WARNING, Paypal just made me lose $20 THOUSAND dollars from a scamming buyer

TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others

Status
Not open for further replies.
#436
OP, I'd like to help you. I need some time to read through the thread to get all the particulars.

does anyone know the link to pp's tos?

Also, if anyone has links to PPs Hermes policies, as I don't think they lost an actual case to Hermes ( LV?) or entered a settlement.

my focus here is that the security tag had a purpose, and PPs policy circumvents this basic seller protection. if the buyer did not submit the fake letter showing that the bag examined was the bag with the tag, well that is a gaping loophole that scammers will jump through. i thought i heard about a class action on this after that guy sold all those dvds on how to get "free stuff" on ebay using these scams...

on my ipad right now, sorry for typos and no caps all.
 
#437
Black Elite said:
Well, I don't think they define "trust" the way I do lol. I would not trust a buyer with no history on my site, but I would trust a seller who has paid me fees on $120K. Not only would I trust that seller, but I would kiss their butt, and want them to keep coming back! Hell, fees on $120K would pay (part of) my tuition! They should have trusted the seller.

Still rooting for ya, OP!
Click to expand...


Well, of course, I'm not saying they should have taken anything on trust; just that that's what they clearly did. :shrugs:

Also, if they take the seller's word for it, in situations like this one, that is still taking things on trust, to an extent, too.

This is because, as I say, the problem with trusting sellers over buyers, just because they have had a high volume and/or value of sales, is that a worryingly high number of sellers' entire eBay business models have been based upon building-up a good reputation, by selling good items for low prices and then throwing the odd counterfeit and/or very SNAD condition item into the mix (especially when a newbie and/or an off-eBay transaction is involved); with the entire idea of all their good sales and feedback masking their guilt and therefore, repeatedly, getting them off the hook.

NOT saying, for one moment, that I think that's what's happening here; just trying to think of it from a neutral POV. :smile1:
 
#438
boundary said:
LMFAO. Paypal is truly ridiculous. They can't risk a chargeback, but they can risk you suing them? If you win they'll be out not only your $11k, but also their attorneys' fees and possibly your attorneys' fees. Not to mention the bad publicity. How shortsighted. I guess they're counting on you not to sue--quite a stupid assumption given that they stole a whopping $11k from you.
Click to expand...


I think the idea is probably that, if the seller in this type of situation is guilty, they will almost certainly not sue, or threaten to sue?

Whereas, if the seller is not guilty (as in this case), they may well do and if they do (or threaten to), that's probably evidence of their innocence?
 
#439
chloehandbags said:
NOT saying, for one moment, that I think that's what's happening here; just trying to think of it from a neutral POV. :smile1:
Click to expand...

That's what I was getting at in my other response to your devil's advocate post: it isn't a neutral point of view from Paypal but a warped point of view clearly aimed against sellers as a whole. Why? Because the judgment of trust was not between two parties virtually equally likely to be telling the truth. In this case, one person had a demonstrated, easily verified online record of financial responsibility with Paypal, let alone with eBay. And the ruling went in favor of the person without that. That is not neutrality in process.
 
#441
jellyv said:
That's what I was getting at in my other response to your devil's advocate post: it isn't a neutral point of view from Paypal but a warped point of view clearly aimed against sellers as a whole. Why? Because the judgment of trust was not between two parties virtually equally likely to be telling the truth. In this case, one person had a demonstrated, easily verified online record of financial responsibility with Paypal, let alone with eBay. And the ruling went in favor of the person without that. That is not neutrality in process.
Click to expand...


Yes, but this is what I'm saying.

In the past, the seller, in a situation like this one, would have been given the benefit of the doubt; rather than the buyer.

However, dishonest sellers were abusing that situation.

This is why eBay/PayPal changed their rules to favour the buyer.

Of course, now, scammers have realised that that is the case and are, no doubt, exploiting the system as buyers.
 
#443
That would be very difficult. "Blind representation, " by that I mean getting involved when one doesn't know the people involved, the "just how messy can this get factor," the what if THAT relationship goes sour, how much CAN this cost (it's ALWAYS MORE than you guess at the beginning) and countless other "what ifs" makes this proposition a real mess.

It would be nice if lawyers were able to help without the what ifs, if as the barristers were it was a "gentleman's profession."
 
#444
^ I wish people would wake up to the reality of eBay and STOP SELLING on that venue.

If this post and the insane number of other scammer threads in this forum fail to rattle people from their eBay complacency, I guess they'll have to become victims themselves.

OP, the nightmares get bigger all the time. I fervently hope you are able to recover your money or at a minimum, a healthy portion of it.
 
#446
I see what you're saying. No matter what, someone may try to cheat the system at some point.

This is what makes eBay so scary! There's always two sides to a story, and from there, always 2 or more POV's from either side.

chloehandbags said:
Well, of course, I'm not saying they should have taken anything on trust; just that that's what they clearly did. :shrugs:

Also, if they take the seller's word for it, in situations like this one, that is still taking things on trust, to an extent, too.

This is because, as I say, the problem with trusting sellers over buyers, just because they have had a high volume and/or value of sales, is that a worryingly high number of sellers' entire eBay business models have been based upon building-up a good reputation, by selling good items for low prices and then throwing the odd counterfeit and/or very SNAD condition item into the mix (especially when a newbie and/or an off-eBay transaction is involved); with the entire idea of all their good sales and feedback masking their guilt and therefore, repeatedly, getting them off the hook.

NOT saying, for one moment, that I think that's what's happening here; just trying to think of it from a neutral POV. :smile1:
Click to expand...
 
#448
kristie said:
What is funny is that I DID have a legal firm complete a statement of authenticity on my bag and PP NEVER called or contacted them to make sure they were "verifiable." I have been in contact with the authenticator and she said PP never even contacted her.

So, I would not be surprised if the buyer had some cockamamie letter of "non-authenticity" for my bag sent to PP. They obviously verify NOTHING!

They refused to tell me the buyer's "proof" and just stole my money from me because they can.
Click to expand...

This is the part I find shocking--it is one thing for them to rely on the statement of a third party authenticator in their decision to refund the buyer; it is another for them to rely on that statement to make a unilateral decison that the item should be destroyed (not that I believe it has been), and then refuse to disclose any of the proof that provided the basis for them deciding that you should be out both your money and your property.

And while law enforcement here may not be receptive to your claim, you might still consider contacting the authorities in the Canadian jurisdiction where the package was sent (police, the equivalent of the local AG) in order to determine whether a complaint can be filed.
 
#449
This thread is astounding me. I clicked on it while waiting for some reports to run here at work, and now I'm pretty sure my boss (who sits on the other side of me) knows I'm not doing the reports because I keep gasping!

This is just totally insane. I thought harpercassidy's tale of PayPal not giving a darn about her police reports and seeing her bag on sale elsewhere was bad. But this...This is freaking insane!
 
#450
BittyMonkey said:
Which is kind of strange because California, if you actually get to litigation, tends to find on the side of the consumer way more than other states. I'm surprised they didn't choose Omaha.
Click to expand...

Stated I'm just guessing. Pay Pal's HQ is in CA & that is usually where a contract states where any legal action is to be taken place. Their legal team would be there, they know the system there, little to no travel expenses, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top