Paypal Scammed Please Help!

pulliptears

dollydiva wrote: »

I have sold this way before, with the buyer collecting, but always have the buyer write a receipt that they have collected the goods.

You do realise that will make no difference to a Paypal claim don't you? In fact, you could take a swab of DNA, photograph your buyer holding the item and get him to sign all of that and you would still lose a paypal claim.

Unless you can prove delivery to a physical address you will lose.

custardy

Alias_Omega wrote: »

Top-Tip...

When selling with PayPal as Payment Method. Only offer one method of postage, which would be via a Tracked Method Only.

Don't give the option for 1st Class Mail etc, as its un-tracked and a buyer can ask for the item to be sent that way.

Tracking Items is for Seller Protection, Buyer Protection starts when the Buyer pays via PayPal..

which tracked method do you recommend?

Alias_Omega

custardy wrote: »

which tracked method do you recommend?

PayPal has a nice page about this.

https://www.paypal.com/uk/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/protections-pop-outside

QuackQuackOops

sennypijama wrote: »

Thanks for the T&Cs.

IANAL but we all know that the T&Cs of a company do not override the law, and an unfair contract cannot be enforced.

So what I'm saying is, I'd try and get hold of a good pro bono Consumer Rights lawyer to fight Paypal on this one - they should have contacted the OP before refunding the money to the buyer.

Edited to say: Paypal allow this fraud to happen, and I feel that they should be held jointly responsible. It's time for a test case.

Telling others what you think should happen is not really helpful. Your interpretation of things is not correct.

Paypal have not done anything wrong.

The seller has signed up to Paypal and its T&Cs and have agreed to abide by their rules. All sellers know that they do NOT HAVE any seller protection unless the item is SENT BY TRACKABLE MEANS. This is Paypal's recommondation.

The Seller has chosen to ignore those recommondations and in doing so have forfeited their right to any seller protection.

The buyer has claimed that the item was not received and the only proof Paypal can accept that it WAS received is a signature of delivery. The seller cannot provide one.

There is nothing that can be done about this as all rules, regs and laws are available to users before they join and then are agreed to.

As for what happens now, Paypal will send aggresive debt collectors to your door because you have left your Paypal account in negative balance, which no, it is not a debt. It is money owed.

The only action you can take is to take the buyer to small claims court. If the buyer is stupid then you might have a chance but if the buyers account was hacked then I am afraid you are out of luck.

QuackQuackOops

Anarchist wrote: »

I'd post them a brick, and then send PayPal the tracking info. Let's see them take that to the police when they're wanted for mass fraud.

Mission accomplished.

Another MSE user giving out advice on how to defraud others and commit crimminal offences.

You have been reported.

Dave543

I would agree that, if you are/were in the OP's situation, then you do not have much of a comeback. However, as no agreement was signed - it seems very unlikely that you can be forced to repay the 'debt'.

Paypal recently changed their Seller Protection to be eligible with no signature required.

Personally, I think this is a bad move - as you can then post the item being insured for less than required, but still be eligible for Seller Protection.

Now suppose the receiver claims SNAD, or a chargeback. While you would have proof of the item being delivered - you, yourself, would not personally know who signed for the item and so have no way of knowing who actually obtained it.

You would then be unable to take action against the receiver, especially if they used false information.

Therefore, you would lose out - despite, on the surface, this new rule appearing 'helpful'.

Yes - if the item is of value you should perhaps get signed for and have the proof for yourself - but given the economic situation, if people want to save money - this new rule appears to aide with that but in the long run may do more harm than good.

What I am trying to say here is that: before, you would be forced to know who signed for the item and so could take action against the receiver but now you have the illusion of protection without ever knowing who obtained the item.

While those risks have always been present, to me, this seems like a way to make more people lose more money by rendering them unable to take action against the recipient.

soolin

Dave543 wrote: »

I would agree that, if you are/were in the OP's situation, then you do not have much of a comeback. However, as no agreement was signed - it seems very unlikely that you can be forced to repay the 'debt'.

Paypal recently changed their Seller Protection to be eligible with no signature required.

Personally, I think this is a bad move - as you can then post the item being insured for less than required, but still be eligible for Seller Protection.

Now suppose the receiver claims SNAD, or a chargeback. While you would have proof of the item being delivered - you, yourself, would not personally know who signed for the item and so have no way of knowing who actually obtained it.

You would then be unable to take action against the receiver, especially if they used false information.

Therefore, you would lose out - despite, on the surface, this new rule appearing 'helpful'.

Yes - if the item is of value you should perhaps get signed for and have the proof for yourself - but given the economic situation, if people want to save money - this new rule appears to aide with that but in the long run may do more harm than good.

What I am trying to say here is that: before, you would be forced to know who signed for the item and so could take action against the receiver but now you have the illusion of protection without ever knowing who obtained the item.

While those risks have always been present, to me, this seems like a way to make more people lose more money by rendering them unable to take action against the recipient.

I honestly don't think being signed for is as useful as you believe. I know a lot of people who would accept a parcel in and sign the name on the parcel believing that is what they need to do. I also use two distinct surnames, and often sign in the wrong one- my sons do the same.

My husbands signature is a squiggly line, no letters no identifiable name at all and I cannot see how that helps prove anything.

Dave543

QuackQuackOops wrote: »

As for what happens now, Paypal will send aggresive debt collectors to your door because you have left your Paypal account in negative balance, which no, it is not a debt. It is money owed.

I do not want to cause any trouble or make anyone angered / annoyed.

However, in my letter from the DCA it specifically states: PAYPAL - PERSONAL have passed your debt to [DCA]... with instructions to recover your outstanding balance in full.

It seems that the DCA regard it as a debt. As such, and as no agreement was signed, I do not see how such a debt can be forced to be paid when no evidence of an agreement exists.

In all honesty, I think it just comes down to whether you want to pay it off or fight the 'debt'.

Unfortunately, there are few instances of people 'fighting' online, as most seem to post about being contacted by a DCA and then all goes quiet.

There are some press reports and some examples of sending documents to the Ombudsman but no evidence of what happens after you receive a DCA letter easily available online that I could find.


Regarding your point soolin - perhaps this is something that needs to be looked at by the delivery companies? (in terms of identity fraud?) I'm sure lots do sign for the item, maybe even using a name that does not exist - which would be no help at all in any case and [in terms of Paypal] again would leave the Seller at a dead end if a SNAD or chargeback was filed.

What I fail to understand though is that: if Paypal are not a bank, nor are regulated as such, why do they, as you say, offer similar protection?

theonlywayisup

I haven't read the whole of this thread, but should point out the following with your post.

Dave543 wrote: »

Paypal recently changed their Seller Protection to be eligible with no signature required.

Paypal changed their policy in October. However, prior to this there was NEVER any requirement to obtain a signature for items under £150. The policy changed and removed the necessity for items of £150 or over to have a signature. So for most sellers, nothing has changed.

Dave543 wrote: »

Personally, I think this is a bad move - as you can then post the item being insured for less than required, but still be eligible for Seller Protection.

You could always post an item underinsured, that is nothing to do with Seller Protection. Look through the pages now and see how many people sell mobile phones and offer 1st or 2nd class recorded.

Dave543 wrote: »

Now suppose the receiver claims SNAD, or a chargeback. While you would have proof of the item being delivered - you, yourself, would not personally know who signed for the item and so have no way of knowing who actually obtained it.

If the buyer is claiming SNAD, it is fair to assume the buyer has the item, no? As for parcels without signature, I have been using Royal Mails Tracked service for nearly 5 years without issue, and none of those parcels were requiring a signature.

Dave543 wrote: »

Therefore, you would lose out - despite, on the surface, this new rule appearing 'helpful'.

A seller will not lose out for INR all they have to show is proof of delivery. For a chargeback, as long as they abide by Seller Protection rules, then a certificate of posting is all that is needed.

missladyannie

I didnt realise any of this, that you should only accept cash for collection only items. I bought a Nintendo Wii a few months back and offered the seller cash on collection (to save on paypal fees) but he said he wanted me to pay by paypal, which i did, and collected item no problems. I will definintely be more wary in future.

Thanks for the advice, and sorry to the seller who is going through this mess