Proving my innoncence

shaun_from_Africa

hollydays wrote: »

Where does this leave the op here?

In exactly the same position that they would be had there been full insurance, partial insurance or no insurance at all.

As they are claiming that the watch was missing from the delivered package, they will have to convince either the seller or their credit card company of this and whatever insurance was in place during shipment has no effect on the rights of the buyer for goods lost or stolen during the delivery process as this insurance is solely for the benefit of the seller.

lovinituk

hollydays wrote: »

Where does this leave the op here?

Totally and utterly screwed by the looks of it. The only chance is if the credit card company are willing to help.

It was risky as soon as the seller mentioned Faster Payment / Worldpay instead of Paypal!

hollydays

Exactly how are you able to pin the blame on the seller? Crystal ball?
He's findable through his accountant presumably.
You are ill advised referring to someone in that way on a public forum..

shaun_from_Africa

A bit risky referring to the seller as a scammer without any proof at all.
They appear to have an ongoing website selling watches as well as a presence on Facebook and linkedin.
Not accepting paypal for ebay purchases is a breach of ebay policy but considering the amount that this can save the seller and the high risk items they are selling, I'm not surprised that they try this.

lovinituk

hollydays wrote: »

Exactly how are you able to pin the blame on the seller? Crystal ball?
He's findable through his accountant presumably.
You are ill advised referring to someone in that way on a public forum..

Why is a supposedly legitimate seller not accepting Paypal when required to do so on eBay, uses a mailbox service for their address and sends through unsuitable shipping methods?

However following your and Shauns comments I have amended my post (not that it makes much difference seeing as 2 of you have quoted the original )

Mind you, the OP was ridiculously stupid agreeing to not use Paypal anyway.

wealdroam

SimonSays wrote: »

wealdroam wrote: »

I expect Barclaycard to reject any claim you might make because you paid via Worldpay... thus removing any link between the credit card company and the seller.

That does not mean you should not make that claim.

Why? Worldpay is a payment processor like Barclaycard EDQ IE Merchant Services not like Paypal. A chargeback or S75 would be accepted as there is a direct link

And Paypal also offer a product that works in exactly the same way as "Barclaycard EDQ IE Merchant Services".

The point being that neither you nor I know which Worldpay product the OP used.

When asked, I qualified my answer in a later post.

As you can see, even The Financial Ombudsman has trouble deciding whether S75 applies in this type of case, so I am not sure how you can emphatically state "A chargeback or S75 would be accepted as there is a direct link".

peachyprice

hollydays wrote: »

That's what I was enquiring about, whether this was a secure way to send something of this value. It's a massive amount of money to risk.what would have been a better option?

I believe DHL will insure for the actual value.

enfield_freddy

out of curiosity , what is the max £ claim on paypal/ebay , is it as high as £8k?

enfield_freddy

peachyprice wrote: »

I believe DHL will insure for the actual value.

however , the item has been received and signed for , royal mail , DHL etc out of the loop

lovinituk

Its six of one, half a dozen of the other, although the buyer is currently worse off! The seller shouldn't be selling on eBay if they don't want to accept Paypal and the buyer shouldn't have paid for such an expensive item via a relatively 'unsafe' method.

I can see this having to be resolved in a small claims court.