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

[BeenBurned]

Wrong - all a seller needs to prove is the item they shipped. That's it. Once it left their possession, custody and control, the buyer's problem.

Good grief! I know you're trying to help but this is another instance where you're spewing misinformation.

A seller needs to prove delivery, NOT only that they shipped the item. And it's the seller's responsibility to see that the buyer gets the item. In fact, that's why ebay made the change in policy that sellers cannot state that they aren't responsible for the item once they ship nor can sellers make the purchase of insurance optional for the buyer. Insurance is for the seller's protection and if the seller wants to protect herself, the seller pays for it.

It is NOT the buyer's problem if the seller cannot prove delivery.

 

[Melissa Ann]

I've re-read this a few times and it sounds like they are basically just trying to blow you off in their typical fashion. It's not set in stone. Nothing is, especially in the very beginning stage. Is this the first real response they've sent you? If so, ignore it and keep on with your efforts. Just reply and repeat yourself, reply and repeat yourself, reply and repeat yourself, until you get what you want, being sure to forward your previous communication with your current message, and say that's not good enough. You have a responsibility to stand behind your policies, which stated "ABCXYZ" and I followed them to the letter. Then, you screwed me by doing....such and such." That is illegal, fraud, and I won't rest until you do the right thing and put my money back where it belongs.

That's putting it very simply, but you get the idea. It's tiring, and frustrating, but if the ceo and president sees this in his email box EVERY single day (and perhaps coming from different email addresses or IP addresses so they can't block you? didn't try that myself) then at some point they will have to do something....they will get tired of lifting their finger to delete you.

It is very sad that they keep sending back the stock, "you agreed to this policy" letter. You agreed to the policy, and understood that it would be carried out in good faith, and in a non-negligent manner. You did not agree to excuse them of "any" wrongdoing. If they we grossly negligent in ordering the destruction without the due amount of care required, then they will be held accountable in mediation, (which I think you also agreed to.)

The point is, a great deal of care is required where you have something of great value. If the customer agrees to destruction of fakes, then they expect due process. If Paypal carries out the policy of destruction as though the item were a $2 flash drive, then they are guilty of gross negligence. OP, and none of us for that matter, agree to allow them to unilaterally destroy something after very little investigation. That is the issue at the heart of this. The policy is destruction. Great. I agree to that bc I don't sell fakes. But if I know it is authentic and you destroy it without even reviewing the evidence, then I have to say the procedure they follow itself is grossly negligent, and this will continue to be an issue for them.

Keep at it. Hammering home that you understand that you agreed to the policy, but that it must be carried out in good faith, and without gross negligence. That is what you are objecting to, not the policy...

 

[BeenBurned]

It is very sad that they keep sending back the stock, "you agreed to this policy" letter. You agreed to the policy, and understood that it would be carried out in good faith, and in a non-negligent manner. You did not agree to excuse them of "any" wrongdoing. If they we grossly negligent in ordering the destruction without the due amount of care required, then they will be held accountable in mediation, (which I think you also agreed to.)

The point is, a great deal of care is required where you have something of great value. If the customer agrees to destruction of fakes, then they expect due process. If Paypal carries out the policy of destruction as though the item were a $2 flash drive, then they are guilty of gross negligence. OP, and none of us for that matter, agree to allow them to unilaterally destroy something after very little investigation. That is the issue at the heart of this. The policy is destruction. Great. I agree to that bc I don't sell fakes. But if I know it is authentic and you destroy it without even reviewing the evidence, then I have to say the procedure they follow itself is grossly negligent, and this will continue to be an issue for them.

Keep at it. Hammering home that you understand that you agreed to the policy, but that it must be carried out in good faith, and without gross negligence. That is what you are objecting to, not the policy...

 

[ILUVLOUIS2010]

Good grief! I know you're trying to help but this is another instance where you're spewing misinformation.

A seller needs to prove delivery, NOT only that they shipped the item. And it's the seller's responsibility to see that the buyer gets the item. In fact, that's why ebay made the change in policy that sellers cannot state that they aren't responsible for the item once they ship nor can sellers make the purchase of insurance optional for the buyer. Insurance is for the seller's protection and if the seller wants to protect herself, the seller pays for it.

It is NOT the buyer's problem if the seller cannot prove delivery.

BeenBurned -- you are misinterpreting the context -- I wasn't talking about delivery or any other aspect of the one-sided PP agreement - delivery was not even mentioned in my post or the one I was responding too. It was only a response regarding burden of proof issues as to authenticity of an item only.

 

[BeenBurned]

Originally Posted by ILUVLOUIS2010 Wrong - all a seller needs to prove is the item they shipped. That's it. Once it left their possession, custody and control, the buyer's problem.

Good grief! I know you're trying to help but this is another instance where you're spewing misinformation.

A seller needs to prove delivery, NOT only that they shipped the item. And it's the seller's responsibility to see that the buyer gets the item. In fact, that's why ebay made the change in policy that sellers cannot state that they aren't responsible for the item once they ship nor can sellers make the purchase of insurance optional for the buyer. Insurance is for the seller's protection and if the seller wants to protect herself, the seller pays for it.

It is NOT the buyer's problem if the seller cannot prove delivery.

BeenBurned -- you are misinterpreting the context -- I wasn't talking about delivery or any other aspect of the one-sided PP agreement - delivery was not even mentioned in my post or the one I was responding too. It was only a response regarding burden of proof issues as to authenticity of an item only.

HUH??? See my post above (in red) where I quoted you!

 

[ILUVLOUIS2010]

Originally Posted by ILUVLOUIS2010 Wrong - all a seller needs to prove is the item they shipped. That's it. Once it left their possession, custody and control, the buyer's problem.




HUH??? See my post above (in red) where I quoted you!

BeenBurned - read again what you recited in red -- the seller needs to prove the item they shipped - meaning they need to prove what they sent - the item itself.

Now back to the issue at hand:


I read again the PP legal agreement - I see a whole section (4.4) devoted to recipients of money thru paypal about chargeback claims. I see nothing in their agreement that even comes close to addressing chargeback claims for those who "send" money thru pay pal other than saying PP accepts payments via credit cards. PP does also have language in their own agreement that they have a lien on pp funds.

5.7 Security Interest. To secure your performance of this Agreement, you grant to PayPal a lien on and security interest in and to the funds held in your Account in the possession of PayPal.


So bottom line for me again - PP states in its agreement it accepts payments via credit cards, it charges a fee to the recipients account when payments are processed via credit card, says they have a security interest in the funds, have inequitable language in their agreement in the sender and receiver sections about chargebacks, and therefore, I think they are bound to handle chargeback claims (because they received a fee for the service), and the sender of the money thru a credit card should be considered as having waived any right to pursue a chargeback claim by using and subjecting themselves to the paypal process.

And guess what -- PayPal says in their agreement they will share information to other users as follows:

How we share personal information with other PayPal users
To process your payments, we may share some of your personal information with the person or company that you are paying or that is paying you. ....

If you are buying goods or services and pay through PayPal, we may also provide the seller with your confirmed credit card billing address to help complete your transaction with the seller. The seller is not allowed to use this information to market their services to you unless you have agreed to it. If an attempt to pay your seller fails, or is later invalidated, we may also provide your seller with details of the unsuccessful payment. To facilitate dispute resolutions, we may provide a buyer with the seller’s address so that goods can be returned to the seller.



So PP should have given this information to the OP, and they can give more info about the buyer or credit card account if required by "subpoena or other legal process". Interesting use of the phrase "legal process" -- needing to pursue a claim even if not yet a court matter so you can properly investigate on your own - isn't that part of a "legal process"? They don't define it - so use it against them.

 

[blah956]

there is no way for a seller to prove what they sent. paypal can override that.

 

[Love Of My Life]

wouldn't it be appropriate if pp/ebay would have some type of forum or board of experts

that would review these sort of situations before just telling a buyer to destroy an item..

if the rep from pp had just contacted the OP she would have gladly provided the

necessary documentation for authenticity on this bag.. think the rep from pp just

jumped the gun telling the buyer to destroy the item without actually checking the

entire situation unfairly... this was a very costly item and pp did not do their due

diligence as they should have....

 

[Love Of My Life]

wouldn't it be appropriate if pp/ebay would have some type of forum or board of experts

that would review these sort of situations before just telling a buyer to destroy an item..

if the rep from pp had just contacted the OP she would have gladly provided the

necessary documentation for authenticity on this bag.. think the rep from pp just

jumped the gun telling the buyer to destroy the item without actually checking the

entire situation unfairly... this was a very costly item and pp did not do their due

diligence as they should have....

correct myself... pp did not check the situation out in a fair manner...

 

[Aliena]

Oh. My. God. I'm only up to page 33 - it's taken me two + hours so far and I really cant handle more at the moment, but I'll be back tomorrow to continue reading this thread.

 

[Nyria]

Good grief! I know you're trying to help but this is another instance where you're spewing misinformation.

A seller needs to prove delivery, NOT only that they shipped the item. And it's the seller's responsibility to see that the buyer gets the item. In fact, that's why ebay made the change in policy that sellers cannot state that they aren't responsible for the item once they ship nor can sellers make the purchase of insurance optional for the buyer. Insurance is for the seller's protection and if the seller wants to protect herself, the seller pays for it.

It is NOT the buyer's problem if the seller cannot prove delivery.

agree - if this is the US the US law says that if something is shipped then ikt is the shipper's reponsibility to make sure that the buyer RECIEVES the item - regardless of what happens on the journey the seller must make sure that the item is in hand of the buyer or they must refund.

 

[Purse_Junior]

omg darling!!!
this is extremely SICK!!!!
i didn't know PayPal is such $$#$#$hole!!
i am really sorry to hear this

 

[saira1214]

I surmise the reason that Paypal orders the destruction of some of these bags is because of various lawsuits by Hermes and others brands against Paypal. I seem to recall an issue back in the day that PP would make you send the fake bag into one of their locations and apparently these bags were re-appearing on Ebay. I believe the outcome was that PP now has to ensure the bags are destroyed.

PP doesn't want do incur further costs of business so forum boards, experts etc hurt their bottom line. What PP can and should do is have a few levels of review before a claim is decided. I can imagine the amount of claims they get, but it seems as though there is some rote way of handling them with little to no consideration of evidence outside of the "box."

 

[lizmil]

I remember reading that PP had a warehouse (think it was in Texas) that "returns" for fakes, and maybe returns for other reasons were sent. What did they do with all this stuff? Had a sale and sold it!

That just put the fakes back in circulation. I think the various suits put an end to the practice and now they tell buyers to destroy the fakes. (as we have seen w/o adequate review first)

Kristie, any good news?

 

[BeenBurned]

I remember reading that PP had a warehouse (think it was in Texas) that "returns" for fakes, and maybe returns for other reasons were sent. What did they do with all this stuff? Had a sale and sold it!

That just put the fakes back in circulation. I think the various suits put an end to the practice and now they tell buyers to destroy the fakes. (as we have seen w/o adequate review first)

Kristie, any good news?

I believe it was liquidation.com and they accepted items from various sources without doing any research to verify that they were selling authentic items.

In these cases, though, paypal cannot just willy-nilly tell buyers to destroy bags when they (paypal) don't know that the items are fake and they aren't allowing both sides to submit evidence to prove their cases.