Refund but paid

popadom

Alderbank said:

popadom said:

They are a very difficult company who can’t see that it isn’t me refusing to pay, but that I won’t go into more debt to do so. 

...it isn't me refusing to pay...

Yes it is.
You have said you will only pay via the company formerly known as Bill me Later, even though they refuse to do so. It is no different from saying that you will only pay in Mongolian tögrög. In English law the seller chooses the form of payment, not the buyer.

I won’t go into more debt to do so. 

But it was your choice to buy through Bill me Later rather than pay upfront. That is the very essence of going into debt. You are still insisting on paying through Bill me Later.

Just take unholyangel's good advice and pay it off at £30 a month. Pragmatically they have no no real option but to accept.

I am only asking to pay in the method I originally used when I bought the chairs. The company is now changing the terms by refusing to accept any other payment but card. 

Yes, it was my choice to use PayPal Credit, but I didn’t consent to being out of pocket. I was paying the balance at £30 a month. That’s a big difference to suddenly being asked to find £139 when you weren’t expecting it  . I’m a single parent on a limited budget so while it was a “choice”, it was one I needed to choose. 

The company will not accept anything but full payment. 

unholyangel

sheramber said:

Because the refunded money is sitting in PayPal CRedit and he can’t access it. He has find another lot of money to pay the company direct. So he is out of pocket by the money sitting in PayPal Credit.

I don't think you're understanding. Currently, the OP isn't out of pocket because they've had a refund of £139 extra by mistake. 

If OP refunds that wrong refund, at the same repayment rate and interest they would have paid had the mistake not been made, OP will be in the same position (no worse off, no better off) so again...not out of pocket. 

So how do you figure s/he's out of pocket by a wrongful credit to the paypal credit account? When the error is in his/her favour? 

sheramber

How is she not out of pocket?

 she can't use the Paypal Credit. It cannot be used to pay the company as they won't accept a Paypal credit payment now and it cannot be withdrawn or transferred to his bank account.

Sp, yes, she has money sitting in Paypal Credit , but she cannot use or access it so is out of pocket by that amount .

The OP's post above confirms this 

unholyangel

sheramber said:

How is she not out of pocket?

 she can't use the Paypal Credit. It cannot be used to pay the company as they won't accept a Paypal credit payment now and it cannot be withdrawn or transferred to his bank account.

Sp, yes, she has money sitting in Paypal Credit , but she cannot use or access it so is out of pocket by that amount .

The OP's post above confirms this 

It reduced the amount she owed paypal from £200 down to £60, so she has already had the use/benefit of it. Therefore, as things stand currently, they are not out of pocket at all - the trader is. The OP is in a better position (again, currently) due to the retailers mistake. Because had that mistake not been made, OP would owe Paypal Credit £200 (and any interest accruing on that £200). Because of the mistake, they only owe £60 (and any interest accruing on that). 

If OP pays them exactly what she would have paid paypal (had the mistake not happened) then OP is still not out of pocket. Because they're only paying what they were supposed to. 

In the simplest of terms, the £140 came out of the trader's "pocket" and was paid into the OP's pocket. As such, it is currently the trader who is "out of pocket", not the OP. 

sheramber

The OP paid by Paypal credit. That was refunded She then paid by credit card That was refunded to Paypal credit which is sitting there but she cannot use it to pay or access it. Now she is being asked to pay again. If she pays for the third time how is she not out of pocket?

Ectophile

sheramber said:

The OP paid by Paypal credit. That was refunded She then paid by credit card That was refunded to Paypal credit which is sitting there but she cannot use it to pay or access it. Now she is being asked to pay again. If she pays for the third time how is she not out of pocket?

Because she's been refunded twice.  If you pay three times, and get refunded twice, then you end up paying the right amount.

sheramber

But she didn't get the second refund . It s stuck in Paypal Credit She cannot use it..

It is not in her bank account, it is not in her pocket. 

 Since she paid by credit card it should have been refunded to her card. and then it would be simply a case of paying again using the refund on her card.

The company should be reclaiming the refund rom Paypal Credit since they paid it in error.

unholyangel

sheramber said:

But she didn't get the second refund . It s stuck in Paypal Credit She cannot use it..

It is not in her bank account, it is not in her pocket. 

 Since she paid by credit card it should have been refunded to her card. and then it would be simply a case of paying again using the refund on her card.

The company should be reclaiming the refund rom Paypal Credit since they paid it in error.

If it had been paid into OPs bank account and reduced OPs overdraft, would that make it any clearer for you? 

Because it's no different. 

Ath_Wat

sheramber said:

But she didn't get the second refund . It s stuck in Paypal Credit She cannot use it..

It is not in her bank account, it is not in her pocket. 

 Since she paid by credit card it should have been refunded to her card. and then it would be simply a case of paying again using the refund on her card.

The company should be reclaiming the refund rom Paypal Credit since they paid it in error.

You keep talking about money "sitting in Paypal credit" but it is not sitting there.  They had a large debt owing to PayPal and that has been reduced.  Instead of owing £400 to PayPal and having £200 cash, for example, they owe £200 to PayPal and have no cash.  Net result; they are not "out of pocket" unless you are using "out of pocket" to mean "not having ready cash available", which is not the normal meaning.