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

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

" 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?"

Paypal charge 20pence plus x%, they now retain the 20pence but the x% will automatically be refunded to you as part of the refund, i.e you don't get it back in your account, it's refunded as part of the payment.

Crazy_Jamie

CapJ wrote: »

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".

Of course I don't know the history of PayPal's success with this stance. Neither of us do. I highly doubt the police are generally receptive to these requests, but in any event my opinion of the practice would be the same whether the police generally co-operate or not.

CapJ wrote:

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.

Alright, consider this. It may have been in a clean state when it left the OP, but how do you know it arrived in the same state? How do you know somebody, be it a postal worker, or anybody else, didn't damage the item before it reached the buyer? Items get damaged and dirtied in transit all the time. Even if the buyer has dirtied the item, how do you know that the fault complained of wasn't genuine, and would therefore enable a return, despite that? And finally, how do you know that the OP is being accurate with what they say?

Criminal cases have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. One person's word against another, with relevant unknown factors that neither witnessed, is simply not sufficient for a criminal conviction.

CapJ

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Of course I don't know the history of PayPal's success with this stance. Neither of us do. I highly doubt the police are generally receptive to these requests, but in any event my opinion of the practice would be the same whether the police generally co-operate or not.

Why? If the police cooperate then it is not unreasonable for Paypal to refer the OP to the police. This gives Paypal something they can use with the Purchaser. At this point the purchaser may back off (police involvement)... I don't know, it is too hypothetical. This is why I am saying that without real knowledge of this, it is difficult to comment on Paypal's stance, which may be entirely reasonable, or wholly unreasonable.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Alright, consider this. It may have been in a clean state when it left the OP, but how do you know it arrived in the same state? How do you know somebody, be it a postal worker, or anybody else, didn't damage the item before it reached the buyer? Items get damaged and dirtied in transit all the time. Even if the buyer has dirtied the item, how do you know that the fault complained of wasn't genuine, and would therefore enable a return, despite that? And finally, how do you know that the OP is being accurate with what they say?

Criminal cases have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. One person's word against another, with relevant unknown factors that neither witnessed, is simply not sufficient for a criminal conviction.

Without knowing the circumstances in detail it isn't possible for me to comment on your hypothetical scenarios, but what you are now demonstrating is that there would be a case to answer in response to the direct evidence. So there is a potential crime and direct evidence. There isn't a clear cut case. Well that is why we have police and don't just go straight to court in criminal cases. First the police investigate.

Of course, as per previous comments, perhaps the police are never interested, especially if the item is low value. If that is the case fine. But I don't know that, and nor (it seems) do you.

To be clear: this isn't only a civil case, there is direct evidence, and it is unclear (from the what has been presented on this thread) if Paypal has been unreasonable or not.

BartyBoy

ludovico wrote: »

Paypal charge 20pence plus x%, they now retain the 20pence but the x% will automatically be refunded to you as part of the refund, i.e you don't get it back in your account, it's refunded as part of the payment.

hi there, thanks for your comment...

i sent at least 3 messages to PayPal to ask for this £4.11 fee to return back to my PayPal account. I heard nothing from them at all. in the end i phoned them to get a 'proper' answer. this agent called alex who is the most helpful person from PayPal said he would refund me the £4.11 fee straight away. after the phone call with alex, i logged on to my PayPal account, the £4.11 fee did get back to my account. so my next question is, what is this 'poo' about judith telling me the £4.11 was an admin fee? its just a pile of cow poo... PayPal really know how to rob their customers!!!

BartyBoy

faerie_girl wrote: »

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

hi there, thanks for your comment...

revenge is always sweet, i'm just waiting for the right moment.

BartyBoy

CapJ wrote: »

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...

hi there, thank you for your comment...

i think there are some sort of lost in translation here. one of the points that i am arguing here is, PayPal requested me to pay a visit to a police station to 'ask' a police officer to 'write' me a list of damage on the returned item. PayPal did not tell me to report my case as 'crime' to the police. PayPal want the police to make a 'witness statement' of the damaged item, so they don't need to check or inspect the damaged item themselves.

PayPal must think the police have nothing better to do. in fact PayPal have no idea of what they are doing at all!!!

BartyBoy

CapJ wrote: »

...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.

your comment reminds me something PayPal have said to me before...

PayPal wrote to me out of the blue 3 days after the buyer filed a dispute against me saying, 'We contacted the buyer and let them know that you would agree to process a full refund if they return the merchandise to you in its original condition.'

1. PayPal have never discussed the possibility of a refund to the buyer with me.

2. i have never agreed to a refund to the buyer.

3. the item was returned back to me with damage and dirt, but PayPal still issued a full refund to the buyer. Didn't PayPal said a refund could only be issued if the item was returned in its original condition?

4. PayPal lie as well!!

i supplied a pile of evidence to PayPal but they did not consider my story at all. when i phoned PayPal about the dispute, this 'Amy the RUDE manager' from the claim team told me 'the final decision was set, PayPal would not change the outcome.' there is no fairness or whatsoever.

PayPal is not acting neutral at all. PayPal cannot handle cases properly, i don't understand why they should get involved in the first place?