posted on December 17, 2003 11:57:11 PM new
...sadly now totally 100% worthless & meaningless!
Ralphie & I have noticed a sudden rash of complaints on these boards about PP reversals affecting knowledgeable folks who appear to have followed ALL the rules, just as I have advocated for the past 3 years.
If ya follow PP's rules, it should be IMPOSSIBLE to be hit with a charge-back! He & I couldn't figure out what was going on with this!
So, we examined the USER AGREEMENT regarding the SELLER PROTECTION PLAN, & here it is:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This Policy was last modified on October 16, 2003.
General. PayPal's Seller Protection Policy is designed to try to help buyers recover funds from sellers who do not ship the promised goods, and to reduce the risk of reversals (a reversal, or chargeback, occurs when a buyer rejects or reverses a charge on his or her credit card) for sellers who follow the risk-reduction procedures specified in #2 below.
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 a $10 chargeback fee. You agree to reimburse PayPal from either your PayPal account or by other means as described in the Payments (Sending, Receiving, and Withdrawing) Policy.
Policy Conditions. If the following conditions are met, PayPal agrees not to pass through to sellers of physical goods up to $5,000 USD per year of reversals resulting from (a) a buyer's unauthorized use of a credit card or (b) false claims of non-shipment of goods. Once PayPal has absorbed $5,000 USD in reversals (or the equivalent amount in the currency of the relevant transactions), the seller is liable for additional reversals even if the seller meets all of the conditions set out below. This protection applies only to the sale of physical goods, and not to any services, intangible goods or sales or licenses of digital content. This protection does not cover reversals arising from claims that goods are "not as described." To reduce the risk of "not-as-described" claims, PayPal suggests using a clear description and pictures of the actual item you are selling in your listing.
To qualify, all of the following conditions must be met:
The transaction meets one of the following conditions:
The seller is a U.S. or Canadian seller shipping to a U.S. buyer, or
The seller is a U.K. seller shipping to a U.S. or U.K. buyer.
The payment is listed as "Seller Protection Policy Eligible" on the Transaction Details page. To see the Transaction Details for a payment, log in to your PayPal account and click on the History subtab of the My Account tab, then click on the "Details" link for the transaction in question.
The seller has a Verified Business or Premier Account. Note: While sellers outside of the U.S., U.K., and Canada may have a status of Verified, they do not qualify for and are not protected by the Seller Protection Policy and therefore will be liable for any reversals of the payments they receive.
The seller ships to the address listed on the Transaction Details page. To see the Transaction Details for a payment, log in to your PayPal account and click on the History subtab of the My Account tab, then click on the "Details" link for the transaction in question.
The seller can provide reasonable proof-of-shipment which can be tracked online. This documentation must show that you shipped to the address listed on the Transaction Details page. (Many carrier companies offer this service, including the U.S. Postal Service in the U.S. and Royal Mail in the U.K.) For transactions equal to $250 USD (or the equivalent in the currency of the transaction) or more in value, the seller also needs to provide an online proof-of-receipt in the form of a signature from the recipient. 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 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 reversal, sellers must provide the information within 3 days. PayPal will indicate the response time required in the e-mail message sent to the seller.
The seller ships within 7 days of receiving payment.
Do not surcharge the buyer. Surcharging for any PayPal payment is prohibited outside of the U.K. For a transaction to be eligible for the Seller Protection Policy within the U.K., the buyer may not be surcharged.
Confirmed Addresses. PayPal prompts buyers to provide sellers with a Confirmed Address when making a purchase. A Confirmed Address is either an address at which a User receives his or her credit card statements, and is checked by PayPal with the User's credit card issuer, or an address which PayPal has confirmed through an Alternate Address Confirmation process, which includes the verification of other official documents. Confirmed Addresses must be in the name of the account holder, and thus Gift Addresses in someone else's name can never be confirmed. Shipping to a Confirmed Address minimizes the risk of being paid by a fraudulent buyer. If a buyer does not provide a Confirmed Address, the seller must either refuse the payment and ask that the buyer provide a Confirmed Address, or accept the reversal risk in shipping the item outside of this Seller Protection Policy. Tools for Premier and Business Accounts to automatically refuse to accept payments where the buyer chooses not to share his Confirmed Address can be found on the "Preferences" page of the "Profile" subtab of the "My Account" tab.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does everybody see the totally cynical loophole? Us suckers (Ralphie&I) jumping thru all kind of hoops with CONFIRMED ADDRESSES and ONLINE TRACKING, etc,etc, and guess what folks?
IT'S ALL A CYNICAL NASTY JOKE!
Why?
Here's why:
"This protection applies only to the sale of physical goods, and not to any services, intangible goods or sales or licenses of digital content. This protection does not cover reversals arising from claims that goods are "not as described." To reduce the risk of "not-as-described" claims, PayPal suggests usinga clear description and pictures of the actual item you are selling in your listing."
Which sadly translates to: EVERY CHARGE-BACK will be deemed by PayPal to be "NOT AS DESCRIBED" & no matter how much baloney a seller invested in following the rules, he will be liable for the charge-back!
Plain & simple folks: we been HAD!
Are ya ready for the truly monstrously disgusting last piece of shameful arrogance?
IF YA FOLLOW THE RULES, QUESS WHAT PP WILL DO FOR YA? They will kindly waive the $10 c-back fee!
BFD!
Ralphie & I have our arms (+paws) wrapped around each other, ing on each other's shoulders -- screaming at each other: Sucker! Sucker!
I'm just flabbergasted by the total lack of respect for the sellers that this demonstrates!
What the hell do I use now in order to serve my buyers, yet, at the same time protect myself from all dem pretzel-chokers out there in feeBay-land???????????
posted on December 18, 2003 04:27:43 AM new
I think everyone should read tomwiii's post carefully or later come to regret not having done so. A little while ago I posted an angry note on the ebay booksellers forum on a very nervewracking and time consuming experience that I had because of paypal. Here it is............
BOOK SELLERS! Be very Wary of the Buyer Protection Plan...it's Grotesque
After almost 4000 successful mailings of books, mostly media mail, I got nailed by Paypal's horrendous Buyer's Protection Plan. I'd been reading various threads about it's unfairness, interference, etc etc, but didn't think it would affect me. Well it did and I can now agree with all who have suffered from it's arrogant, high-handed application to Sellers.
The problem for us book sellers specifically is that there is a rigidly applied 30 day rule that transfers the money you received, back to the buyer if he claims the book never arrived. Well, that's not unreasonable if priority mail is the vehicle and the buyer is honest, but with media mail it is unreasonable. In my experience here on the east coast, 30 days is exceeded in perhaps 3% of the mailings...California, Hawaii, or Alaska are a long way away. Think of the consequences....3% of the paypal customers you have can now get their money back...out of your account. Will they re-send you the money when it arrives?...some will and some won't. And if there isn't enough, paypal will freeze incoming payments to your account until it accumulates the correct amount.
OK, so guess how the petty chiselers and cheats are going to love this arrangement. You didn't opt into the Plan...you won't be cheated? Guess again...the plan was imposed on you without notifying you specifically (They used an ebay bulletin board). So you want to opt-out...well Good Luck! Yes it's possible, I did it after two phone calls, two lectures on how it was to my benefit, and probably a little outright truth bending from several layers of "Conflict Resolution" personel ("there's nobody that can handle the opt-out procedure at the moment, but I'll take care of it"...sure.} . Don't think that removing the blue icon from your pages does it...it doesn't. There is no opt out button anywhere. You must call paypal at 1-888-221-1161 and Hang Tough...it's toll free.
I am very angry, as you can tell...but justifiably, I believe. And I've just barely sketched my experience with this flawed, cavalier organization. There are other equally important problems that this "service" imposes on all sellers. Think about it, and especially the basic paypal stance that treats buyers as innocent angels and sellers as otherwise.
Postscript: The book arrived in California after 32 days. Fortunately for me the buyer was able to stop the chargeback process in the nick of time....he was like most of us, a decent honest guy but one who didn't know me and didn't want to be out a sizable chunk of money.
posted on December 18, 2003 05:18:46 AM new
Thanks, tomwiii, (and Ralphie, too) for the post. I had a reversal due to a stolen credit card. Will I be charged the $10 once all is said and done? If so, you'll hear me scream!
Since Paypal's income is derived from sellers and not from the buyers, you'd think they'd make more of an effort to protect the seller. Through eBay and Paypal, dishonest buyers (crooks in my book) have the perfect venues for ripping people off. Why commit burglery when you can do it all on-line?
While we're on the warpath, I don't just want the FVF back, I want the listing fees back as well. If you've been a victim (and with the help of eBay who allows these crooks to continue to operate) why should you not get your listing fees back as well? The item I was ripped off on cost me money to list, I get ripped off and now it costs me money to re-list it. Unfortunately, it's not an item that qualifies to get the listing fee back if I'm able to sell it. I'm still out money.
Both eBay and Paypal need to start paying closer attention to protecting their sellers. We are the ones that are keeping them in business. If the sellers disappear, so does the income.
I'm working on opening my own on-line store. I'm close to being fed up with all the crap between eBay and Paypal (and my other job, if truth be known). By my calculations, this store will cost me less to run per month than it costs me to list on eBay.
posted on December 18, 2003 05:47:52 AM new
This smacks of the former feeBay Shrillpoint culture!
Remember Shrillpoint? "Payments by FeeBay?" And their blatant contempt for the welfare of feeBay sellers?
Shrillpoint clearly advised that ANY chargebacks would AUTOMATICALLY be decided in the buyer's favor, regardless of any evidence presented!
PayPal provided the SELLERS PROTECTION PROGRAM as a counter-balance to Shrillpoint's total betrayal of feeBay sellers!
Wonder how many snot-faced jr MBAs moved over from Shrillpoint to PayPal after Monopoly Meg bought PP??
Can just see a bunch of these sleeze-toids gathered in a "think-tank," discussing "innovations" like this one:
"How can we prevent eating charge-backs, while, at the same time, giving the cynical appearance of providing protection so sellers don't desert in droves?"
I'm so upset & disgusted at this horrible back-stab
posted on December 18, 2003 05:50:16 AM new
"Not as described" has always been the thorn in the side of PP protection. Paypal says it's something a buyer with a paypal account can't use as a reason, credit card issuer is compelled to accept it as a reason. But then it depends on what your definition of is, is.
dd
posted on December 18, 2003 06:20:05 AM new
Sounds like payapl has been getting alot of chargebacks for crap being sold and decided it was no longer worth it to protect sellers, so the good will be punished with the bad...
posted on December 18, 2003 06:30:50 AM new
From day one of PayPal's Seller Protection Policy there has been only two things they've offered protection from.
If the buyer claims they didn't receive the item. The buyer claims the payment wasn't authorized. They are basically protecting you from people using stolen credit cards and/or stolen PayPal accounts. They do this very simply by allowing the seller to prove the item was shipped to the confirmed shipping address.
There is absolutely no way that PayPal or anyone else for that matter can protect you from the buyer protection policies of their credit card issuer.
Panic all you want, get outraged all you want, but there is nothing different from the way it's always been. There's nothing that can change the way it is short of VISA, MasterCard, Discovercard, and American express changing their buyer protection policies.
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that all of VISA, MasterCard, Discovercard and American Express customers aren't going to be getting a letter this year saying that their buyer protection policies for quality of merchandise have been eliminated.
posted on December 18, 2003 07:06:46 AM newthere was NO "quality" exclusion!
Never has been, never will be. You expect PayPal to guarantee your buyer will be happy with their merchandise? Do you expect PayPal to tell VISA that they won't honor any quality of merchandise claims?
Once again. The only purpose of the SSP is the prevention of claims of non-delivery and unauthorized purchases to safeguard against stolen credit cards and/or stolen PayPal accounts.
posted on December 18, 2003 07:13:17 AM new
Certain paypal cheerleaders here (possibly reimbursed "consultants"?) can pretend that Paypal is only following credit card rules but this has been proven to be a blatant lie numerous times.
I have had 4 charge back attempts on my merchant account in the last 3 years. I won all 4 because I was able to prove that I shipped to the cardholder's address and it was delivered. In all 4 cases, the credit card issuer told the buyer they would have to return the merchandise. PP allows the buyer to charge back and keep the merchandise.
When I accept a credit card, I know who the card belongs to and it is my responsibility to validate the info. Paypal can send a seller a so-called "confirmed address" and then reverse it by saying "fraudulent funds." If it is fraudulent, it is PP who verified it, so why does their customer (the seller) get hit? And if the seller wants the buyer's information so they can deal with it themselves, PP refuses to provide it, protecting known crooks.
PP allowed a buyer to order merchandise under their confirmed address and then have the PO forward it to a different address. They then told the seller that since it did not go to the confirmed address, he does not get protection. This even though tracking showed "forward at the customer's request." I serious doubt a credit card issuer would pull such a stunt.
PP claims that if you get signature confirmation on a package over $250, you are protected. But then sellers found out that they give you only 7 days to produce this proof. It takes longer than that to obtain the proof when you call any of the shipping companies. So once again they put a term on their site that they know they can make impossible to follow.
If A cheats B and then uses the money to pay C, PP will take it away from C. Based on some posts here, it seems that if C pays D, they will go after D. No financial institution would dare do this. No bank would take away your CASH because you got it from someone else who may have cheated a different party.
When a buyer pays with a method other than credit card, there is a limited amount of time they can make a claim. PP has allowed buyers who paid with paypal balance or bank account to reverse the payment months later.
PP is subject to no laws. They are judge, jury and executioner. There is no appeal.
But the real problem is not if paypal is as safe as charging a credit card. The real problem is that paypal pretends to be safe. Credit cards don't promise protection to the sellers. They warn you about the dangers. Paypal lies by promising protection they have no intention of honoring.
posted on December 18, 2003 07:17:32 AM new
if you are a retail store and accept credit card ,you are expected to accept returns.
if a customer makes an effort to return the merchandise and you refuse,the customer can file chargeback and win the case PLUS keep the merchandise.
so the retail store not only lost the merchandise,it also paid for the cc discount fee,transaction fee and the chargeback fee .
these days the chargeback fee can vary from 15-35 dollars.
so it looks like if an ebay buyer complains of item not as described,it is better to let him return the item and refund his money than risking him doing a chargeback.
just one person opinion.
i am not propaypal,as some of you think i am.
-sig file -------the lobster in the boiling pot of water who tries to prevent the others from climbing out.
posted on December 18, 2003 07:36:50 AM newyisgood If A cheats B and then uses the money to pay C, PP will take it away from C. Based on some posts here, it seems that if C pays D, they will go after D. No financial institution would dare do this. No bank would take away your CASH because you got it from someone else who may have cheated a different party.
If you could provide one single credible source for that claim you would, but you don't. You make that claim over and over yet you offer nothing to support it. If you want to convince us the sky is falling then you better show us a piece of the sky.
posted on December 18, 2003 07:38:10 AM new
twelvepole.
if sellers do not accept paypal,then paypal would get no income.
In fact,instead of having personal paypal account,give your buyer your bank account number and ask them to do ACH.
no paypal fees,no complaints and no dc .
-sig file -------the lobster in the boiling pot of water who tries to prevent the others from climbing out.
posted on December 18, 2003 07:41:38 AM newSW: yes...but still, that ain't the point!
#1: PP used to protect sellers with the SPP -- they said in their TOS that, if sellers FOLLOWED the RULES, PP would absorb charge backs! I just read the TOS a few mos ago before coming here to make a cheerleading point!
#2: NOW PP is saying: "PP will absorb charge-backs if sellers follow the ruler, except in cases of quality disputes!
WHICH MEANS THE FOLLOWING: from now on, regardless of the TRUE REASON for the charge-back given by the buyer to the CC company, PP will simply REVERSE ALL DISPUTED PAYMENTS & CALL THEM "QUALITY DISPUTES" & THUS NOT COVERED UNDER THE INSULTING SPP!
posted on December 18, 2003 07:50:41 AM new
This should come as no surprise. PayPal has a history of changing the rules without notice. And of not giving a damn about sellers. That's not going to change.
So those who choose to use the service can't really complain when they get stiffed. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 18, 2003 08:22:55 AM newuaru: they specifically excluded them! They used to say that they didn't get involved with it -- that it was the BUYER'S RESPONSIBILITY to work it out with the seller!
NOW, PP has officially listed this exclusion -- effectively rendering the SPP a worthless joke!
WARNING TO ANYBODY WHO CAN READ:
PayPal's Seller Protection Policy is a Worthless Joke
Confirmed Addresses are...MEANINGLESS!
Online Tracking is...MEANINGLESS
Shipping to USA Buyers is...MEANINGLESS
From NOW ON, everytime PP gets a chargeback request from a CC company, they will IMMEDIATELY SCREW YOU OUT OF YOUR MOOLA & then blame it on "QUALITY DISPUTES"
This is a total farce & cynical kick in the butt for all the honest sellers who have stood behind this joke of a company!
Elon Musk wants to FLY TO MARS -- he should take all the other jerks from this disgusting excuse of a company with him!
posted on December 18, 2003 08:27:01 AM new
>>yisgood If A cheats B and then uses the money to pay C, PP will take it away from C. Based on some posts here, it seems that if C pays D, they will go after D. No financial institution would dare do this. No bank would take away your CASH because you got it from someone else who may have cheated a different party.
If you could provide one single credible source for that claim you would, but you don't. You make that claim over and over yet you offer nothing to support it. If you want to convince us the sky is falling then you better show us a piece of the sky.<<
Amazing what the paypal cheerleaders will stoop to! There have been at least a hundred posts here of exactly that situation but this isn't enough proof. Yet paypal has reversed payments with only the claim of "fraudulent funds." They refuse to explain what they mean. They refuse to give the seller the buyer's name or phone number. But this is enough "proof" that paypal is correct!
In case you have forgotten, I have no financial stake in this. I dont make a penny whether you believe me or not. On the other hand, paypal is making millions by tricking people into believing they are protected. Paypal is the one taking away people's money. So they should have the burden of proving their case.
Oh, I forgot. Paypal is judge, jury and executioner and since they are not a bank, they are subject to no laws. They don't need proof. We should all just take their word for it because we know they never lie.
"always free"
"we will never force you to upgrade"
"buyer seller protection"
posted on December 18, 2003 08:27:36 AM new
the problem is that paypal chooses to serve a market where you cannot tell who is a good honest seller and who is a crook?
remember the used car salesman who shipped a box of rocks using dc,signature receipt to confirmed addr??
the bidder was expecting a laptop
-sig file -------the lobster in the boiling pot of water who tries to prevent the others from climbing out.
posted on December 18, 2003 08:29:15 AM new
"...Which sadly translates to: EVERY CHARGE-BACK will be deemed by PayPal to be "NOT AS DESCRIBED"
Paypal doesn't determine the nature of the chargeback (not as described vs. non-delivery) - that is determined by the buyer and what they tell the CC company when filing the chargeback.
Paypal's SPP has never applied to not as described claims. They are being more clear about that now, where in the past they said what circumstances SPP DID apply and presumed users would understand that it didn't apply to other circumstances not listed.
posted on December 18, 2003 08:32:36 AM newYisgood: NOW ye be correct, as demonstrated by the overwhelming cynicism & TOTAL DIS-RESPECT for the intelligence of ALL HONEST EBAY SELLERS in this statement:
"To reduce the risk of "not-as-described" claims, PayPal suggests using a clear description and pictures of the actual item you are selling in your listing."
How insulting can PP sink? Do they think we CAN'T READ? That we have the brain-power of the average Texas-oilman?
THERE USED TO BE A PP SPP -- it no longer exists, folks, & our butts be hanging in da wind!
posted on December 18, 2003 08:58:04 AM newkatiyana:
I, the seller, am NEVER TOLD by the CC company the reason for the chargeback -- only by PayPal!
Since they now can worm out of their responsibility by claiming (DISHONESTLY) "not-as-described" on EVERY chargeback, do you really think PayPal is GONNA TELL YOU THE TRUTH??
For them to have changed the SPP this drastically, they must be losing a bundle on chargebacks & have decided on this ploy!
If you believe that PayPal is gonna be honest about the reason for the c-back as related to them by the CC company, then I have a lovely bridge...
posted on December 18, 2003 09:05:58 AM new
tom,
the buyer cc company decides who win in the chargeback.
yes,there must be a lot of cases where the buyer files chargeback because they are not happy with the item they won on ebay.
may i ask how much is involved in your case??
by the way,the average texan oil man is doing very well right right now.
-sig file -------the lobster in the boiling pot of water who tries to prevent the others from climbing out.
ing on each other's shoulders -- screaming at each other: Sucker! Sucker!
