Hi, I recently had a customer purchase an item of my website. This customer opted to pay by installments for which we send an invoice for £20 as a deposit and then split the remaining balance up into 3 lots and invoice for them. At the time of ordering the customer inputted their details into my website, including delivery address, which they marked the same as billing address. (i have proof, sent to paypal). They purchased the item on the 23rd Oct and the 4 invoices were sent to them within moments. 3 of which were paid that same day. The final invoice was paid on the 4th Nov. We had to order back into stock the item and this was dispatched to them on the 13th Nov. Again, proof of postage sent to paypal. This shows that the item was posted and to where it was posted. The postage is automatically generated by royal mail linking into our website. What the customer puts is what the royal mail sends to. Once posted our system sends the customer an email saying its on its way. Shortly after this email went out i received an email from the buyer saying that the address was incorrect and provided my with another address, this was to late as the item was now with royal mail. Proof sent again. The customer then after not receiving the item.... opened 4 cases of item not received. After exchanges of information through paypal dispute process 3 of the case were awarded in the customers favour and 1 in mine. Whilst getting information together to write this email i have noticed that on the disputes the customer has put another address as a shipping address, one that is not in any of the correspondance to myself. This is a 3rd address... I find it strange that 1 of the 4 cases has been awarded to me... not all or none but 1. Paypal say that the other 3 was awarded to the customer as the item hasn't arrived and their is no proof that it has arrived. They provided an incorrect address so the item will never arrive. I do find it concerning now though, finding a 3rd address and looking at your seller protection i would asume that i should be covered as this looks more like a fraudulant transaction the more i look at it.
... View more
