Pay pal

cyril82

cyberbob wrote: »

mmm Facts its all just been opinion

Just for those that seem to be a little confused

noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

as for opinion

noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.


Hope that clears that up

i think you'll find my posts contain some supporting documentation and quotes that would seem to support my view that the op was actually not obliged to refund and paypal acted above their station, seems it's a fact according to the O.F.T. too.......http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/legal/distance-selling-regulations/regulation-exceptions

StaffsSW

Give the boy a biscuit and a pat on the head.

soolin

Oh dear, so now some links to websites alone are considered proof.

I think MSE is big enough for all opinions, so please feel free to post whatever you want. I can't actually see though that you have given any real advice other than 'they are wrong, sue them'.

cyril82

stevew8975 wrote: »

Give the boy a biscuit and a pat on the head.

oh steve, does it hurt your ego so much to be proven wrong that you still have to reply, .............even when you have nothing to say? :rotfl:

cyril82

soolin wrote: »

Oh dear, so now some links to websites alone are considered proof..

oh Soolin, you crack me up, you really do. "some links to websites" LOL

Those links are to the office of fair trading who actually draw up the regulations that govern the op's sale acording to uk law,

And the other is a link to the office of public sector information website, another respected government source.

i think they count as more than "just some links to websites" :rotfl:

cyril82

[.

soolin wrote: »

I can't actually see though that you have given any real advice other than 'they are wrong, sue them'.

Really soolin? hmmm i suggest you re-read this thread!

TurkishDelight

marleyboy wrote: »

Cyril82 has a point, so far as the rules are concerned I see a lot of posters saying "no no your wrong", as well as jibes, but they are all just words, I have not seen anyone back these up with any kind of documentation as yet. Turkish, you go one better by deflecting the question to merely throwing a tantrum with the old "This isnt your forum" - very VERY weak reply.

I dont know enough about the rules and regulations to say either of you are wrong or right, but at least one poster has posted guidelines showing they know at least SOMETHING, whereas others are merely disagreeing for the sake of argument. AFAICS.

Heckling is neither proving nor dis-proving anything, its merely throwing rattles out of prams.

I wasn't the one throwing tantrums. :rolleyes:

There are a lot of postsers that seem to find the return policy, which is law for buisnesses, a paypal regulation. I am not denying that paypal and ebay has complicated rules, however, as I stated it is a private members club. It's not a public service run by the government, it's a company which to use you have to accept their terms. Maybe it would be better if ebay gave us all points instead of money like this childrens version, as obviously some people can't understand how monetary transactions work :A

victor-meldrew_4

soolin wrote: »

Should we just let people like that then continue to lose money when their position is defendable. I'm fine with that actually as I don't like the idea of a nanny state, if people want to lose money then you appear to suggest that we should all just say fine, carry on losing. I mean, come on..7 lost claims for fraudulent use of a card.

Seems an odd way to offer assistance and I prefer to try and help people rather than just post to say this company or that company is rubbish.

well telling the poster to check the rules is aragant and niaeve.credit him with some sense.or ask him details first.your first reaction is "the rules".could it possibly be paypal/ebay are acting wrongly,impossible in your book.do you own the company or something.people can post what they like you say,unless the critisise them.
your way of assisting people is great.how does your advice strart,ebay/paypal will always be right,and go from there.
loads of reasons have been given on this and many other threads on why the company is "rubbish",you dont want to hear them do you.
i wonder if you and the other ebay/paypal brainwashed ones would even be able to leave a burning building without checking the rules as to which door to use first.wake up.

marleyboy

Turkish; I still have not seen anyone else produce anything more constructive as proof, just a lot of snipes and "no no no's", unless you count that link as the best you can offer me, I am more inclined to believe Cyril is more correct on the matter, as at least he has produced something more constructive regarding proof.

I could be misinformed, but I am not sure your Swapitshop is anywhere near the kind of evidence I am looking for on the matter.

I'm sure you can offer me something other than a pointless "blah" on this subject, as I personally don't know who is right or wrong on this issue, unfortunately, as has been said before, all else is just mere words.

(Is it not still the government Mp's who claim they were all "acting within the rules"???)

cyril82

TurkishDelight wrote: »

I wasn't the one throwing tantrums. :rolleyes:

There are a lot of postsers that seem to find the return policy, which is law for buisnesses, a paypal regulation. I am not denying that paypal and ebay has complicated rules, however, as I stated it is a private members club. It's not a public service run by the government, it's a company which to use you have to accept their terms. Maybe it would be better if ebay gave us all points instead of money like this childrens version, as obviously some people can't understand how monetary transactions work :A

Even businesses are exempt from distance selling regs if they auction their goods.
unfortunately while you may view ebay and paypal as a virtual online private members club it is not, they are governed by real world law and real money changes hands. When a company take it upon themselves to start freezing and refunding peoples money without consulting them or allowing any real grounds for appeal then it is time to turn to what the law says about it, not what ebay and paypal say in their terms and conditions as if a company puts a term in their contract that contradicts a law it does not over-ride the law, the law over-rides the contract as per the unfair terms in consumer contracts act 1999 in the op's case or the unfair contract terms act 1977 for businesses.

Here is an example from the ministry of justice website about such terms (whoops, there i go again supporting my statements with text from government sources, just can't help myself)

What kinds of terms are likely to be unfair?

Terms that allow traders to:

• Seriously exclude or limit their legal obligations to you
• Seriously exclude or limit your legal rights
• Keep all of your deposit / payments when you cancel
• Provide no service to you whilst still binding you to the contract
• Set fixed penalties for you if you cancel
• Cancel without notice
• Set excessive notice periods for you to cancel
• Bind you to a hidden term
• Vary the terms without consulting you and without a valid reason
• Change what he supplies without a valid reason.
• Increase the price of the product without allowing you the right to cancel
• Be the sole judge of what a contract term means
• Bind you to the contract without binding him
• Restrict your right to take legal action

Full ministry of justice guidence notes on this can be read here....... http://www.claimsregulation.gov.uk/userfiles/file/Unfair%20Contract%20Terms%20Guidance%20for%20consumers.pdf

i think paypal breach a few of these definitions in their terms and conditions, certainly at least two of the red highlighted ones have been breached in the ops case if not all

.