paypal. taking money without my consent.

DJ_MPH

custardy wrote: »

well I cant help the hard of thinking
lets make it simple
do you sell on eBay?

Come on pal, there's no need for petty insults. Make your points without the turd slinging please. And yes, i buy and sell on ebay.

bengal-stripe

OP is (deliberately?) extremely vague about the nature of the complaint and what evidence he did supply to paypal.

bazzaffc wrote: »

i supplied paypal with all the relevant details. apparently the buyer has denied recieving the ticket..or something similar.

In a "not received" dispute, paypal will ask for (on-line) proof of delivery,
not proof of posting.

custardy

DJ_MPH wrote: »

As a frequent user of ebay and paypal I have always been under the impression that provided you have proof of postage (which is free) then you have fulfilled your role as seller no,its your role to get the item to your buyer with regards to missing items (unless the postage options specifically noted it would be sent by recorded delivery).recorded is for the sellers benefit. why would a buyer need confirmation they have an item when they have it? The cover on recorded is the same as non recorded.so whats the point? If the item goes missing after you posted it, their quarrel lies with royal mail, not you. nope. how exactly do you expect to defend a dispute with that argument?

Having also used the paypal dispute centre they seem to be reasonable. Have you contacted them explaining that it is evident the buyer received the tickets due to the positive feedback given?

DJ_MPH wrote: »

Come on pal, there's no need for petty insults. Make your points without the turd slinging please. And yes, i buy and sell on ebay.

you are exactly the type of seller that paypal disputes were created for

soolin

DJ_MPH wrote: »

As a frequent user of ebay and paypal I have always been under the impression that provided you have proof of postage (which is free) then you have fulfilled your role as seller with regards to missing items (unless the postage options specifically noted it would be sent by recorded delivery). If the item goes missing after you posted it, their quarrel lies with royal mail, not you.

Having also used the paypal dispute centre they seem to be reasonable. Have you contacted them explaining that it is evident the buyer received the tickets due to the positive feedback given?

Unfortunately you are incorrect. For all online selling under UK law the seller remains responsible for getting the item to the buyer. If it gets lost en route seller needs to refund and use their proof of posting to reclaim their losses from the courier.

pimento wrote: »

Proof of posting isn't worth the paper it's written on. You need proper tracking. If I were sending an item wirth £150, I'd be sending it Special Delivery. I believe that unless you can provide PayPal with the details of that kind of tracking, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Two different types of claim are possible and they require different things to invoke seller protection.

bengal-stripe wrote: »

OP is (deliberately?) extremely vague about the nature of the complaint and what evidence he did supply to paypal.



In a "not received" dispute, paypal will ask for (on-line) proof of delivery,
not proof of posting.

The time frame in the OP suggests this cannot be an INR as that would time out in 45 days so it can only be a fraudulent use of card/ bank chargeback in which case proof of posting is needed.

It sounds very odd I know but PayPal are not logical and if their terms say proof of posting they often will not take proof of delivery instead. Weird but true

DJ_MPH

Having checked ebays viewpoint on the matter it would appear that proof of delivery is required. Maybe that will explain why there are so many "scams" involving people claiming they never received the item.

custardy wrote: »

you are exactly the type of seller that paypal disputes were created for

And you, my man, are exactly the type of poster that squelch buttons were created for

soolin

DJ_MPH wrote: »

Having checked ebays viewpoint on the matter it would appear that proof of delivery is required. Maybe that will explain why there are so many "scams" involving people claiming they never received the item.



And you, my man, are exactly the type of poster that squelch buttons were created for

It is not only eBay/ PayPal that require a seller to be responsible for getting goods to a buyer. Did you honestly think that if you bought something from say Amazon and you didn't get it that you would be expected to just roll over and lose your money?

Anyway, this thread is actually not about a claim for non receipt as the time frame is wrong for PayPal. It can only be a bank chargeback so the requirements for seller protection are different as this went via paypal.

custardy

DJ_MPH wrote: »

Having checked ebays viewpoint on the matter it would appear that proof of delivery is required. Maybe that will explain why there are so many "scams" involving people claiming they never received the item.



And you, my man, are exactly the type of poster that squelch buttons were created for

you still dont see it
how else would you settle a dispute if a buyer says they didnt get an item?
your view is as long as you say you sent an item its all good. tough luck to the buyer
You still havent explained why a buyer should pay for recorded delivery?

DJ_MPH

soolin wrote: »

It is not only eBay/ PayPal that require a seller to be responsible for getting goods to a buyer. Did you honestly think that if you bought something from say Amazon and you didn't get it that you would be expected to just roll over and lose your money?

Anyway, this thread is actually not about a claim for non receipt as the time frame is wrong for PayPal. It can only be a bank chargeback so the requirements for seller protection are different as this went via paypal.

I had assumed (wrongly) that business sellers had more obligations to fulfil etc than private 'one off' sellers. As i said i was always under the impression that as long as you could prove the item had been sent your duty was fulfilled.

Buyers on sites such as ebay can see the method in which the seller will dispatch an item - royal mail 1st class for example. If they were worried that they might not receive the item they could ask for recorded or signed for delivery so that they could track the item should anything go wrong. I understand the argument of "why should the buyer be out of pocket?" but at the same time i don't see that the seller should be out of pocket by default. It seems too easy for a buyer to claim an item was never received and potentially receive the item for free. Although I'm likely in the minority I'd suggest its fair to say as long as the seller has proof of postage they have taken reasonable steps to deliver the item.

Is there any particular reason why the word of the buyer is taken over the word of the seller, when the seller could at least provide a small amount of documentation to say it had been sent?

custardy

DJ_MPH wrote: »

I had assumed (wrongly) that business sellers had more obligations to fulfil etc than private 'one off' sellers. As i said i was always under the impression that as long as you could prove the item had been sent your duty was fulfilled.

Buyers on sites such as ebay can see the method in which the seller will dispatch an item - royal mail 1st class for example. If they were worried that they might not receive the item they could ask for recorded or signed for delivery so that they could track the item should anything go wrong. I understand the argument of "why should the buyer be out of pocket?" but at the same time i don't see that the seller should be out of pocket by default. It seems too easy for a buyer to claim an item was never received and potentially receive the item for free. Although I'm likely in the minority I'd suggest its fair to say as long as the seller has proof of postage they have taken reasonable steps to deliver the item.

Is there any particular reason why the word of the buyer is taken over the word of the seller, when the seller could at least provide a small amount of documentation to say it had been sent?

not alays
sellers can list with sellers standard rate,economy etc
what 'tracking' does recorded offer the buyer?
The buyer can only pay for their item.
they have no control on the shipping method,quality of packaging,labeling etc
thats down to the seller

you can stick with your POP being enough. it isnt,end of story.
Being sent doesnt mean the buyer has it.