How pathetic and useless can PayPal really be, honestly??

CapJ

I think there are some over reactions going on here. If an item has been returned and a refund asked for on the basis at least partly that it wasn't used, and it has been used then that could be fraud (customer is lying to obtain money). In that case it would indeed be a criminal offence. It is not therefore unreasonable to ask for a crime number.

OP clearly if you are going to the police station with the attitude that this isn't a crime they aren't going to help. You need to try a little bit more strongly.

In any case Paypal are clearly open to you trying another way of solving the problem by describing it signing and returning. They have given you two ways of returning this information to them. Did you ask for the fax number? Did you try to upload it?

From what you are saying the customer is acting atrociously but that isn't Paypal's fault. You need to work with them here, as well as accept that their system is tilted towards the purchaser - this helps give people confidence to send money on them.

BartyBoy

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

The original paypal fee of £4.11 should be returned once the refund has been issued to your buyer.
It should be done automatically but if it doesn't then you will have to call or e-mail paypal to remind them about it.

hi there, thank you for your comment...

i phoned PayPal's claim team this afternoon to query this £4.11 fee. this agent called judith told me this fee was used as an admin fee for PayPal to 'look into' and 'settle' the dispute. i told judith i have never agreed and authorised the full refund to this 'witch', so why would PayPal charge me £4.11 as an admin fee?

it sounds like an excuse to rob me to be honest.

BartyBoy

CapJ wrote: »

...From what you are saying the customer is acting atrociously but that isn't Paypal's fault. You need to work with them here, as well as accept that their system is tilted towards the purchaser - this helps give people confidence to send money on them.

hi there, thank you for your comment...

unfortunately i have no faith on PayPal anymore and at all... despite the fact that they have pointed me to the police to seek for legal advice and action, i think that is just pathetic and unbelievable. without a doubt, what i have got here is a civil case, it would be far much better if PayPal could stay out of it and let the buyer and me to resolve the problem via a small claim court instead.

the buyer used my item then returned it back to me with damage and dirt, how can the police see this as a crime? i am not a big fan of the police but in this occasion i do feel that PayPal is taking the 'mickey' out of me.

i have been battling with PayPal every day since the 'witch' filed a dispute against me on 18 November 2011. if i could disclose my PayPal account here, you will be surprised to see how many PayPal agents who i have spoken to on the phone here. sometimes, it's not just about the money, but the principle. i have done nothing wrong here, why should i be treated like a guilty party, giving a full refund to the 'witch' and accepting a used damaged filthy item?

furthermore, because of the drama of my PayPal account, it has caused two other transactions of mine failed to complete. i was aware of that and i contacted the PayPal's account team asap to resolve those two failed transactions. i put extra money in to my PayPal account and instructed PayPal to pay my sellers immediately. PayPal has kept my money since 25 November 2011 and never released the money to my sellers. to me, i just don't know what the 'f' is wrong with PayPal. anyway in the end, one of my sellers had to write to PayPal to ask them to cancel the transaction, he obviously had waited more than enough for his money. i transferred him the money via bank transfer instead.

how on earth can a money transfer company act and behave like this? i have just given up hope on PayPal. some of their staff are even rude and aggressive too. those staff must have forgot they only work for PayPal, they don't own PayPal.

Crazy_Jamie

CapJ wrote: »

I think there are some over reactions going on here. If an item has been returned and a refund asked for on the basis at least partly that it wasn't used, and it has been used then that could be fraud (customer is lying to obtain money). In that case it would indeed be a criminal offence. It is not therefore unreasonable to ask for a crime number.

In a situation where a civil dispute certainly does arise and the resolution of such a dispute would be the priority for all concerned, it is unreasonable to expect a customer to report the matter to the police. Especially when any allegation of fraud would be based on speculation and not on any sort of direct evidence. Expecting the police to take time to inspect and document damage to the item before confirming the same in writing to PayPal is even more unreasonable. It shows a complete detachment from reality by what is a well regarded international company.

Azari

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

It shows a complete detachment from reality by what is a well regarded international company.

"well regarded international company"?

I thought this thread was about paypal.

Crazy_Jamie

Azari wrote: »

"well regarded international company"?

I thought this thread was about paypal.

Yeah, I knew that phrasing would draw a comment like that. You get my point.

faerie_girl

Do you still have the 'buyers' address? Take them to the small claims

CapJ

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

In a situation where a civil dispute certainly does arise and the resolution of such a dispute would be the priority for all concerned, it is unreasonable to expect a customer to report the matter to the police.

It is not unreasonable to report a potential crime to the police. If the OP believes that the customer has lied in order to obtain money, or obtained a service (the loan of the "jumper" / item or whatever it was) by deception then indeed they have reason to believe that a fraud has been committed.

Since we are forbidden by law to take the law into our own hands then it is completely reasonable to report this to police who are fully empowered to investigate.

That the police or others claim this is a civil dispute does not change their responsibility in dealing with the criminal element of the dispute.

In that respect it is totally reasonable in theory for Paypal to refer the OP to the police.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Especially when any allegation of fraud would be based on speculation and not on any sort of direct evidence.

It is not based on speculation. There is an eyewitness (the victim).

Expecting the police to take time to inspect and document damage to the item before confirming the same in writing to PayPal is even more unreasonable. It shows a complete detachment from reality by what is a well regarded international company.

What I don't know is what experience Paypal has of this. If they have experience of police being cooperative about this it is certainly reasonable in practice to do this. If on the other hand the police decline to do even a preliminary investigation every single time a Paypal "seller" approaches them, then Paypal's actions aren't very helpful. Do you know or is your statement speculation?

Crazy_Jamie

You say yourself that the actions are reasonable 'in theory'. Which is the whole problem with your stance; this isn't 'theory', this is a practical situation. Hundreds of civil matters are resolved in Court every day where one party 'might' have lied, and therefore 'might' have committed fraud. But any accusation of fraud would be unjustified in the vast majority of cases, because there is no direct evidence. The same is true here. The OP has witnessed no fraud, and can only provide speculation. It simply does not warrant police involvement. That will be true of the vast, vast majority of PayPal disputed cases. Which is why requesting that disputes be referred to the police, as a matter of course, is wholly unreasonable.

CapJ

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

You say yourself that the actions are reasonable 'in theory'. Which is the whole problem with your stance; this isn't 'theory', this is a practical situation. Hundreds of civil matters are resolved in Court every day where one party 'might' have lied, and therefore 'might' have committed fraud. But any accusation of fraud would be unjustified in the vast majority of cases, because there is no direct evidence. The same is true here. The OP has witnessed no fraud, and can only provide speculation. It simply does not warrant police involvement. That will be true of the vast, vast majority of PayPal disputed cases. Which is why requesting that disputes be referred to the police, as a matter of course, is wholly unreasonable.

I don't think you read my whole post. Either that or you didn't understand it. I explained why it might be unreasonable in practice, and asked you if you had any knowledge. It seems not, so you don´t have any "direct evidence".

Secondly, if someone returns something andlies about it's state then you have direct evidence - 1 their statement (on paypal or whatever) second the seller is a witness as to the actual state.