posted on June 8, 2002 01:06:46 PM new
Now that I got more information from the USPS regarding my mail fraud investigation, I can share some information about Paypal’s horrible service and worthless attempt to stop fraud..
Last year (October 2001), I sold an item on Ebay and the winning bidder contacted me by e-mail and asked if they could pay for the item with Paypal. I was an premier account holder and had been for over a year so I said ok.
They then e-mailed me an address and asked for a shipping cost. I went to the post office and got a price.
Later that night I received a payment notice from Paypal in my e-mail. So I logged into my account and saw a payment for that item. The payment was from a Verified Paypal account and it was from Paypal funds (not an e-check and not a credit card) as they had given me an address prior, they chose no shipping address required and sent me the funds without a shipping address.
Because of this selection , Paypal removed their account address and any of the normal warning of shipping or possible chargebacks. (Remember these were not credit card funds so they could not be charged back.)
So I sent the item with online tracking (which I covered the cost) to the buyer at the address they gave me. They got the item. They then left me positive feedback and an e-mail thanking me for the item.
Ok. Another completed sale. Or so I thought. About 3-5 days later, I got a generic e-mail from Paypal saying there was a pending payment reversal against my account. That I had 7 days to contact Paypal. So I replied sending them a copy of the tracking number, the feedback and the e-mail saying they got the item. Paypal gave me an automated response. So I sent them again, And again and again. All to only get automated responses. So on the 5th day, I finally found a phone number and called Paypal.
The guy who answered the phone rudely asked why I was calling and said I should be e-mailing them. I told him I had only two days left. He said a "buyers complaint" was filed against me but could not release any more information at that time. He said I have to prove that the item was shipped to the confirmed address. I told him I shipped to the only address I was ever given and it was received. He said I must prove that the address was “confirmed”. He told me to get a court order to make Paypal release the account information so I could compare it to my tracking address. I asked what ? He said that the terms of use says I must ship to the confirmed address to be protected under “sellers protection” I read him the term of the sellers protection it at that date where it said you must ship to the confirmed address for chargeback liability protection and that I did not get a chargeback. He said too bad. I am at “BUYERS MERCY” and if I can not prove my protection in two days, my account would be deducted the amount of $350 + . I then asked to speak to his supervisor. He told me he does not have to transfer me and then hung up on me.
So the reversal went thru. About a month later an Ebay user e-mailed me and told me they were frauded by the same Ebay user (but they did not use Paypal. They were paid by check and recovered all losses) He said once he got his money he would give me his phone number. He did and I called them. They said they got the item and would pay me with a money order. That never came. So I filed a USPS mail fraud investigation.
I contacted Damon from Paypal on the Ebay message board. He was beyond worthless. He said it does not matter what happened. If I did not ship to the confirmed address, I was liable. I asked him to show me where in the terms of use it said I must ship to the confirmed address (which was hidden on the account) Damon then posted the terms of use from Jan 2002 which turns out was re-written to say the word reversal where it said chargeback a few months before (http://www.archive.org to see the change)
Damon then claimed over and over the sellers protection was not changed. What ?? I showed him the changes word for word and told him Paypal can not legally alter the terms of use and apply it to past events. Under the new terms, the sellers protection says you must ship to confirmed address for reversal liability. Before it said Chargeback liability. (proven fact)
So now my account sits at a negative balance of over $350 and the buyer has responded to the mail fraud investigation 6 months later with a partial payment (less then half) which proves they got the item. Paypal and Damon stands behind their right to reverse the funds payment even though the buyer got and kept the item. The buyer has not paid me for my item yet and Paypal wants me to send them my money so their account can be used to comit mail fraud. So basically this buyer used Paypal to comit mail fraud and Paypal processed the reversal even with all the proof I offered them.
I have been an Ebay user for over three years and a Paypal user for about two years. They are a rude and unhelpful company. I have never dealt with such bad service and flat out disregards for the difference from right and wrong. Ebay at least closed the account but Paypal did nothing what so ever to help me.
As an California resident. I have contacted one of the law firms in an attempt to join one of the class action lawsuits against Paypal (if it does not cost me in time or travel). I have sent them some information including post from Damon from Paypal when he claims the sellers protection section of the terms of use where not changed and where he posted the incorrect terms to show me where they had a right to process the reversal.
It has now been 45 days after the buyer received notice from USPS and has acknowledge the claim with a response. However their debt has not been paid so I can now notify USPS that the part in question has not followed thru in full.
And Paypal still thinks that the buyer of the promised goods that were shipped and received has a right to the reversal because I could not prove that the address where they requested shipping was “confirmed” or not. I could not get the required court order in 2 days so I lost the claim. Buyer almost fully got away with Mail Fraud thanks to Paypal’s services.
posted on June 8, 2002 02:23:07 PM new
Damon, why doesn't your company compare the buyers address with the address the seller shipped too? Why do you require a court order for the user to get the buyers address so he can tell you what you already know?
posted on June 8, 2002 03:10:08 PM new
Because PrayPal would rather protect fraudulent users rather than have them prosecuted. A scam artist taken out of commission can no longer make PrayPal any money.
posted on June 8, 2002 06:20:36 PM newHowever their debt has not been paid so I can now notify USPS that the part in question has not followed thru in full.
Did you in other posts acknowledge a substantial partial repayment via MO?
posted on June 8, 2002 06:50:29 PM new
Maybe Damon mentioned that the addresses were different after the issue was brought to him on the boards, but why would PayPal ask the seller in the first place to get a court order to get the confirmed address so the seller could compare the addresses, when PayPal could have done that by themselves in 30 seconds without any court order?
[ edited by andrew123s on Jun 8, 2002 06:51 PM ]
posted on June 8, 2002 07:24:41 PM new
Based on information posted over time, the OP requested the address from Paypal. The buyer chose not to relaease it, at the time of the payment. It is not know by the OP or other private indivual, if the buyer even has a confrimed address. Paypal told them it could not be released without a court order. This is a privacy issue.
[ edited by Coonr on Jun 8, 2002 07:26 PM ]
posted on June 8, 2002 09:33:42 PM new
We are not talking about whether or not to release an address, we are talking about whether to see if the address already given to the seller to ship too was confirmed (if there is a confirmed address). What if in another similar situation, the buyer says no shipping address required, yet the buyer told the seller to ship to an address that happened to be confirmed with PayPal? PayPal could easily compare the proof of shipping the seller provided to the confirmed address and would see that the seller did in fact ship to the right address. But the seller would still lose the money. There is no logic to that.
posted on June 8, 2002 11:57:05 PM newandrew123 We are not talking about whether or not to release an address, we are talking about whether to see if the address already given to the seller to ship too was confirmed (if there is a confirmed address).
A FYI for those that have never accepted PayPal payments with a seller's account. For a year and a half a seller must make a deliberate action to accept a payment that doesn't include a confirmed billing address. When any payment is sent the seller must either 'accept' or 'decline' the payment if a confirmed/billing address isn't included on any payment. The seller may alter their setting to automatically accept payments without a confirmed billing address, but they must change their settings from the default for this to happen.
The buyer has the decision to include or not include their billing address, unless a seller has alter their settings to require only payments with a confirmed/billing address.
It wouldn't make much sense for the buyer to have the option of excluding their billing address if the seller only had to request PayPal submit it without the buyer's approval.
BillPoint started a similar setup this March. It works in a similar fashion, the buyer doesn't have to give the seller their billing address. The difference with BillPoint is the seller must still accept the payment.
Just a FYI for those that haven't accepted a PayPal with a seller's account, or a BillPoint payment.
posted on June 9, 2002 05:53:31 AM newWe are not talking about whether or not to release an address,
Yes we are. That is what the OP asked for and was told he would need a court order.
we are talking about whether to see if the address already given to the seller to ship too was confirmed (if there is a confirmed address).
Damon did that. (The ship to address did not match the address on file.)
What if in another similar situation, the buyer says no shipping address required, yet the buyer told the seller to ship to an address that happened to be confirmed with PayPal? PayPal could easily compare the proof of shipping the seller provided to the confirmed address and would see that the seller did in fact ship to the right address.
This is almost the situation. Based on previous posts, the buyer told the OP in the payment, no shipping address was required, yet the buyer told the seller to ship to an address. Damon did the comparison your talking about, and it was not even the same state.
posted on June 9, 2002 06:13:03 AM new
This is why you need a merchant account and let paypal die. When you get a credit card number, the person must supply the billing address and you always ship to that. In most processing gateways, can not process the card without the billing address.
With paypal, if the user does not give you the confirmed address, what are you supposed to do.
Also, can we stop with the cut and pasting, it really takes away for a discussion and makes the person look like cartman.
posted on June 9, 2002 06:28:49 AM newWith paypal, if the user does not give you the confirmed address, what are you supposed to do.
If you do not want to accept a payment, you can exclude many by properly setting your preferences in your profile. If you have already received the payment, simply issue a refund.
posted on June 9, 2002 06:35:15 AM new
Then you get at negative rating because you did not accept payment. In other service provides you with the billing addresss of the credit card and paypal should as well. This is why criminals use paypal so they can hide.
posted on June 9, 2002 06:39:12 AM newThen you get at negative rating because you did not accept payment.
Do you mean feedback rating on eBay? or do you refer to something else?
In other service provides you with the billing addresss of the credit card and paypal should as well. This is why criminals use paypal so they can hide.
If the buyer apporves, Paypal does provide the information. You can easily reject any payment that does not. Paypal stats say they have far less criminal activity than the industry average.
posted on June 9, 2002 06:47:19 AM new
I think we just hit the point, PayPal states that they have less fraud. I think most people do not believe a word that paypal says.
If people understood that there was no protection, or the same level of protection then other services, why use paypal. This is also the reason that paypal is being sued. People believe that they are protected and then they find out that they are not. In fact as a seller, you have more protection using your own merchant account, using propay, or ccnow then if you use paypal. In reality, paypal does not care about the buyers or sellers, just getting there hands on your money.
I will end my little preaching session by saying if you use paypal, the buyer and the seller, in my opinion, are less protected then if the seller had his own merchant account.
posted on June 9, 2002 06:56:02 AM newIf people understood that there was no protection, or the same level of protection then other services, why use paypal.
I do agree if they want more protection they should use a escrow service.
The reason I use PayPal, is because 16,000,000 potential customers do.
This is also the reason that paypal is being sued. People believe that they are protected and then they find out that they are not.
And a judge will determine if the plaintifs are correct.
In fact as a seller, you have more protection using your own merchant account, using propay, or ccnow then if you use paypal.
And in most cases, EXTREMELY more fees.
In reality, paypal does not care about the buyers or sellers, just getting there hands on your money.
posted on June 9, 2002 07:43:29 AM new
Coonr, I know Damon did that comparison. I am asking why before Damon got involved, the PayPal CS rep said he would have to get a court order so the seller could make the comparison, even though PayPal could have in less than 30 seconds without any such order.
posted on June 9, 2002 07:48:48 AM new
Uaru, in this case I think the buyer selected "No shipping address required," which didn't display the warning about the confirmed address. It is like sending a donation; you don't need a shipping address to donate since nothing is being shipped. PayPal will display a warning if it is a "goods" transaction and doesn't send their confirmed address, but in this case the seller says that no warning was displayed because the buyer selected no shipping address required. (This was less than a year and a half ago.) I never received a PayPal payment with no shipping address required so maybe they now put warnings on those transactions but in October 2001 it doesn't look like they did.
posted on June 9, 2002 08:03:08 AM newthe PayPal CS rep said he would have to get a court order so the seller could make the comparison,
To give the information to the seller, after the buyer declined to do so, would be huge breach of privacy, as the system is currently set up.
even though PayPal could have in less than 30 seconds without any such order.
We do not know if CSR did or did not look. My guess would be they did not, as they should not be allowed to comment either way. Fact is most often, a CSR simply follows a script that tells them how to deal with various request. When requesting personal, private information, they should (and it appears, did) tell the requestor how to obtain the information.
posted on June 9, 2002 08:21:02 AM new
I'm not saying the PayPal CS rep should have told the seller the address, I'm saying they should have told the seller a yes or a no on whether the address that he shipped to was confirmed. If Damon can do it after the issue has escalated to the boards, so can another PayPal employee.
posted on June 9, 2002 08:25:36 AM new
andrew123s,
It appears we will have to agree to disagree. While telling them the addresses does not match is no issue, If they say yes it matches, they just released the personal information of the account holder. In my opinion it is best if the CSR say nothing.
Damon is not the average CSR, and has the ability to obtain permissions/authorizations the average CSR would not.
posted on June 9, 2002 08:30:51 AM new
The folowing information is direct from the Paypal privacy statement.
Disclosure to Other PayPal Customers If you are a registered PayPal user, your name, e-mail address, date of sign-up, and whether you have verified control of a bank account are displayed to other PayPal customers whom you have paid or who are attempting to pay you through PayPal. If you are a Business account holder, we will also display to other PayPal customers the Web site address (URL) and customer service contact information that you provide us. However, your credit card number, bank account and other financial information will NEVER be revealed to anyone whom you have paid or who has paid you through PayPal, except if we are required to do so pursuant to a subpoena or other legal process.
If you are buying goods or services and paying through PayPal, the seller of the goods or services may request that you provide a mailing address that PayPal has confirmed as matching the billing address in the credit card system. You do not have to provide this information. If you do not provide the information, however, the seller may choose not to accept your PayPal payment and not to complete the transaction.
Beginning in spring 2001, PayPal will also disclose to other PayPal customers the number of payments you have received from Verified PayPal customers (as defined in the User Agreement on the www.paypal.com site), or other aggregate measures that provide an indication of your reputation with other PayPal customers.
posted on June 9, 2002 09:43:41 AM newandrew123 Uaru, in this case I think the buyer selected "No shipping address required," which didn't display the warning about the confirmed address.
That would not have made any difference. Even if the buyer has selected "service" the transaction would have indicated that no confirmed shipping address was supplied. If you have a personal and business account you can try this yourself. Send your business account $1 and select "service" and include no address of any sort. The transaction ID and email notice will inform the seller no confirmed address has been given. Unless you've changed your payment receiving preferences you will still have to 'accept' or 'deny' that payment.
Same goes for the preferences. The seller must 'accept' or 'deny' no matter what the buyer does to send that payment, whether the payment be for an auction, or service. Their is no way for a buyer to work around the 'confirmed' address preferences by selecting 'service.'
This is how it has worked since the system was installed back in early 2001.
posted on June 9, 2002 10:09:57 AM new
Now it might be different, but the seller here is indicating at the time of this transaction (Oct 2001), with "no shipping address required" selected by the buyer, there was no warning of possible chargebacks/reversals.
You mean listen to Damon who has public posted the wrong terms of use against me (which has been submitted to an attorney) who said the sellers protection clause was not changed told me like 4 months after the reversal that the address might have been a different state? That gives the account holder 4 months to alter the account. In my opion, I don't believe anything he has to say. He represents Paypal. I don't trust Paypal. The buyer could have changed their confirmed address after they got my item. Damon is worthless. Their customer service is worthless. They never offered me any help. They told me I was at “buyers mercy”
I may have shipped to the confirmed address. The CSR would not confirm. He would also not transfer me to a supervisor and Paypal would not reply by e-mail. They made no effort what so ever to help me.
But the confirmed address does not matter. I did not get a chargeback. I did not accept credit card funds. According to the terms of use word for word, I needed to ship to the confirmed address for chargeback liability protection. It did not say reversal liability until Jan 2002.
And it's very funny that you know more about what took place over the phone between myself and Paypal. You claim to not work for Paypal but you claim to know more about my transaction then Paypal or myself ????
andrew123s
Yes. The buyer selected auction goods and selected no address required. Like if you were buying a large item for pickup. Like a big screen TV. Paypal does not have a buyers complaint policy for pick up items.
So if the buyer did not request shipping. The terms of the payment are for pickup.
So the buyer should not have been allowed the complaint. The buyer could not prove I ever promised to ship them anything. The item was available for pickup also. Most of my sales can be picked up. I list regionally also.
There were no "promised goods to be shipped"
I never ”promised” to ship. I promised only to transfer ownership of the item by accepting the payment. They never requested me to ship by the terms of the payment.
Any shipping or delivery was beyond Paypal. Unless they were an escrow company, Paypal cannot force me to ship if the payment does not require shipping. Which in this case it did not. There was no shipping totals and no shipping address in the terms of the payment.
Another thing that Paypal messed up on. The buyer’s complaint is for non-shipping of promised goods.
1. Buyer must first pay for a physical item.
2. Buyer must request shipping if they want to have the item shipped.
3. Buyer must give a shipping address if the terms of the payment required shipping.
4. Buyer should include shipping cost or totals with the payment if they want items shipped.
So my buyer did not request and item shipped. There were no promises of shipping. The payment did not require shipping. So there is no buyer’s complaint unless the buyer can prove they requested something to be shipped.
Had Paypal done an investigation or they would let one of my attorneys (who I am married to one of them) speak to their supervisor, they would of first realized the buyers type of payment did not request anything to be shipped. It was a payment for the transfer of ownership. Paypal had no right to escrow the sale after the transfer took place.
And then Paypal terms of use does not say items "must" be shipped to confirmed address for sellers protection. It said you must ship to confirmed address for chargeback protection.
Because Paypal has the say it issuing a reversal when credit cards companies do chargebacks.
Paypal had the power and the authority to stop this user from using a Paypal account to comit mail fraud.
Mail fraud is when you order an item thru the mail and then don't pay for it when you get it. They have admitted to that action. But Paypal does not care. They messed up in the beginning. They are too far in to admit they were wrong now. Too many people know what happened
posted on June 9, 2002 11:40:38 AM new
On March 10, 2001 Paypal announced, that effective that PayPal is renaming "Verified Shipping Address" to "Confirmed Address." The definition of a Confirmed Address will remain the same, i.e., a Confirmed Address is the address at which a member receives monthly credit card bills. This terminology change will not affect the Seller Protection Policy, and sellers must still ship all goods to their buyer's Confirmed Addresses to be covered.
And the terms of use has long said,
When you receive a payment through the Service, unless you follow the steps necessary to qualify for our Seller Protection Policy described in Part VII of this User Agreement, you are not protected against a subsequent reversal of the transaction.
If you pay a seller who does not ship the promised goods, you should first contact the seller and attempt to resolve the dispute.]
That says "if" you pay a seller who does not shop the "promised goods" The reason it says promised is that there must be an agreement.
The buyer did not pay me to ship them an item. Nor did they contact me about a refund. They contacted me and said they got the item. I forwarded that to Paypal. They also left me feedback on Ebay saying they got the item.
[PayPal will investigate your claim, contact the seller and, if the seller does not present appropriate proof of shipment, a full refund or other evidence of a satisfactory resolution, ]
I presented "appropriate proof". In a contract, if the word "appropriate" is not defined in the terms of use (which it is not defined in the terms of use in October 2001), Then you seek what the average person would take as proof. I have online USPS tracking that matched the one and only address ever received. That is "appropriate".
[or other evidence of a satisfactory resolution, ]
A confession to a USPS mail fraud investigation is a satisfactory resolution to prove they got the item.
Feedback on Ebay that requires a password to leave is also satisfactory resolution. They said they got the item.
Paypal did not even follow their own terms of use. They did not do what they claim they will do. The only thing Paypal did is contact me by generic e-mail. Did not even say what the reversal was for.
Where did I find those rules? Basic law classes in college. Try it sometime....
Also from more then one licensed attorney.
Also logic. For a buyer to request and item for shipping.
1. They must pay for shipping unless I offered it for free. (I did not offer free shipping in my Ebay description).
If they don't pay for shipping. I don't have to ship.
2. For the terms of the payment to be for an item to be shipped, it must contain a shipping address. That way the buyer has proof they requested shipping. If not, they cannot prove that was part of the promised goods.
3. For me to accept the payment. I am only legally obligated to do what the payment says. The payment did not say I must ship. There was no contract between myself and the buyer for shipping. Only for transfer of ownership. As soon as that took place, the terms of the payment were meet.
So coonr. Unless you are a licences Paralegal or attorney or you work for Paypal, your opions are just that. Nothing more then opions.
And I don't care what your opion is. I did not ask for it. Nor did I ask you to solve a problem unless you are willing to show me what creditentals you have.
For all I know, you could be a 18 year old high school dropout with a credit card who is paid per post from Paypal to try and copy and paste terms of use that you don't really understand.
posted on June 9, 2002 12:31:08 PM new1. They must pay for shipping unless I offered it for free. (I did not offer free shipping in my Ebay description).
If they don't pay for shipping. I don't have to ship.
Here is where we disagree The terms of use said you must ship to a confrimed address.
2. For the terms of the payment to be for an item to be shipped, it must contain a shipping address. That way the buyer has proof they requested shipping. If not, they cannot prove that was part of the promised goods.
Not true. If you think so, jsut find it in the terms of use. Oh thats right you have said repeatedly you dont have a complete copy.
3. For me to accept the payment. I am only legally obligated to do what the payment says. The payment did not say I must ship. There was no contract between myself and the buyer for shipping. Only for transfer of ownership. As soon as that took place, the terms of the payment were meet.
No you must abide by the terms of use and that is the root of your problem.
So coonr. Unless you are a licences Paralegal or attorney or you work for Paypal, your opions are just that. Nothing more then opions.
So? that is all your going to get on public chat boards.
And I don't care what your opion is. I did not ask for it. Nor did I ask you to solve a problem unless you are willing to show me what creditentals you have.
So are you jsut here to trash a company?
For all I know, you could be a 18 year old high school dropout with a credit card who is paid per post from Paypal to try and copy and paste terms of use that you don't really understand.
And for all I know your just a paid to post derogratory info by one of the competiotrs.
[Here is where we disagree The terms of use said you must ship to a confrimed address. ]
No. That is a proven fact against your opion. It is a fact that the terms of use from October 2001 does not say you must ship to confirmed address. It says if you want chargeback protection you must ship to confirmed address.
(PayPal agrees to indemnify sellers of physical goods from chargeback liability resulting from a buyer's unauthorized use of a credit card and/or false claims of non-shipment of goods. This protection applies to up to $5,000 per year of payments received by the seller through PayPal if the following conditions are met:
2.The seller ships to the buyer's Confirmed Address. )
It says chargback. Not reversal. Does not say reversal until Jan 24th 2002. My trasaction happened in October 2001.
(Sellers must ship to the Confirmed Address, among other requirements, to be eligible for the Seller Protection Policy, which covers sellers against the risk of chargebacks. )
Again. Covers chargebacks. Does not say against the risk of reversals.
I did not get a chargeback.
(The Seller Protection Policy was developed for those sellers who want to limit their risk. We give sellers the opportunity to be protected from chargebacks if they follow the guidelines. Sellers who decide not to follow them make the decision to take on risk and will be held liable for any chargebacks. )
Chargebacks, Chargebacks.
Not reversals.
Disagree with Facts all you want. You can't change the past. You cannot alter the terms of use like Paypal tried.
If Paypal was not ready to do buisness, they should have waited to write the sellers protection the first time. They failed.
[So are you jsut here to trash a company? ]
No. I am here to help my fellow auction users to avoid the problem I got and to show them that how Paypal handles problems, their bad customer service and what to expect from a company who tells you "you are at buyers mercy"
Paypal trashes itself by making its user fight them. If Paypal played by the rules they set up, I would not have to fight them and my buyer would not have been able to attempt mail fraud.
[Not true. If you think so, jsut find it in the terms of use. Oh thats right you have said repeatedly you dont have a complete copy]
No. I have a copy thanks to www.archive.org
Which I gave to the attorneys handling one of the class action lawsuits. I have the complete terms of use. And nowhere in it does it say you must ship to the confirmed address.
Nowhere does it say all sales must be shipped.
Nowhere does it say you need to ship to a confirmed address for "sellers protection"
Nowhere does it say you need to ship to a confirmed address for reversal liability protection
However it does say if you want chargeback protection. I did not want chargeback protection for the transaction in question. Only when I took credit card funds. And for those transactions, I only shipped to a confirmed address with online tracking as the terms of use said.
