eBays new payment system

vtc6

Hope you don't see me as over argumentative. This is just a discussion and sharing of views and information right?

d123 wrote: »

It was 45 days, it is now 180 days, it should be long enough for anyone to realise there is a problem.

That's plenty to realise theres a problem. But chargebacks give you plenty extra time if the product fails prematurely, or retailer doesn't honour warranty. It does happen.

wealdroam wrote: »

But in your current situation you gave Paypal some money and asked them to forward that money on to a third party. Paypal have done exactly what you asked them to do. Your card issuer has no right to perform a chargeback in this situation.

To any lay person Paypal looks like any other checkout. You add your purchase to basket, you check out, you make payment. How does a lay person know there's a difference? Even the biggest card payment providers like Barclays CPI or Worldpay optionally take you to their own website to make payment, just like Paypal. In fact for years Paypal also allows the retailer to take background payments just like HSBC and all the big players.

The money ALWAYS goes to the payment provider, who then forwards the money to the retailer. So where's the difference? In fact they are all classed as "payment gateways", including Paypal. And the code that integrates Paypal into a website works the same as Barclays or HSBC or Worldpay or all the other payment providers! It's the same thing for all practical purposes.

The difference is only on paper. Or you could argue that Paypal does also let you "send money" by transferring money to Paypal and then forwarding it to the receipient of your choice. But this accounts for a small percentage of their transactions. In fact Paypal have been doing "integrated payments" since before anyone knew who they were, the whole "money sending" loophole was probably only true when Paypal first came out.

Exile_geordie wrote: »

I find it strange you went straight to your CCC rather than using Paypals own claiming service.

Chargebacks are part of consumer law. Consumer law is debated by MPs and democratically passed through parlament to protect everyone. It's a crummy system but it's making a best effort.

Paypals own claiming service is entirely made up by Paypal governed mostly by their small print. And they are not a nice company.

So I'd rather have the protection of chargebacks. But I cannot avoid Paypal because they've cornered the market.

Last time I used Paypal protection it took many weeks to get the money back, Paypal communication is very bad, and even when Paypal deemed in my favour they said they will only return the money if they can get it off the retailer. With chargebacks you get the money immediately, the bank is pleasant to deal with, and you get your money back regardless of the retailer.

I know there's another side to all this, the side of the retailer. I know that all the burden of this is beared by retailers, and I know that consumers lie and cheat and retailers loose money. I do also believe that retailers are not protected enough. Most small retailers make small profits, and now they run high risks because of lying customers. So I know there's another side to all this.

wealdroam

vtc6 wrote: »

d123 wrote: »

It was 45 days, it is now 180 days, it should be long enough for anyone to realise there is a problem.

That's plenty to realise theres a problem. But chargebacks give you plenty extra time if the product fails prematurely, or retailer doesn't honour warranty. It does happen.

Chargebacks have a 120 day time limit.
Have you read MSE's Chargeback article?

vtc6 wrote: »

To any lay person Paypal looks like any other checkout.

You have asked about consumer rights.
What things look like to a lay person is not particularly important.

vtc6 wrote: »

It's the same thing for all practical purposes.

You may think so, but we are discussing consumer rights here.

vtc6 wrote: »

The difference is only on paper.

Amazing!! You seem to be agreeing that there is a difference.

vtc6 wrote: »

Chargebacks are part of consumer law.

Chargebacks are not part of consumer law.


Again I refer you to MSE's Chargeback article where you will see:

It's important to know this is part of Visa, Mastercard and Amex's internal rules and NOT a legal requirement.

Exile_geordie

vtc6 wrote: »

Chargebacks are part of consumer law. Consumer law is debated by MPs and democratically passed through parlament to protect everyone. It's a crummy system but it's making a best effort.

Paypals own claiming service is entirely made up by Paypal governed mostly by their small print. And they are not a nice company.

So I'd rather have the protection of chargebacks. But I cannot avoid Paypal because they've cornered the market.

Last time I used Paypal protection it took many weeks to get the money back, Paypal communication is very bad, and even when Paypal deemed in my favour they said they will only return the money if they can get it off the retailer. With chargebacks you get the money immediately, the bank is pleasant to deal with, and you get your money back regardless of the retailer.

I know there's another side to all this, the side of the retailer. I know that all the burden of this is beared by retailers, and I know that consumers lie and cheat and retailers loose money. I do also believe that retailers are not protected enough. Most small retailers make small profits, and now they run high risks because of lying customers. So I know there's another side to all this.

You really should know what you are talking about before you go off on a rant. Wealdroam has basically said it all.


If you don't know what Paypal is then don't use it. And you don't have to use Paypal for anything you buy(unless its their CC payment system where you don't need an account.

vtc6

It looks like I used wrong terminology, what I called a chargeback, I meant to say "section 75" according to the MSE article.

Practically speaking people ARE forced to use Paypal because they have cornered the market. eBay have now effectively excluded retailers from accepting other payment methods.

I'm mainly explaining why I'm keen to see Paypal treated as any other payment gateway. The original question is whether the new eBay checkout means that Paypal will be treated like any other payment gateway, because the new checkout has you enter your card details direct into the eBay website which means now there really is virtually nothing to show that you are using a "money sending system".

d123

vtc6 wrote: »

It looks like I used wrong terminology, what I called a chargeback, I meant to say "section 75" according to the MSE article.

Practically speaking people ARE forced to use Paypal because they have cornered the market. eBay have now effectively excluded retailers from accepting other payment methods.

I would suggest that the majority of Paypal payments wouldn't be eligible for section 75 protection if they had been paid on a credit card rather than via PayPal.

wealdroam

vtc6 wrote: »

It looks like I used wrong terminology, what I called a chargeback, I meant to say "section 75" according to the MSE article.

I assume you have now also read MSE's Section 75 article.

Now you should read this MSE document:

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

Remember, Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act only covers the purchase of items costing over £100 each.

vtc6

Thanks! That great information.

So, when it comes to internet transactions on a website that has integrated Paypal into their checkout, what exactly makes Paypal different? Is it because Paypal call themselves a money sending service?

vtc6

I'm off for new years eve, have a good evening everyone!

wealdroam

vtc6 wrote: »

So, when it comes to internet transactions on a website that has integrated Paypal into their checkout, what exactly makes Paypal different? Is it because Paypal call themselves a money sending service?

I really find it quite disappointing that after having read all the documentation you have been given, you are still asking that question.

Did you not read this in The Section 75 article:

You're unlikely to be covered when payments are made to a company that isn't the one providing you with the product or service. In these cases, the credit card company usually says it didn't have a direct relationship with the supplier, so isn't equally liable.

If you stand your ground, it's possible to argue that the indirect relationship constitutes an arrangement to pay. The Court of Appeal decided this was acceptable in 2006, but it's unlikely to be an easy task.

The first main area is paying via an online processor such as PayPal, WorldPay or Google Wallet. Though these can have their own refund systems, they aren't as strong as the legal protection of Section 75.

In the same article, did you not read:

However, we asked the Ombusdman and it said although PayPal appears as the merchant on the cardholder's statement, it cannot be seen as the supplier in a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement under section 75. That's because it acts as the payment intermediary by transferring the money from the buyer's account to the seller's account. This means it breaks that chain to be considered under section 75.

Surely you also read in the Paypal on a credit card article this explanation:

Section 75 applies where there is a ‘direct relationship’ between a debt and the product. Typical examples include credit card purchases, specific car finance, store cards and credit from stores for products.

Traditional payment processors act as a way for the retailer to receive its money. But with PayPal, in simple terms, you’re paying PayPal and it's paying the retailer. Therefore, even if you’re just putting your credit card details into PayPal to pay, it counts as an agency, the path is broken, therefore you don’t have Section 75 protection.

That’s my simplified explanation, here’s one from the Financial Ombudsman when I asked it to confirm:

"Although PayPal appears as the merchant on the cardholder's statement, it cannot be seen as the supplier in a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement under Section 75 because it merely acts as the payment intermediary by transferring the money from the buyer's account to the seller's account. Therefore it breaks that chain to be considered under Section 75."

Please don't ask any further questions until you have at least read the articles mentioned.

Have a pleasant evening.

vtc6

Please don't ask any further questions until you have at least read the articles mentioned.

Sorry are you a moderator? Your profile doesn't say you are. And even if you are, I've politely followed the forum rules and isn't this forum about asking questions? Even if I did slip up is that reason to be rude?

Sorry, I try to be polite to everyone these days but you've been pointlessly rude in one or two places here.

You've posted a lot of text just there but not actually answered the question of what "physically" makes Paypal different and exempt from section 75, whether it's because their small print says they're different, because they present themselves differently, or because they operate differently.

I could give you a more detailed explanation, but I really don't want to entertain you any more.

My original question was whether now that eBay takes card payments for purchases by entering the card number direct in ebay.co.uk without the user ever being directed Paypal which now makes the checkout look 100% like a normal payment processor, whether that means they can no longer avoid section 75 claims.

The question hasn't really been answered. I'd still love to know but it looks like this thread has broken down so maybe we should just leave it now.