Paypal is no pal

colbee

Just what use is paypal? Or, at least, what use is its disputes procedure?
In March I bought goods from an ebay trader (not a private seller, I believe); I paid just under £20 inc. post&packing via paypal using my credit card.
Ten days after placing my order, and only after several phone calls and emails, I received goods of the wrong make, size and quality.
I was asked to return the goods, my postal costs would be reimbursed and the correct goods, which were allegedly in stock, would be sent. I returned the goods with proof of postage costs.
Three weeks later, again only after several phone calls and emails, I received replacement goods which, although a different make, were again wrong size and quality. They were in fact practically useless. There was no reimbursement of postage.
The seller asked me to return the goods whereupon my full costs would be reimbursed. Because of my previous experience I refused, unless the seller sent me a pre-paid postal package and my costs. Stalemate.
I raised a dispute with paypal, which initially expects me to repeat the discussion process I have described above. Paypal emphasises that it is only acting as a go-between and that although contact is via paypal I am communicating only with the seller, and not paypal; the dispute will automatically close in 21 days unless I escalate it to a paypal claim asking paypal to review the claim and decide the outcome.
As the seller had not responded after several days, I escalated the claim. After another 10 days paypal said I might be eligible for a refund but I must first send the goods back at my expense. My only options with paypal were to do this or cancel the dispute; there was no third way, namely to disagree. So I complained to paypal about this lack of choice and my collision with their bureaucratic and impotent brick wall. Result? - this is the way paypal does things. What a waste of space!
So, last Friday (yes, the bank holiday week-end) I referred the matter to my credit card company. Today, the Wednesday after the Friday, I got a letter from the credit card company stating that my disputed transaction had been refunded (by the card company). Now that's what I call service.
I have emailed paypal with this outcome and suggested that there is a moral somewhere in all of this. Will they take any notice? Are Manchester City the champions of Europe?

eyelinerprincess

colbee wrote: »

I raised a dispute with paypal, which initially expects me to repeat the discussion process I have described above. Paypal emphasises that it is only acting as a go-between and that although contact is via paypal I am communicating only with the seller, and not paypal; the dispute will automatically close in 21 days unless I escalate it to a paypal claim asking paypal to review the claim and decide the outcome.
As the seller had not responded after several days, I escalated the claim. After another 10 days paypal said I might be eligible for a refund but I must first send the goods back at my expense. My only options with paypal were to do this or cancel the dispute; there was no third way, namely to disagree. So I complained to paypal about this lack of choice and my collision with their bureaucratic and impotent brick wall. Result? - this is the way paypal does things. What a waste of space!

So let me get this straight, you wanted a refund AND to keep the item, even though it was the wrong thing?

colbee

eyelinerprincess wrote: »

So let me get this straight, you wanted a refund AND to keep the item, even though it was the wrong thing?

Princess, I might not be the greatest scribe in the world but I don't know how you infer that from my post. Let me elucidate:
1/ Seller sends wrong goods.
2/ Seller asks for them to be returned, whereupon he will reimburse my
postage for returning the wrong goods he sent me and will then send me the correct goods.
3/ I return the goods along with proof of postage costs.
4/ Seller sends second lot of wrong goods, and no reimbursement of my costs for returning the first lot of wrong goods.
5/ Seller asks for second lot of wrong goods to be returned whereupon he will reimburse my postage....etc. etc. etc.
6/ I refuse to comply because of previous non-reimbursement.
7/ I say I will return the goods if seller sends me a prepaid postal package and the money I paid for the goods in the first place, which expects him to rely on my good faith as I (mistakenly) relied on his good faith.
8/ Seller declines to co-operate.
9/ I raise a dispute with paypal, which proves to be a waste of time and in respect of which the seller does not respond.
10/ I refer the matter to my credit card company, which refunds me in just a few days.
11/ I am out of pocket for the cost of returning the original wrong goods for which I was not reimbursed.
12/ Yes, I still have the second lot of (useless) wrong goods which I will return whenever the seller sends me a pre-paid postal package and my original postal costs.
This is it in a nutshell. In my view, the morals to this mini-saga are:
a) always pay by credit card, then, if there is a dispute where the seller is clearly at fault:
b) don't bother with paypal, go straight to the card company.:beer:

cavycrazy_2

I hate Paypal with a passion. I bought a domain name (not from paypal) the other week and had to go through Paypal. They helped themselves to an extra £2.50 then repeatedly denied it, even though my bank had told me unequivocally that Paypal had taken it. It took me the best part of two weeks to get hold of a supervisor who confirmed they had taken it as an age verification check. The lackeys I had been speaking to had never heard of this. It took a further fortnight to get the money back.

colbee

Having originally asked 'what use is paypal?' it occurs to me that I might have stumbled across the answer to my own question; and the answer is that paypal is useful to itself.
By running its own dispute system there is a tendency (inadvertent, I'm sure) to deflect buyers from seeking recourse through the Sale of Goods Act or through the credit card companies.
This is not an expressed action on the part of paypal, but their apparent reluctance to enter into active person-to-person dialogue and the absence of prominent advice about the Act and card companies leads me to suspect that paypal is simply a buffer between the buyer and the proper exercise of the buyer's consumer rights. Why else would paypal exist? If it is possible to buy something with a credit card why does it need any parties other than the buyer, the seller and the card company?
Maybe somebody can enlighten me.

lonestar1

Dont Paypal T&Cs state you must use their dispute system by claiming back of your credit card you may find yourself no longer able to use paypal (No bad thing some may say)

colbee

lonestar1 wrote: »

Dont Paypal T&Cs state you must use their dispute system by claiming back of your credit card you may find yourself no longer able to use paypal (No bad thing some may say)

Can't say I'm too au fait with the T&Cs but to be honest I'm not bothered. If they are trying to deprive me of my consumer rights then they can stick pp where the sun don't shine. Restrictive practices make me spit.:rotfl: