Warning! Don’t use PayPal to pay on a credit card

GraceCourt

jayess wrote: »

I am guessing that TopCashBack and Quidco are 'agencies'?

No, the difference is that - unless something has changed - your money does NOT go to the seller via them... they get a commission from the seller for attracting your attention to the product, and the cashback company passes some of that commission on to you and keeps the rest.

GraceCourt

mandymac wrote: »

When I use Paypal I don't enter a credit or debit card, it takes it directly from my bank account.
How is this affected by Section 75?

It's not affected in any way at all by Section 75, which is the problem - S.75 gives you some really useful protection, and purchases that you make in this way don't qualify for that protection, as Martin describes.

Patr100

mandymac wrote: »

When I use Paypal I don't enter a credit or debit card, it takes it directly from my bank account.
How is this affected by Section 75?

Then Section 75 wouldn't apply as you are not using a credit card.
Other rules would apply to debits.

GraceCourt

experttechie wrote: »

Everything is stated clearly in Paypals terms and conditions

[snip]

Wake up Martin and Johanna Gornitzki who wrote the article!

Change the article to "FOS falsely saying paypal give no s75 protection"

Sigh. Martin says in the sidebar that, as this is a Newbie, we ought to be nice, so I will be.

Read it again. It starts off with,in big capital letters, that it is a COMMERCIAL ENTITY AGREEMENT and mentions that it is between Visa and Paypal. No-one ever said that there was no contract or relationship between Visa and Paypal, but we ARE saying that no relationship is created between the consumer as a purchaser and the credit card company. Paypal stands in the middle, as is evidenced by their formal contractual agreement with Visa International, not your card issuer.

Ergo, Section 75 cannot apply, and you have no Section 75 rights. I'm tempted to say "Simples!", but the huge number of people on here still insisting that they do have S.75 rights, or - worse! - that Paypal protection, completely unenforceable under English law given that the company is based in Luxembourg, is somehow "better", makes me so depressed that I don't feel like making jokes...

GraceCourt

cashisking1 wrote: »

Wait a second.
Case Law Says that Section 75 (CCA 1974) Does Apply to 3rd Parties (e.g PayPal)

The bottom line
If the card firms won’t help you, the courts will (S75 does apply) and the card firms will not want to lose there as that will blow the myth, especially in the cheap, quick and now, on-line small claims.

Good try, cashisking (and I'm being serious, it really was a good post) but no, this decision is inapplicable to Paypal. The appeal decision is very clear in pointing out that the cases under consideration were what they referred to as three-party and four-party relationships relating to the credit card transaction. It specifically limits the scope of the judgement - which, as you correctly point out, is indeed binding on lower Courts in England and Wales (but, of course, not to any Court in Scotland), to (1) merchant acquirers and (2) sellers/suppliers abroad. It does NOT relate to the activities of Paypal, which is neither - it is an international business based in Luxembourg that provides payment services around the world to consumers as customers. It is not acting on behalf of, or jointly with, the supplier, so the Consumer Credit Act 1974 doesn't apply and there are no Section 75 rights. In any event, Paypal was licensed in the UK as an Electronic Money Issuer with the Financial Services Authority between 2004 and 2007, when it decided not to renew its licence and moved its entire operation to Luxembourg precisely to avoid any requirement to be subject to financial regulation in the UK.

So even if the scope of the judgement had included electronic money issuers in the UK, that ceased for Paypal a year later because it lost that status. Hope this clarifies things for you.

cashisking1

deleted by user

skysucksutc

Misleading by Gracecourt, just like the corrupt FOS who are in the pockets of the banks (they are a private entity that make crazy decisions and the best you can hope for is £50 or £100 compensation anyway!).

Stick to the courts.

And it would be your credit card company you were taking to court*, not Paypal. Which is exactly who the FOS is trying to protect here: their customers, i.e. the banks, who without their support and funding, the FOS would not exist.

Silly silly grace court, but prob a FOS insider. They possibly just don't want claims against Paypal because they won't get the money off Paypal, who are also regarded by many as crooks. However a scan of ombudsman-decisions.org.uk shows almost none are ever found against Paypal!

* Just like in www dot ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=65137

SteveK1

Paypal will never allow themselves to be challenged in Court so keep pushing them; they'll eventually give in.
If anyone got Paypal into Court their whole system would be called into question and the blatant illegality of their corruption would be shown up. Their system operates with impunity outside of the law but they have what they call an 'Escalation Department' whose job it is to protect them against litigation and their Lawyers are bigger than yours!
Sadly we live in a selfish world where people can't be bothered to follow things through for the greater good and buckle too easily.:(
Ebay also give Sellers no choice but to accept PayPal and restrict many categories to PayPal only and no-one has any real palpable protection; especially Sellers.
Some may say Ebay/PayPal are 'Skynet!?:eek:

green_lantern

I am not trying to unsettle you but two years ago I booked and paid for 2 hotel rooms through Naevlar who were acting as wholesale hotel room booking agents. A middle man as it were! I had used them before the previous year and got good deal then and expected a good deal this time! However Naevlar went bust and as I paid with Maestro on my bank card I was not covered. I could, because the company was foreign registered apply for a chargeback. Long story short the administration has still no been completed, so I was not going to get my money back and through a mistake (thankfully) with the bank not processing my chargeback promptly, they gave me my money back when I queried what was going on after several months had passed! If you are using a intermediary then you are taking a calculated risk even if they are a reputable company. If they go bust though, then your problems begin? Might they allow you to make a part payment and the rest on arrival?

FairTrial

green_lantern wrote: »

I am not trying to unsettle you but two years ago I booked and paid for 2 hotel rooms through Naevlar who were acting as wholesale hotel room booking agents....
Might they allow you to make a part payment and the rest on arrival?

Even sending a deposit, followed up with cash on arrival, is a frequent scam and often leads to your losing your deposit and arriving at holiday destination to find you have no real accommodation.

Only ever pay for a holiday rental with a credit card directly, or pay through escrow with an FCA authorised firm (which fully protects both the landlord and the holidaymaker).

I don't know of any other safe methods.
Any other method, and you are taking a huge risk that many have found to their cost to be disastrous.