleading e-mails.
Their latest, sent 8/1/01, says "PayPal gives its sellers a way to stay safe from costly chargebacks with our Seller Protection Policy," implying that this protection covers *all* chargebacks.
I have repeatedly asked Damon to explain how the purse seller (or, for that matter, mrspock) could have "stay[ed] safe from costly chargebacks. He hasn't answered. (Surprise.)
posted on August 5, 2001 07:09:03 PM new
And remember, all any fraudulent buyer has to use as a claim for a chargeback are those 3 magic words--"quality of merchandise"--and you can kiss your seller protection guarantee goodbye.
posted on August 6, 2001 08:34:48 AM new
PayPal protects sellers from credit card fraud, which includes the majority of credit card chargebacks regarding internet sales.
Quality of merchandise disputes are not credit card fraud. The merchandise must be returned to the merchant in the condition it was received.
While some quality of merchandise disputes arise from buyer's remorse, most arise from conditions dirctly under the control of a seller.
[ edited by roofguy on Aug 6, 2001 08:36 AM ]
posted on August 6, 2001 09:00:19 AM newWhile some quality of merchandise disputes arise from buyer's remorse, most arise from conditions dirctly under the control of a seller.
posted on August 6, 2001 10:04:58 AM new
If nothing else, it's simple logic.
Buyer must return the merchandise at buyer's expense.
Most buyers offer seller the opportunity to avoid the chargeback by simply taking the merchandise back and issuing a refund. The problems we have seen involve sellers who have declined that option.
posted on August 6, 2001 12:39:30 PM new
Roofguy is avoiding the issue, just like Damon does.
PursePal's e-mail didn't say "free from fraudulent chargebacks" (and, even if it had, many "quality of merchandise" disputes are fraudulent -- items not returned, items returned damaged or switched); it promised that sellers would "stay chargeback free". Period.
And, in the past, Damon has responded on the boards to questions about "quality of merchandise" chargebacks, saying that the seller would be protected if they followed the Seller Protection Policy.
posted on August 6, 2001 01:43:21 PM new
paypaldamon:
...I thought I would post our Seller Protection Policy for the users. This is a way to eliminate liability for charge backs (always a risk for credit card transactions)...
NOTE: elininate- not reduce.
dottie:
Damon, what I'm actually worried about with the latest BUYER protection announced, is that someone will pay for an auction via Paypal and then upon receipt of the item... go in and CLAIM that it's not what they paid for, or something like that.
In the event a seller logs onto the paypal site and finds a "Pending Reverse" in their paypal account status... what steps should they immediately be taking to ensure smoothe and SWIFT resolution?
paypaldamon:
The seller will be sent an email asking for specific information (shipping information, tracking numbers,etc). If the information is provided and the seller provided the steps of the program, then they will not have the payment reversed.
To be sure, the above post offers conflicting points of view in several places, which results in as much confusion as it does clarification.
At times, it seems that PayPal is using a language which, although nearly identical to english, contains words sufficiently different in definition to allow them to appear to say one thing while actually saying another.
From PayPal's TOU (this is the entireSeller Protection Policy subsection- see if you can find where "quality of goods" is addressed):
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, 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.) Because comparable proof-of-shipment is not currently available for electronically-delivered items, we are currently unable to offer Seller Protection for digital goods and other electronically-delivered items.
The seller accepted a single payment from only one PayPal account for the purchase. (Multiple payments from different accounts for a single item are a fraud indicator. Sellers should not accept such payments.)
The seller ships to a domestic (U.S.) buyer at a U.S. address.
The seller cooperates in resolving disputes by responding in the following time periods: When a complaint occurs, the seller must provide complete information within 7 days of a request from PayPal. However, if PayPal is required by the credit card association to respond immediately to resolve a chargeback, sellers must provide the information within 3 days. PayPal will indicate the response time required in the e-mail message sent to the seller.
When you receive funds through PayPal, if the sender's transaction is reversed for any reason and you do not qualify for the Seller Protection Policy for that transaction, you will owe PayPal for the amount of the reversed transaction plus any fees imposed on PayPal as a result of the reversal. You agree to reimburse PayPal from either your PayPal account or by other means. Although PayPal will vigorously pursue debt collection of any amounts owed to it, PayPal will never make electronic transfers from your checking account without your express permission.
PayPal prompts buyers to provide sellers with a Confirmed Address when making a purchase. Shipping to this address minimizes the risk of being paid by a fraudulent buyer. If no Confirmed Address is given by the buyer, the seller must either refuse the payment and ask that the buyer show their billing address, or accept the chargeback risk in shipping the item outside of this Seller Protection Policy. Tools for Premier and Business Accounts to refuse to accept payments where the buyer chooses not to share his Confirmed Address can be found on the Preferences page in the Profile subtab under the My Account tab.
--------------------------
If PayPal's Seller Protection(???) Policydoesn't protect against chargebacks based on "quality of goods" claims, one might wonder why their TOU doesn't clearly say so in the specific location where all(???) the other terms of that policy are posted.
posted on August 6, 2001 02:14:53 PM newPayPal 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, ...
This seems clear and unambigous to me, and it's consistent with everything Damon has said for over a month now.
PayPal's voluntary coverage for quality of merchandise chargebacks was shown overly generous, given that such chargebacks are almost always the result of situations under the direct control of seller. Further, they do not represent a significant financial threat to legitimate sellers, who get the merchandise back.
posted on August 6, 2001 02:45:37 PM new
mrpotatoheadd:
Well done! Glad someone took the time to put this digest of facts together. Damon does have a way of not including in the company line the limitations and exclusions that he, himself, has posted on these boards.
I don't understand--yeah, right!--why this "quality of goods" loophole in the seller protection program isn't in the basic corporate boilerplate by now.
But then, neither is a succinct statement about whether USPS Delivery Confirmation is really and truly an acceptable "trackable" solution to qualify for what little protection still remains in their seller protection policy. We who have read or stumbled across archived threads know that DC is acceptable, but ONLY IF it was obtained in person at the PO, and the PO managed to scan it in properly.
However, anyone using Endicia.com or other bulk mailing/preprinted programs is apparently NOT going to be covered because their items weren't scanned in at the PO at the beginning of the package's journey (Proof of Shipment). Even if the package shows as having been delivered (Proof of Delivery), Damon has said that this is NOT the same as "Proof of Shipment", so the seller protection program would be void.
You'd think the following part of Paypal's TOU-- "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.)"-- would long ago have been modified to add something like: Delivery Confirmation is an acceptable method as long as the package has been scanned by the post office to show proof of shipment.
But noooo, that would be too simple, logical, and time-sparing.
roofguy:
The statistic you should take a guess at next is: What percentage of fraudulent buyers uses "Quality of Merchandise" as the reason for charging back an item? Yes, theoretically the chargeback doesn't go through until the supposedly-deficient merchandise is returned to the seller, but I've read many desperate seller posts here saying the buyer had the seller's goods AND his charged-back money.
Editing to get those @#$$#@!! smiley faces outta here!
[ edited by vobistdu on Aug 6, 2001 02:50 PM ]
posted on August 7, 2001 08:40:21 AM new
roofguy has already made it clear that it's okay to lie in order to appear "overly generous". Would anyone believe the statistics if he provided them?
posted on August 7, 2001 08:42:26 AM new
vargas, I'm not sure what the problem might be with my claim. It's utterly intuitive, and consitent with all common experience.
Seller is in complete control of the original description.
Seller is in complete control of packaging.
In order to be a counter-example, seller must refuse to accept a return.
Given those things which seller is in complete control over, what scenarios does anyone imagine where seller is not in control of the situation?
posted on August 7, 2001 08:46:07 AM new
no one lied, books.
There was a time when PayPal went beyond their protection guarantee as written. When that was true, Damon explained it. When it became no longer true, Damon explained the more strict policy.
posted on August 7, 2001 02:11:10 PM new
The e-mail that Paypal sent out promised to keep sellers "chargeback free". That was in writing, and specifically designed to seduce sellers into using Paypal instead of Billpoint.
Before Damon announced the reversal (to the tiny audience of people who read these boards), someone sold a $2500 purse to a buyer who experienced buyer's remorse & filed a chargeback. Paypal refused to protect the seller from the chargeback.
Even after Damon announced the change (again to a very small audience), Paypal sent an e-mail to a very large audience claiming to keep sellers free of costly chargebacks.
Paypal has never sent out an e-mail (or stated anywhere other than here & OTWA, AFAICT) that it no longer keeps sellers "chargeback free".
This is the first time I've ever heard fraud described as a "good deed" I certainly hope it does not go unpunished.
posted on August 7, 2001 04:10:21 PM newsomeone sold a $2500 purse to a buyer who experienced buyer's remorse & filed a chargeback. Paypal refused to protect the seller from the chargeback.
Keep two things in mind about the purse:
-We don't know that this was buyer's remorse, in fact, we don't have any evidence of that at all.
-The purse was returned in the condition it was received.
posted on August 7, 2001 04:39:58 PM new
The original threads about the purse (on eBay's boards, I think, tho I could be mistaken), the seller said that the buyer complained that a similar purse was sold in a different auction for less money, and she wanted the same price on the one she won. If that's not buyer's remorse, I don't know what is.
Last I heard, Paypal still had the purse. They're hardly competent to judge whether the purse was returned in the same condition as it was shipped.
But suppose it was returned in damaged condition, or turned out to be a different item. (Or if, instead of a purse, it was a computer item which would lose half its value after a month, when the new model came out.) Would Paypal, which still claims in its e-mails to protect sellers from costly chargebacks, have done anything differently?
posted on August 7, 2001 06:04:26 PM newThe purse was returned in the condition it was received.
Unless you work for PayPal or know the seller, you have no way to know this. You have stated you do not work for PayPal. In that case, please stop making declarations you cannot back up...
I think it would save everyone a lot of energy if they just did not debate this gentleman....
In late May I sold a Designer Handbag for over $2500. The buyer promptly paid me via paypal. The next day I overnighted their item. 3 Days laters I had a very similar handbag that was ending (it was much smaller). Well the second handbag ended for under $1000. That evening I received an email from the buyer of the first ($2500) handbag. She was outraged that the second bag which was similar went for less. She Demanded that I accept the same price for the first bag that the second handbag went out for and that I refund her money promptly. She did not complain about the bag, it was new, Authentic as stated! Her complaint was that she paid too much!
At least, that sounds like buyer's remorse to me...
edited... spelling
[ edited by mrpotatoheadd on Aug 7, 2001 07:15 PM ]
posted on August 7, 2001 08:20:39 PM newroofguy saysI'm not sure what the problem might be with my claim. It's utterly intuitive, and consitent with all common experience.
It's completely devoid of any fact, or proof, to back it up. Your "common experience" may be light years away from mine.. or mrpotatohead's.. or books'... or anyone else on this board. The world isn't one big ol' common denominator. I'm a journalist by trade. I want to see cold, hard facts, not some message board poster's "intuitive" posings.
Seller is in complete control of the original description.
But seller has no control over how buyer interprets the original description, or how buyer's monitor interprets colors in photos. These are the kinds of things that can lead to senseless disputes.
Seller is in complete control of packaging.
And once said package is in the hands of UPS, FedEx Ground or USPS, it's beyond seller's control. Even the best packaging job won't save an item that's been run over by a UPS truck.
In order to be a counter-example, seller must refuse to accept a return.
Not always. Buyer simply has to call his or her credit card company without ever giving the seller the opportunity to make things right.
So, once again, roofguy, got any facts to back up your claims?
edited for ubb
[ edited by vargas on Aug 7, 2001 08:22 PM ]
posted on August 7, 2001 09:02:56 PM new
Oh... and one more thing from the original seller's post (purplehaze will certainly be able to relate):
2 weeks ago I get an email from her stating that she disputed the charge with her credit card company and that she won! 1 week ago Paypal takes out my account over $2500 and puts it in pending until further investigation. I swiftly call paypal explain the situation, the rep tells me I should be covered by their so called protection plan and the money will come back to me.
Of course, it didn't quite work out the way the customer service rep said it should. I guess good help is hard to find these days...
posted on August 8, 2001 10:31:46 AM new
1. We've never heard from the purse buyer, so we don't know what the buyer might say. On its face, we find that buyer thought the purchase involved a $2500 value purse but received a $1000 value purse. Every credit card company in the world would accept that as a "quality of merchandise" issue.
2. Seller REFUSED to take it back. No sympathy here. Total control over that decision, bad decision. No one can expect PayPal or anyone else to cover the cost of such a decision. This point is the core of the entire discussion. PayPal cannot accept financial responsibility for seller's refusal to accept the return.
3. Control of how a description is interpreted is much like the control over a car exercised by a driver. Loss of control is the result of driving badly. Some drive recklessly on purpuse, and some simply do not anticipate the conditions they are about to face. In all situations the loss of such control is the responsibility of the driver.
4. Seller selects a shipping contractor. Total control there.
Lastly, and repeating, it's pointless to analyze statements made by PayPal before they tightened up, and it's deceptive to claim that they were made with any form of malice. Damon and others reported contemporary expectations. The expectations changed.
