Paypal Protection for Sellers - Non existant

[Mr_Bananas]

my recent experience with Paypal has now changed my perception of the company

I sold a Digital copy of FIFA 17 on ebay - it was listed as a card containing a 16 digit code - that would be posted out Signed for post - this way meeting the criteria for a auction for a physical item

the item was purchase and was posted out and received (signature was available via Royal Mail website using tracking number)

the paymant was reeversed and a hold put on the payment - I had already transferred the balance out of my account - so it was showing negative balance.

I raised my first and only case - and provided proof of postage & proof of receipt - I also explained that the auction was for a physical xbox card which was delivered, I contatced the buyer and he explained that his ebay account , paypal account and bank account had all been compromised by a scammer and that £1700 was taken , I contacted Paypal on several occasion to explain that whikst a sympathise with the buyer , I had meet all the obligations as a seller .

Paypal ignored and refunded the buyer the amount stated that I didn'nt meet seller protection !

So my paypal & ebay accounts were'nt compromised and I met all requirments yet I'm £52 out of packet

The buyer does'nt pay fee's on the purchase - I have the fee's deducted from the sale - on both ebay & Paypal - but no protection.

Further to that Paypal have deducted £52 from my credit card without my authorisation.

There is a real concern that both websites (ebay & paypal ) are trying to supress a rising tide of fraud online and

failing to protect the seller - it is our account that provide the fees.

If digital sales are not protected then there needs to be changes as the world is moving towards that - itunes / microsoft - bitcoin

- the world trades in digital / virtual products - ebay allow the sale of digital items but Paypal don't want to present theirselves to the risk and exclude their protection - if that is the case then Paypal should exclude or reduce their commission from sales of that type !

no doubt you can pick your way through my post and find fault with what I've done or not done but I strongly feel that the company are not accountable to the FSA or any extenal checks !

[kernowlass]

@The_momba

So sorry i responded to your post and tried to help you.

And it has NOTHING to do with me as you are not ''my'' fee earner.

I am an ebay seller as well and know perfectly well that you have to send trackable for seller protection.

If you didn't then its not an ''excuse'' you took the risk and lost out.

I met all conditions

Except it sounds as if you did not.

Proof of postage is not proof of delivery.

[The_momba]

Slightly defensive tone there for someone supposedly offering help...? I don't think I've blamed you anywhere... you assume too much. I have proof of postage and signed for delivery. Sadly PayPal seems to think there's an error with the information... good old Royal Mail are getting some sternly worded letters also. (automated?) The 'resolution centre' just seems to be a way of keeping distance from the actual people, and as far as I'm concerned, a way of finding 'errors' to maximise returns. As far as I was aware, and as always selling through eBay, I posted the item promptly following payment to the buyers address, uploaded tracking information, and withdrew funds after the nominal period of PayPal earning interest etc etc. You cannot reasonably expect a company the size of PayPal to not have insurances in place to minimise 'fees' for charge backs. A 'fraudulent' transaction has cost me, as a seller through eBay, £272.70, and PayPal effectively facilitated this... Absolute joke.

[UnhappySeller2]

nice try shilling for PayPal, but you know full well, I suspect,  what many sellers now realise....PayPal is totally inadequate for the seller. 

[kernowlass]

@UnhappySeller2

Not suitable for all sellers, no. That is why you have to READ up on fees / seller protection etc etc etc and then see if it works for you.

It suits many folks myself including but not for everything, that is why I diversify and use other sites as well.

Personally I don't 'shill' for anyone, however I will defend them if someone blames them when it clearly states what they do and do not do in a situation or what protection they provide.

As far as i am aware last time I looked its not compulsory to use paypal so if you don't like it you don't have to use it surely?

[UnhappySeller2]

Seems to me you have a remarkable amount of time to 'defend' PayPal.   As for it being suitable for 'some' sellers....do enlighten me.   PayPal''s entire website, contact procedures, even these so called community forums are complex, suspiciously so.   

Yes, the small print should always be read.   However, it may come as a surprise to you, but small print does not make a company or corporation immune from glaring shortcomings.

I recently sold on a website that I was misled into believing PayPal usage was mandatory.  It is no biggie, as the item I sold was tracked and received, I have all email records from a very satisfied customer,  and if....in half a years time he pulls a scam with PayPal blessing (which is what the 180 day buyer protection is), no biggie.....I will absorb it, much wiser.  But.  Rest assured, I - and many others - along with increasing media sources are alarmed at our opinion of PayPal's utter inadequacy vis a vis the seller, and will do all we can to stop other people making a huge mistake and using its services to sell.

The money in my account will be spent....and I will enjoy the ludicrous 180 day protection on an item  I have already selected, but not another thing will I sell as my account will be terminated.

[kernowlass]

@UnhappySeller2

Nope, I spend a remarkable amount of time on here >>

1. Saving folks from being scammed.

2. Helping folks that are new to paypal.

3. Helping folks learn how to open disputes.

4. Helping folks understand how refunds work.

I could go on. But hey if you can do any better then feel free.

I defend Paypal when they are in the right.

I do not defend them when they are not.

You just choose to dislike it when I do.

I could put it back on you ie why do you ALWAYS accuse them of being bad.

With 227 million accounts worldwide (and going up according to statistics), my saying that 'some' sellers find it suitable appears self explanatory.

But if it doesn't work for you thats fine.

[UnhappySeller2]

I had not actually realised it, but The Guardian has already done an interesting piece on the appalling inadequacy of PayPal seller protection for goods 'not as described', and how this is wide open to abuse by not so scrupulous buyers.  It is rather damming. 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/feb/01/ebay-paypal-sell-buyer-protection

As for why I always say PayPal is bad...I don't believe I said that.  I said I believed their seller policy is wholly inadequate, and I suspect they know that full well and care not one jot.  I could, of course, be mistaken.  However, a quick glance through Google about PayPal does not make them an endearing proposition for sellers.   Let us hope you yourself do not fall prey to any of these unscrupulous buyers, after all....they have 180 days to decide what is  'not as described'!

[kernowlass]

@UnhappySeller2

Their seller protection was I presume never intended to be a 100% coverall, you read up on it and risk assess your transactions.

Sometimes of course you will lose out, unfairly at times but that is no different than the risks bricks and morter shops take as well with shoplifters etc.

Apart from cash on collection no system can protect both buyer and seller 100% completely.

As for not falling prey to unscrupulous buyers of course I have. Every seller gets a rogue buyer every now, even risk assessing my transactions is not going to protect me 100%.

I just presume that as buyers prefer to use paypal for its buyer protection then by offering it I get more sales / higher bid prices that off-set the occasional pain in the butt buyer.