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

Despina1107

Even with Chargeback PayPal are a problem. I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole now since I was defrauded out of £1595 by them for an order which somebody else had placed on Ebay. They denied that any fraud had taken place but under Natwest's Chargeback scheme I was able to prove that fraud had occurred and was refunded- BY MY BANK. Unfortunately the onus was on me to prove that the fraud had occurred and this was a lengthy and costly process. Even though my bank proved that fraud had occurred PayPal still denied this and I received neither an apology from them nor reimbursement of the costs incurred by me in proving that the fraud had taken place. DON'T USE THEM!

swakhil

Hi all, just filed a claim under S75 with Santander Zero CC - have been told that they can not help since this is PayPal, advised me to file a charge back claim. Will do so if PayPal resolution process fails. I have lost my case on the eBay against fraudster but surprisingly PayPal let me open a claim which looks like will be decided in my favour. Will eBay find out about this and suspend or restrict my account? PayPal rep told me that this is fine with them as they are separate companies now but I am slightly worried if eBay fires at me for trying other avenues to get my money back (to clarify - I am not attempting double recovery) .

cashisking1

Just to further the debate, these two items might make interesting reading for you.

1. The FOS defining e-money services (involving ebay) and how the FOS can help you. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/96/96-e-money.html
2. Then, ex trading standards mediator Mr Meehan's view that "s.75 does apply to card-funded purchases with an eMoney intermediary" and his opinion as to why.https://conradmeehan.wordpress.com/tag/emoney/

Until this CCA S75 and e-money services issue is clarified by statute, it appears that confusion and uncertainty will remain.

samwardill

cashisking1 wrote: »

ex trading standards mediator Mr Meehan's view that "s.75 does apply to card-funded purchases with an eMoney intermediary" and his opinion as to why.https://conradmeehan.wordpress.com/tag/emoney/
[/LIST]
Until this CCA S75 and e-money services issue is clarified by statute, it appears that confusion and uncertainty will remain.

I find it quite perverse that the FOS is taking a stance that it contrary to the views of the courts. They appear to think that they are a law unto themselves. I don't profess to be a legal expert but it was my understand that UK law does not require statute and precedent is sufficient.

Gingernutty

Shameless bump over Korean :spam:

GraceCourt

cashisking1 wrote: »

1. Then, ex trading standards mediator Mr Meehan's view that "s.75 does apply to card-funded purchases with an eMoney intermediary" and his opinion as to why.https://conradmeehan.wordpress.com/tag/emoney/

Mr Meehans's article is interesting but provides no new insight, and as a mediator he doesn't need (have?) any legal training. A mediator's role is to do just that - mediate - and that specifically excludes interpretation of the law.

The key to why his argument is irrelevant as far as Paypal is concerned is found in his quote from the transcript of the 2006 decision already referred to in this thread:

Mr Hapgood [counsel for the card issuers] had difficulty in resisting the conclusion that even where merchant acquirers are involved there are arrangements in existence between the credit card issuer and suppliers who have agreed to accept its card.

Paypal is neither a merchant acquirer nor an eMoney supplier, as already explained above. In every case where there are S.75 rights because a credit card is used within the Scope of the CCA 1974, there IS a merchant acquirer involved, to whom the seller refers the credit card details so that their merchant account with that merchant acquirer is credited with the amount of the transaction, less any fees payable to that merchant acquirer for that transaction. It's through that process that the buyer's card issuer becomes a party to the contract of sale between the buyer and the seller.

With the involvement of Paypal, however, that relationship doesn't exist. Paypal, as a payment services provider (read the Agreement!) becomes an intermediary, breaking the chain so that the card issuer is no longer a party to the sale. It's that legal relationship that provides the S.75 rights, and if that relationship doesn't exist, neither do the rights.

In short, the seller isn't "accepting the card" because no merchant acquirer is used. Remember those TV advertisements for Paypal? They make a great play of the fact that your card details are NEVER provided to the seller.. making out that this is an advantage to the buyer, and in that sense it is... but this single fact is the proof that the seller isn't "accepting the card", they are accepting the payment transferred to them by Paypal as a payment services provider as an intermediary, breaking the contractual chain and thereby removing the buyer's S.75 rights!

Now do you get it?

cashisking1

Deleted by user

GraceCourt

cashisking1 wrote: »

These and other items were introduced for reasonable debate and research only. Not to have you tell us off for 'daring' to provide extra detail for thought.

You are quite right, and the debate and research are important. But a number of the positions taken in this thread set out what is, at best, an opinion of the poster, yet the assertion that MoneySavingExpert is wrong is presented as fact, without any credible logical legal analysis as evidence that this important message to consumers is incorrect. When that position is presented without any regard to the contra evidence, it can be very frustrating that such blind faith opinions seriously undermine a perfectly legitimate warning from a respected consumer champion Web site about a company that has gone to great lengths to avoid oversight by statutory UK consumer protection bodies, and removed itself from the jurisdiction of the English Courts as far as Part 27 CPR 1998 claims are concerned.

That warning is - in any transaction where payment is made in the UK via Paypal, even using a credit card, the buyer has no Section 75 CCA 1974 rights against their card issuer. There's not a shred of evidence anywhere in this thread that casts doubt on what "Martin" is warning us all about.

And I shall accept your switch from disagreement to critical invective as a tacit admission of the veracity of that warning and therefore that no "confusion" or "uncertainty" now remains.

cashisking1

The UK Lead Trading Standards Officer who provides regulatory compliance advice to eBay, Gumtree and PayPal on their obligations under consumer protection law.

Relevant input is from Mr. Paul Miloseski-Reid, the UK Lead Trading Standards Officer who provides regulatory compliance advice to eBay, Gumtree and PayPal on their obligations under consumer protection law.
It might make interesting reading for some.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/70/70vw05.htm
Published as an E-Crime House of Commons Home Affairs Committee PDF [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]report[FONT=&quot]
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/70/70vw.pd[FONT=&quot]f
[/FONT][/FONT]
For those interested, p[/FONT]lease look at the section ; Redress after Scams
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]"[/FONT]The Financial Ombudsman Service position is that section 75 protection does not apply where PayPal or any eMoney service becomes involved in the credit card transaction. This leaves consumers with no recourse to pursue their complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service. They only have recourse with the courts[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]"[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]"[/FONT]The key issues which determine the applicability of section 75 are identified very clearly in Office of Fair Trading v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc and others [2006] EWCA Civ 268 7 and the Bank of Scotland v Alfred Truman (a firm) [2005] [EWHC] 583 (QB). This is legal authority that section 75 protection does exist where one has paid on credit card for a product, via an eMoney service".

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Also

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]

samwardill wrote: »

I find it quite perverse that the FOS is taking a stance that it contrary to the views of the courts. They appear to think that they are a law unto themselves.

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Dear [/FONT]Samward[FONT=&quot]hill, it appears that [FONT=&quot]many agree with you[/FONT], especially when there is legal evidence [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]again cited [/FONT]by amongst others, someone "[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]who provides regulatory compliance advice to eBay, Gumtree and PayPal on their obligations under consumer protection law"[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot] that appears to show the FOS are not[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]
Maybe if S75 of the CCA was [FONT=&quot]amended[/FONT] to cover e-money service providers, then things might be different[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Martin & His [FONT=&quot]Team Are 100% Correct[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There is no question that what Martin [FONT=&quot]and his team have pointed out is [FONT=&quot]100% correct[FONT=&quot] a[FONT=&quot]s far as [/FONT]the FOS is concerned[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot].

However, i[/FONT]t also true that [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]"if the ombudsman’s final decision is not in the consumer’s favour, the consumer doesn’t have to accept it and it does not become binding on either side[FONT=&quot] and [/FONT]the consumer is free to go to court instead".
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/factsheets/final_decision.pdf

This, [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]as user STORK [FONT=&quot]opines[/FONT] in comment #10[FONT=&quot], [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]allows anyone to use case law to further their S75 claim with the card company, subject to the court's decision naturally and if the consumer wishes to take it that far.

Hope it is food for thought at least and again it is not intended to dispute the topic's advice. The advice is FOS 100% correct.

Kindest regards

meldrewinverness

PayPal was introduced as an extra safeguard when using credit cards on the internet. Unfortunately eBay and PayPal employees both use the same computer and have access to all your payment information. Using credit agencies, subterfuge and coercion they place all your sources of credit on your their records. You no longer have control over what was meant to be YOUR account. They will not even let you remove this information without the greatest difficulty.
PayPal are about to restructure and their new terms run to nearly 200 pages of small print (9pt!). If you do nothing before the end of July they will assume you agree to giving them total control over your financial affairs.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED