Pay pal

cyril82

Turkish touches on distance selling regulations in a post above, and quite rightly states that they are actual law which paypal regulations are most certainly not.

The whole basis of what i have been saying in this thread about the op not being liable for this alleged debt to paypal stems from the distance selling regulations, or more formally the consumer protection (distance selling) regulations 2000, which state quite clearly that businesses must allow a seven day cooling off period, in this time goods can be returned for any reason for a refund providing reasonable care of the goods has been taken. One exception to this rule is items sold privately by individuals, i.e. personal belongings, not items bought to be sold for profit.

Another notable exception to the distance selling regulations is any item or goods sold by auction, either online or offline, here is the exact wording from the OFT website;

Exceptions to the regulations


The regulations do not apply to:

• financial services
• sale of land or buildings
• purchases from a vending machine or automated commercial premises
• the use of a public pay phone
• auctions, including internet auctions
• rental agreements that have to be in writing (i.e. a lease for three years or more)

So as you can see, any item sold, be it by business or private seller, is not covered by distance selling regulations if sold by auction, so a lot of people are misinforming people in these forums and also the op had at least one exception from the distance selling regs, (private seller) but possibly two if he also auctioned the goods and so was in no way liable for any money paypal refunded the buyer.

The op was stitched up by paypal and coerced into paying money by a DCA with a threat of recording negative information on his credit file when this was simply a legal impossibility and therefore a very likely breach of the Administration of justice Act 1970 which is a criminal offence as it is illegal to attempt to coerce a person into paying a debt alleged to be due under contract using threats designed to cause alarm, especially where the threat is based on misinformation.

So to silence those who have recently been levelling insults at me (in this and other threads on the Ebay & paypal board) that i am a fool who should be ignored and does not know what he is talking about, there is the full legal explanation of how paypal and the dca acted irresponsibly and quite possibly illegally and why the op is not legally responsible for the debt and should seek the return of his money from the DCA and paypal.

now, SteveW8975, cyberbob, BargainGalore, rsykes2000, TurkishDelight, Soolin. If you think i'm such an idiot why not pick that apart using legal arguments instead of personal attacks and insults and back it up with documentation from respected legal sources that show's that your argument prevails, lets here some legislation being quoted and less personal name calling.

I'm sorry but some of you have really got on my nerves today, especially over in the other thread about postage charges and feedback blackmailing and i'm sick of hearing your personal jibes insinuating that i don't know what i am talking about and should be ignored, so either back up what you say with fact and legislation or shut up!

victor-meldrew_4

cyril82 wrote: »

Turkish touches on distance selling regulations in a post above, and quite rightly states that they are actual law which paypal regulations are most certainly not.

The whole basis of what i have been saying in this thread about the op not being liable for this alleged debt to paypal stems from the distance selling regulations, or more formally the consumer protection (distance selling) regulations 2000, which state quite clearly that businesses must allow a seven day cooling off period, in this time goods can be returned for any reason for a refund providing reasonable care of the goods has been taken. One exception to this rule is items sold privately by individuals, i.e. personal belongings, not items bought to be sold for profit.

Another notable exception to the distance selling regulations is any item or goods sold by auction, either online or offline, here is the exact wording from the OFT website;

Exceptions to the regulations


The regulations do not apply to:

• financial services
• sale of land or buildings
• purchases from a vending machine or automated commercial premises
• the use of a public pay phone
• auctions, including internet auctions
• rental agreements that have to be in writing (i.e. a lease for three years or more)

So as you can see, any item sold, be it by business or private seller, is not covered by distance selling regulations if sold by auction, so a lot of people are misinforming people in these forums and also the op had at least one exception from the distance selling regs, (private seller) but possibly two if he also auctioned the goods and so was in no way liable for any money paypal refunded the buyer.

The op was stitched up by paypal and coerced into paying money by a DCA with a threat of recording negative information on his credit file when this was simply a legal impossibility and therefore a very likely breach of the Administration of justice Act 1970 which is a criminal offence as it is illegal to attempt to coerce a person into paying a debt alleged to be due under contract using threats designed to cause alarm, especially where the threat is based on misinformation.

So to silence those who have recently been levelling insults at me (in this and other threads on the Ebay & paypal board) that i am a fool who should be ignored and does not know what he is talking about, there is the full legal explanation of how paypal and the dca acted irresponsibly and quite possibly illegally and why the op is not legally responsible for the debt and should seek the return of his money from the DCA and paypal.

now, SteveW8975, cyberbob, BargainGalore, rsykes2000, TurkishDelight, Soolin. If you think i'm such an idiot why not pick that apart using legal arguments instead of personal attacks and insults and back it up with documentation from respected legal sources that show's that your argument prevails, lets here some legislation being quoted and less personal name calling.

I'm sorry but some of you have really got on my nerves today, especially over in the other thread about postage charges and feedback blackmailing and i'm sick of hearing your personal jibes insinuating that i don't know what i am talking about and should be ignored, so either back up what you say with fact and legislation or shut up!

what he said.

victor-meldrew_4

sayj wrote: »

Well said Cyril82! I wish there were more level headed people like you on forums . I'm new to this forum and I thought you gave victor-meldrew some great advice, i certainly learnt alot more about paypal. I also agree that there is no need for personal attacks, people don't have to agree with you, but there's no need to be rude! As you said in your quote it's your opinion! thankyou for your informative posts! I look forward to reading some more.

and him..............

victor-meldrew_4

sayj wrote: »

I'm a female hahahahahaa:D I hope cyril's advice worked for you victor-meldrew:D

sorry.no insult intended

Forgetful

being the seller makes Paypal itself not a secure method of receiving any sort of payment... the person who pays through paypal can always say there account or card was stolen... etc and paypal never questions the buyer...and takes money from the sellers paypal account..always.....its happened to me on 7 occasions..

soolin

Forgetful wrote: »

being the seller makes Paypal itself not a secure method of receiving any sort of payment... the person who pays through paypal can always say there account or card was stolen... etc and paypal never questions the buyer...and takes money from the sellers paypal account..always.....its happened to me on 7 occasions..

Rather than join this thread then you might want to read up on the actual rules, not the ones people 'think' or 'hope' are correct.

It is actually fairly easy to defend a claim against a fraudulent use of a card, you don't even need proof of delivery.

Paypal is not perfect but the only way to stay safe in a situation is to understand it and read the rules.

cyberbob

I agree with Soolin.So many people complain about Paypal and that this and that happen and 99% of the time its because they either don't know the rules or havent followed them.

I don't believe that Paypal are perfect. There are problems withit. Overall as a buyer and a seller it works and generally is a safe way to do business

** I will now put helmet on a wait to get leapt on by the Paypal and ebay are all evil Brigade**

cyberbob

cyril82 wrote: »

So to silence those who have recently been levelling insults at me (in this and other threads on the Ebay & paypal board) that i am a fool who should be ignored and does not know what he is talking about, there is the full legal explanation of how paypal and the dca acted irresponsibly and quite possibly illegally and why the op is not legally responsible for the debt and should seek the return of his money from the DCA and paypal.

What you wrote here is in so many ways wrong, but I know its pointless pointing this out to you. All I say is if the original Poster gets PROPER legal advice they will then find out what there rights are.

StaffsSW

Every forum has its bar-room lawyers that know everything despite having never sat a law exam in their life.

It's the dangerous area between fact and opinion.

cyril82

cyberbob wrote: »

What you wrote here is in so many ways wrong, but I know its pointless pointing this out to you. All I say is if the original Poster gets PROPER legal advice they will then find out what there rights are.

Cyberbob, you highlight exactly what i was saying about you and a few others with this post.

Here is another thinly veiled jibe basically saying i am wrong in what i wrote, and i don't know what i'm talking about, the problem is cyberbob it is just words, what are you backing it up with? NOTHING!

To quote you:

cyberbob wrote: »

All I say is if the original Poster gets PROPER legal advice they will then find out what there rights are.

So from that i take it you are saying that what i said about the op being exempt from distance selling regulations is wrong. And he was therefore liable for the debt? BACK IT UP THEN!! Post some documented evidence from a respected source. I Did, i copied a paragraph straight from guidance notes on the OFT's website that show's the op almost certainly is exempt, so of course cyberbob, you have just claimed that the OFT are wrong too......:rotfl::rotfl:

And also then you are saying that there is no possibility that the DCA breached the Administration Of Justice Act 1970, by making threats designed to cause alarm? again, BACK THAT UP!!

It's all just words cyberbob, it's easy to say, "don't listen to him he's wrong" not so easy to provide the proof is it?

The difference between me and you cyberbob, is i ain't making this stuff up!!