Paypal chargeback, paypal charging £14 on top

ballisticbrian

Yes, but as I just pointed out - you can get POP over the counter on franked items.

jeffuk

Bulk POP can be downloaded here http://www.royalmail.com/business/help/sending/preparing-mail/certificates-of-posting, fill it in before you drop parcels/letters at PO. Saves a lot of time and covers you in event of CB.

George_Michael

ballisticbrian wrote: »

Yes, but as I just pointed out - you can get POP over the counter on franked items.

I realise that but I was just responding to the comment stating that a franking machine's daily output report would be good enough for paypal when contesting a non authorised payment dispute.

ballisticbrian

I can just see it now, the next big bank PPP scandal, banks complicit with fraud as costs are deflected back to retailers, insufficient safegaurds put in place and having to pay back sellers millions $$$. Actually even eBay could fall foul of that, and could bring about it's demise if it was found had access to thousands of users messages claiming non receipt and they just sit on this information and do nothing.

custardy

ballisticbrian wrote: »

I can just see it now, the next big bank PPP scandal, banks complicit with fraud as costs are deflected back to retailers, insufficient safegaurds put in place and having to pay back sellers millions $$$. Actually even eBay could fall foul of that, and could bring about it's demise if it was found had access to thousands of users messages claiming non receipt and they just sit on this information and do nothing.

So how would you have paypal prove the buyers chargeback is false?

ballisticbrian

custardy wrote: »

So how would you have paypal prove the buyers chargeback is false?

Well, here's an example in the case of eBay. I was on the phone to them about a suspicious buyer the other day and I quote you the words of the eBay representative, "it's totally inconceivable that this buyer has had this many (100's) of items go missing..."

My point being eBay staff can see the messages sent by buyers (not just cases raised.) In fact, when you set up an eBay account, you agree that the messages aren't private and may be monitored or accessed by eBay staff.

An example of how eBay can search and use data, was their ability to use the data to look for sellers who were asking buyers to cancel the sale and get a discount for carrying out the purchase off eBay.

You see, when it's in eBay's interests to do so (financial) they can use this data for their benefit.

It's likely to be pretty easy to search the data for users who have said to different sellers 10, 20 , 50 times, "I haven't received my item."

At the moment we are seeing buyers even copy and paste the title of a case into an email message (so it looks like a case) i.e. "Case opened: I did not receive my item," which is actually just an eBay email message and not a case, reason is because they have exceeded the number of cases they can have opened on the system.

My point above was just conjecture that some of this may come back to haunt eBay at some point in the future if they can be proven had the technology to prevent this but only did so when it was in their interests, maybe in some future business climate not here as yet.

celestius

ballisticbrian wrote: »

I must admit, we use franking and in 4 years have had two chargebacks both for a couple of quid. Have I simply not noticed the £14 charge, or is it a new thing?
I can only think I could have missed it if it was buried in a statement somewhere. I certainly never got an email telling me I was being charged a £14 fee?
One positive thing I can suggest is, with franking, we fill out a POP and get it stamped for our airmail. Firstly, it means I cover the items with the expensive postage, and secondly these have to be handed over separately at the post office anyway. One of those two chargebacks I mentioned was on airmail you see.

On my recent chargeback (£18.99 item) I had to pay a fee of £14 too :-(

custardy

ballisticbrian wrote: »

Well, here's an example in the case of eBay. I was on the phone to them about a suspicious buyer the other day and I quote you the words of the eBay representative, "it's totally inconceivable that this buyer has had this many (100's) of items go missing..."

My point being eBay staff can see the messages sent by buyers (not just cases raised.) In fact, when you set up an eBay account, you agree that the messages aren't private and may be monitored or accessed by eBay staff.

An example of how eBay can search and use data, was their ability to use the data to look for sellers who were asking buyers to cancel the sale and get a discount for carrying out the purchase off eBay.

You see, when it's in eBay's interests to do so (financial) they can use this data for their benefit.

It's likely to be pretty easy to search the data for users who have said to different sellers 10, 20 , 50 times, "I haven't received my item."

At the moment we are seeing buyers even copy and paste the title of a case into an email message (so it looks like a case) i.e. "Case opened: I did not receive my item," which is actually just an eBay email message and not a case, reason is because they have exceeded the number of cases they can have opened on the system.

My point above was just conjecture that some of this may come back to haunt eBay at some point in the future if they can be proven had the technology to prevent this but only did so when it was in their interests, maybe in some future business climate not here as yet.

Ebay,Ebay,Ebay.

So once again,how does Paypal prove it?

Pierre_De_Grenoble

custardy wrote: »

Ebay,Ebay,Ebay.

So once again,how does Paypal prove it?

paypal doesn't need to prove it they can shut down any account they like for whatever reason they like....


Okay things have changed in the last few months since separation, but prior to this ebay/paypal were the same company with access to the same information.


now paypal are I suspect, still swopping data with ebay and even if they were not, they must be able to see when a buyer is consistently forcing/receiving refunds. It's not rocket science to flag up these accounts and shut them down in the same manner that a sellers are shut down now.

custardy

Pierre_De_Grenoble wrote: »

paypal doesn't need to prove it they can shut down any account they like for whatever reason they like....


Okay things have changed in the last few months since separation, but prior to this ebay/paypal were the same company with access to the same information.


now paypal are I suspect, still swopping data with ebay and even if they were not, they must be able to see when a buyer is consistently forcing/receiving refunds. It's not rocket science to flag up these accounts and shut them down in the same manner that a sellers are shut down now.

Sigh,so yet again.
How does paypal prove a buyers claim its false?
no bog stories and conspiracies.
one stand alone case.

I am typing this in plain English am I not?