To Dear Paypal,
I am writing in response to legal advise to contest the review procedure of case PP-004-599-999-633, which evidently did not take into account key arguments of my case. I have tried every avenue offered by your website and supposed customer services, only to have recieved innumerable auto messages and no proper response to a very distressing case.
I have three key concerns, namely that:
1. I have adhered to my responsibilities as a seller and fulfilled the Seller Protection Requirements listed by PayPal, meaning that to resolve this case in the favour of my buyer is a violation of my rights
2. I am concerned by the quality to review due to the lack of contact by PayPal except for a grammatically incorrect, mistake-ridden email which I will attach below
3. There are errors and contradictions in the Buyer’s claims
Issue 1: Fulfilling Seller Protection Requirements
I have complied with each and every requirement listed by PayPal, and thus ought to be protected as a seller. To allow a seller's product to be returned in any state other than what which it was sent is a violation of that seller’s rights. Any inability to fulfil this requirement undermines the whole function of PayPal, and costs sellers money, making use of this payment system inherently unreliable I provided proof of postage, photographic evidence of this quality product, and an explanation of why the claims of the buyer were illegitimate.
Issue 2: the Review Process
I have good reason to believe that the aforementioned evidence was NOT engaged with by PayPal. I offered to gather the testimony from the Post Office that these microphones were sighted and sent in perfect condition (as well as sent safely) immediately after the Transaction was reversed, but I received no acceptance of this offer. I also, unlike the buyer, received no phone call, nor any inquiry into my evidence or arguments.
What I did receive is an error-filled, grammatically incorrect email from PayPal reading:
"Your buyer now request full refund with item return to you, if you accept please response wihtin 3days.”
Upon reading that, a seller can only be concerned that an investigation into a $1500 product is being handled by a team or individual that are not competent or fluent in the language in which the transaction was made. I wonder if it clear to PayPal that what was sent is a product in perfect condition sent safely, and that what would be returned is a damaged one. I would accept responsibility if it were indisputable that the microphones arrived in Taiwan in poor condition, but there are many contradictions and flaws in the arguments of the buyer that suggest otherwise.
Issue 3: errors and contradictions in the buyer’s claims
What is clear is that the microphones were damaged by the buyer because she wished to return the product due to previously mentioned financial limitations, and believed that she was not entitled to such a return without a reason (such as damage) due to the 'No Return Policy' displayed on Reverb. Her change of mind may have been due to the prolonged postage time resulting from Chinese New Year, and would have been acceptable if she had approached the seller and explained this predicament. However, without knowledge of this, she most certainly inflicted damage upon the microphones to warrant an immediate return. Reasons for suspecting this are, as I have suggested, her false claims.
The first false claim is that the microphones arrived with their capsules or ‘tops' removed.
This is not possible, because they are attached with a multilayered fine, tightly wound screw thread. To remove them with any motion other than a deliberate twisting action would require to force of a strong hammer blow or plier bend. What is evident is that, after inflicting damage upon the microphones, the capsules were removed for her photography.
A second claim was that the microphones dislodged.
These were packed in tight foam and a hard Peli Case provided by and used by DPA for their own distribution. Such a dislodgement is highly unlikely, and even if it occured, there would not be sufficient room in the box for the microphones to collide and cause damage.
A third claim was strong discolouration and severe external damage.
This, too, is an impossibility given the limited force that could possible be exerted on the microphones inside a box, even if they had miraculously dislodged.
The claims of the buyer are quite obviously flawed, and I request that this decision be reviewed. I am frustrated by the lack of personal contact, and unwavering bombardment of automated messages. It has been felt by myself and my lawyer that the system favours the case of the buyer by default, and has not provided sufficient grounds upon which to issue the return of a now-faulty product.
Kind regards,
User
