In message 4774ee1b@qaanaaq, at 12:37:47 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Andy
Hall remarked:
I think I have bought something with Ebay twice and sold something
twice.

The purchases were things that I couldn't find elsewhere and the sales
were for items that had some residual value that was worth capturing.

Even doing that was a PITA and time consuming without any fraud or
dishonesty element.

What were the most time consuming parts? I find that the five minute
walk to the Post Office (when a seller) is the worst part. None of the
other steps takes more than a minute or two.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:59:56 on Fri, 28
Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:
a 'good' transaction paid for by Paypal - which does account for the vast
majority of ours - really is totally smooth and very quick and easy.

A 'good' transaction carried out by any means would be "totally smooth and
very quick and easy".

Not necessarily. It can be a real PITA to drive to the one shop in the
area that sells the item, only to find out it's early closing, or they
sold the last one earlier in the day, and so on.

What matters is when things go wrong.

Or do those both count as "going wrong"?
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:30:43 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

you'll find that there isn't Recorded Delivery any more, it's been
repositioned as "Recorded Signed For", and does come with online
tracking.

I'm pretty sure you don't have tracking with Recorded Signed For. You
*MAY*(1) be able get online notification of delivery, an electronic copy
of the signature, card left or being returned but that is all. The item
does not appear online until *after* a delivery has been attempted *and*
the data entered into the system by the postie. There is no *tracking*
between posting and delivery like there is with Special Delivery. They
appear very quickly as the label is scanned into the system at time of
posting.

(1) I say may because entry of the item into the system is rather flakey.
SWMBO'd sends everything Recorded Signed For, maybe twenty items/week.
Some never appear on the system at all but have been delivered safely or
arrive back here. Some get a delivery notification but no electronic sig
is available. Some just sit at "card left" but the recpient has collected
or it has been returned.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In message 47751569@qaanaaq, at 15:25:29 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Andy
Hall remarked:
I would rather buy the small things from somewhere that I can get
redress quickly and easily. For example, the M&S shoes that I
ordered immediately before Christmas arrived this morning. The size
is way too small - frankly undersized against the nominal. Therefore
they are going back. That happens by ticking a box on the delivery
note, sticking a peel off label on the packaging and resealing it. Then
it's Freepost at the post office or drop it into a store if I wanted.
Short of their arranging collection, that's pretty good service. I
don't really care if it costs a little more than the same from an Ebay
supplier. Two minutes, problem solved. Next thing.

And in a free market you can do just that. There are plenty of other
people who want to save the money though.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:47:21 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message 4774ee1b@qaanaaq, at 12:37:47 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Andy
Hall remarked:
I think I have bought something with Ebay twice and sold something
twice.

The purchases were things that I couldn't find elsewhere and the sales
were for items that had some residual value that was worth capturing.

Even doing that was a PITA and time consuming without any fraud or
dishonesty element.

What were the most time consuming parts? I find that the five minute
walk to the Post Office (when a seller) is the worst part. None of the
other steps takes more than a minute or two.

I sold a few (electronic) things before I left the UK. It all took way too
much time:

Properly testing the items.
Gathering packing materials.
Taking a range of good photos.
Researching what I was selling.
Writing up auction text.
Calculating postage costs.
Making sure items were *properly* packed.

The five minute walk to the post office was definitely the easy bit.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-12-28 14:14:20 +0000, Lobster
said:

Tim Ward wrote:
"Lobster" wrote in message
...
a 'good' transaction paid for by Paypal - which does account
for the vast majority of ours - really is totally smooth and
very quick and easy.

A 'good' transaction carried out by any means would be "totally
smooth and very quick and easy".

Agreed - but Andy seemed to be saying the opposite.

And I do find the whole ebay thing extremely straightforward for
lots of stuff, items that I really don't know where else I'd go to
buy or sell with anything remotely approaching 'convenience'.

What matters is when things go wrong.

For sure...


That's really my point.

For the most part, I don't want to have to get into an
argument/recovery game with individuals over buying and selling,
especially of small things.

But I would maintain even considering the very small % of transactions
which do go wrong, you're still very much quids-in overall whether you
counting in terms of your time or cash.

Eg - my most recent ebay purchase...the other day I needed some inkjet
cartridges for my now-obsolete printer; I usually pay about 7 quid a pop
for these from a shop a few miles away: this time I typed the model
number into ebay and it threw up several hits - result was that I paid
£2.00 all-in for 6 cartridges which landed on my doormat two days later.
(it cost the poor guy £2.10 to post them!). If I'd bought them from
dabs.com or somewhere I can't see how I could have spent less time and
hassle.

In terms of selling stuff, I've been able to get rid of plenty of junk
from the house and garage which would otherwise have cost me time and
petrol to take down to the dump, but people have happily come and paid
me money to remove from my property.... my most successful ebay sale? I
had an old much-loved Lewis Leathers biker jacket in the back of my
wardrobe, waiting to see if the male menopause would strike soon enough
to get me back on a motorcycle before my ever-expanding waistline
rendered the jacket totally obsolete for me. Unfortunately the latter
condition prevailed, and SWMBO decreed that it was time it went to the
dump. Decided to have a punt on ebay, as it was a quite nice jacket
really (cost me 80 or 90 quid new IIRC, circa 1982). It ended up going
for a jaw-dropping 650 quid, plus about 50 to Fedex, to some bloke in
Tokyo, who later professed himself to be delighted with the deal!

David

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:03:49 +0000, Owain
wrote:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Are credit Card companies accepting that payment by Paypal using a CC
is a a normal CC transaction ?
No. They warned recently that payment to Paypal was to be treated as
a cash advance to top up another cash account for protection purposes
(although they don't seem to charge the extra cash percentage)

NatWest charge Paypal transfers as cash advances, with the percentage
and no interest free period.

Owain

Runs to check Virgin and Capital One statements to see what they do

The message
from Roland Perry contains these words:

In message , at 12:17:23 on Fri, 28
Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:
I'm reasonably certain that Royal Mails Recorded Delivery does
not count as it is not an online *trackable* service.

"Special delivery" is, at £4.75 per letter.

When you do get online (I didn't have a problem a couple of hours ago)
you'll find that there isn't Recorded Delivery any more, it's been
repositioned as "Recorded Signed For", and does come with online
tracking.
--
Roland Perry

"Recorded Signed For" is something of a fraud. I've used it three times
since 30 November.The third item arrived and was signed for. The second
item did actaully arrive, but no signature was requested. The first
item -- well, who knows what happened to it? And I gather that's about
par for the course. Compensation? I'll be lucky if I get a refund of
the charge they made for the service they ddint' provide :-)

On 2007-12-28 18:09:32 +0000, Lobster said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-12-28 14:14:20 +0000, Lobster
said:

Tim Ward wrote:
"Lobster" wrote in message
...
a 'good' transaction paid for by Paypal - which does account
for the vast majority of ours - really is totally smooth and
very quick and easy.

A 'good' transaction carried out by any means would be "totally smooth
and very quick and easy".

Agreed - but Andy seemed to be saying the opposite.

And I do find the whole ebay thing extremely straightforward for
lots of stuff, items that I really don't know where else I'd go to
buy or sell with anything remotely approaching 'convenience'.

What matters is when things go wrong.

For sure...


That's really my point.

For the most part, I don't want to have to get into an
argument/recovery game with individuals over buying and selling,
especially of small things.

But I would maintain even considering the very small % of transactions
which do go wrong, you're still very much quids-in overall whether you
counting in terms of your time or cash.

That's probably true. The problem is that one has no real way of
knowing which transaction will go wrong until it happens. It might
then be a case of having to act quickly to resolve the situation.

Even when buying through a regular internet site with the protection of
the Distance Selling Regulations, there are time limits. For that
reason, I never order an item that will need to be checked or tested by
me before going on a business trip.

As far as costing of time is concerned, I have to consider the
opportunity cost as well as direct cost. Therefore there has to be
quite a large saving to make it interesting for me to take a risk on
something that is going to be time consuming to fix if there is an
issue.

I'm not risk averse - far from it - *BUT* the return on the risk has to
be large enough to make it worth bothering.



Eg - my most recent ebay purchase...the other day I needed some inkjet
cartridges for my now-obsolete printer; I usually pay about 7 quid a pop
for these from a shop a few miles away: this time I typed the model
number into ebay and it threw up several hits - result was that I paid
£2.00 all-in for 6 cartridges which landed on my doormat two days later.
(it cost the poor guy £2.10 to post them!). If I'd bought them from
dabs.com or somewhere I can't see how I could have spent less time and
hassle.

I understand. I might have done this by accident on a search but
wouldn't spend time looking through Ebay for it. If I could be
reasonably convinced that the seller was selling branded cartridges for
a genuine reason - e.g. his printer has broken and he has spare
cartridges then fair enough.
I might buy compatible cartridges from a known supplier, but not from
an Ebay one. If they cock up the printer then the cost of acquiring a
new one far exceeds any saving.


In terms of selling stuff, I've been able to get rid of plenty of junk
from the house and garage which would otherwise have cost me time and
petrol to take down to the dump, but people have happily come and paid
me money to remove from my property.... my most successful ebay sale? I
had an old much-loved Lewis Leathers biker jacket in the back of my
wardrobe, waiting to see if the male menopause would strike soon enough
to get me back on a motorcycle before my ever-expanding waistline
rendered the jacket totally obsolete for me. Unfortunately the latter
condition prevailed, and SWMBO decreed that it was time it went to the
dump. Decided to have a punt on ebay, as it was a quite nice jacket
really (cost me 80 or 90 quid new IIRC, circa 1982). It ended up going
for a jaw-dropping 650 quid, plus about 50 to Fedex, to some bloke in
Tokyo, who later professed himself to be delighted with the deal!

David

That's in the realm of collector's items I guess. I have never heard
of Lewis Leathers, but imagine that it it is perhaps a cult item?
Presumably you knew that it was better than a dump item.

I think that the closest thing I have to something like that is two
full sets of Natwest Piggies complete with bungs in pristine condition
from when the kids were small. I imagine that they have some value
as sets but I am not about to sell them anyway.

Andy Hall wrote:

I would rather buy the small things from somewhere that I can get
redress quickly and easily. For example, the M&S shoes that I
ordered immediately before Christmas arrived this morning. The size
is way too small - frankly undersized against the nominal. Therefore
they are going back.

ISTR you have exceptionally large feet

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:43:44 on Fri, 28
Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:

I'm not sure that's the main objection to PayPal. I get the
impression that the main objection, and the reason I won't use it,
is that it simply doesn't conduct itself to the standards we expect
of a UK bank even in these benighted times.

In what kinds of way?

There are plenty of horror stories on the web.

Vague innuendo. Such things rarely tell the whole story, or even both
sides.

Their dispute resolution process can be a bit opaque, but my High Street
Bank doesn't even *have* such a process.

My bank has the following, which PayPal is reputed not to have, or at
least
does not absolutely clearly visibly have all of:

Ah, these are disputes with the bank, not disputes between you and a
customer of the bank.

(1) A fax number to which I can fax a complaint and expect a probable
response from a real human being within a few days.

(2) A phone number which I can ring and guarantee an instant response
from a
real human being, and who in my experience will understand the
question and
provide the requested action without problem at the first time of asking.

(3) A named manager who will own any problems with my accounts.

(4) A physical address to which I can conveniently travel and jump up and
down until they fix whatever might be the issue.

(5) A requirement to behave in accordance with UK banking laws and
regulation and codes of conduct.

(6) A clearly identified UK business which I can sue in the English
courts
under English law if needed.

In case you hadn't noticed, the Internet tends to ignore physical
borders. In some ways this is extremely convenient, in other ways it
clashes with country-specific consumer protection law. Although more of
it applies than people think.

They also have no documented policy of doing the following:

(7) Freezing my accounts at the whim of some fraudster I've never
heard of.

And PayPal does?

(8) Moving money around between my bank and credit card accounts
without my
say-so.

And PayPal does? (Other than as a result of being the losing party in a
dispute resolution?)

Yes and yes.

Roland Perry wrote:

What is the risk you are trying to avert? That Paypal makes an
unauthorised withdrawal from a credit card, and that the CC company
refuses to chargeback the transaction? Both seem very unlikely.

Happened to me 7 times last summer during one transaction.

On 2007-12-28 19:59:40 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:

I would rather buy the small things from somewhere that I can get
redress quickly and easily. For example, the M&S shoes that I
ordered immediately before Christmas arrived this morning. The size
is way too small - frankly undersized against the nominal. Therefore
they are going back.

ISTR you have exceptionally large feet

Nominally they are size 47-48 (UK size 12-13); but these things were
nowhere near - like 3cm too short.

On 2007-12-28 18:00:51 +0000, Roland Perry said:

In message 47751569@qaanaaq, at 15:25:29 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Andy
Hall remarked:
I would rather buy the small things from somewhere that I can get
redress quickly and easily. For example, the M&S shoes that I
ordered immediately before Christmas arrived this morning. The size
is way too small - frankly undersized against the nominal. Therefore
they are going back. That happens by ticking a box on the delivery
note, sticking a peel off label on the packaging and resealing it. Then
it's Freepost at the post office or drop it into a store if I wanted.
Short of their arranging collection, that's pretty good service. I
don't really care if it costs a little more than the same from an Ebay
supplier. Two minutes, problem solved. Next thing.

And in a free market you can do just that. There are plenty of other
people who want to save the money though.

I'm sure, Presumably they don't consider the cost of their time....

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:44:38 on Fri,
28 Dec 2007, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
Tim Ward wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
I don't think the PayPal fees are going to put off sellers any more
than the listing charges do
I'm not sure that's the main objection to PayPal. I get the
impression that the main objection, and the reason I won't use it,
is that it simply doesn't conduct itself to the standards we expect
of a UK bank even in these benighted times.

Precisely.
if there is any dispute, they hang onto the money from everyone, and
take weeks to clear it.

Whereas it is clearly preferable to let the guilty party do a runner
with the funds, and leave the aggrieved party empty handed?

When I conduct a transaction with someone, I don't want a 3rd party in
between.

That's a bit difficult if you want to use a cheque, credit card or
PayPal to buy something, I agree.

Particularly one who won't let me have details of the counterparty.

That's something that might need a little work.

I'm looking for a "test case", if anyone has such a thing. I'm fed up
with mere innuendo and need something to get my teeth into.

And who tales my money, banks it for weeks, and charges me for the
privilege.

Charges you more than it would just for handling a non-troublesome
transaction?

Definitely.
Loss of income on money not in the bank is quite substantial

Ebay has in nay case bent their rules to favour the anonymous vendor of
crap, rather then the publicly notifiable and contactable vendor of
second hand goods.

Paypal makes it easy to be invisible. If anything goe wrong, teh smart
and guilty have their funds out of paypal before you can say 'scam' and
its the innocent trusting ones who lose.

There is no button on ebay that says 'show me all goods NOT insisting on
Paypal'.

Ebay and paypal don;t care about the scams, as long as they make money.

Why are they located in Switzerland? so they are outside UK law. I
wonder why.

In message , at 20:27:17 on
Fri, 28 Dec 2007, magwitch remarked:
What is the risk you are trying to avert? That Paypal makes an
unauthorised withdrawal from a credit card, and that the CC company
refuses to chargeback the transaction? Both seem very unlikely.

Happened to me 7 times last summer during one transaction.

Something happened, but it wasn't unauthorised withdrawals, and I doubt
your credit card ended up with seven times the original charge, which
was subsequently never refunded. Please don't over-dramatise as it ruins
your credibility.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 20:15:49 on
Fri, 28 Dec 2007, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
(8) Moving money around between my bank and credit card accounts
without my
say-so.
And PayPal does? (Other than as a result of being the losing party
in a dispute resolution?)

Yes and yes.

I've been looking at this issue all day and would like to understand
what circumstances would cause money movements that you hadn't triggered
yourself. Which direction, and why.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 20:45:54 on
Fri, 28 Dec 2007, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
Charges you more than it would just for handling a non-troublesome
transaction?

Definitely.
Loss of income on money not in the bank is quite substantial

So eBay didn't charge you anything after all.

[rant deleted]
--
Roland Perry

In message et, at
17:32:45 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Dave Liquorice
remarked:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:30:43 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

you'll find that there isn't Recorded Delivery any more, it's been
repositioned as "Recorded Signed For", and does come with online
tracking.

I'm pretty sure you don't have tracking with Recorded Signed For.

Yes you do, I have a printout in front of me.

You *MAY*(1) be able get online notification of delivery, an electronic
copy of the signature,

What is that, if not "tracking".

card left or being returned but that is all.

In the first case, what you need to know is if and when it's been
delivered. Which they tell you.

In the second case, you get the item back, so what's the problem

The item does not appear online until *after* a delivery has been
attempted *and* the data entered into the system by the postie. There
is no *tracking* between posting and delivery like there is with
Special Delivery. They appear very quickly as the label is scanned into
the system at time of posting.

"Tracking" does not imply a real-time itinerary of the item's every
move. What they track is when it is delivered - which is all you are
interested in. Paypal couldn't care less what happened to the item
en-route, all that matters is whether or not you can show that you sent
by a method that claims to tell you when it was delivered.

(1) I say may because entry of the item into the system is rather flakey.
SWMBO'd sends everything Recorded Signed For, maybe twenty items/week.
Some never appear on the system at all but have been delivered safely or
arrive back here. Some get a delivery notification but no electronic sig
is available. Some just sit at "card left" but the recpient has collected
or it has been returned.

Did PayPal's T&C specify a "100% reliable" tracking system? Although I
agree that if you lose a dispute resolution only because Royal Mail
screwed up getting delivery confirmation, I'd be wanting to have a
serious word with them.
--
Roland Perry

In message 47755ffd@qaanaaq, at 20:43:41 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Andy
Hall remarked:
I would rather buy the small things from somewhere that I can get
redress quickly and easily. For example, the M&S shoes that I
ordered immediately before Christmas arrived this morning. The
size is way too small - frankly undersized against the nominal.
Therefore they are going back. That happens by ticking a box on
the delivery note, sticking a peel off label on the packaging and
resealing it. Then it's Freepost at the post office or drop it into
a store if I wanted. Short of their arranging collection, that's
pretty good service. I don't really care if it costs a little more
than the same from an Ebay supplier. Two minutes, problem solved. Next thing.
And in a free market you can do just that. There are plenty of other
people who want to save the money though.

I'm sure, Presumably they don't consider the cost of their time....

No, they probably don't. Just like people who spend an hour or two
taking the bus to town and shopping around to save 50p don't, either.
--
Roland Perry

In message 477513b0@qaanaaq, at 15:18:08 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Andy
Hall remarked:
For buying relatively low-value, possibly hard-to-obtain items I
don't know of anything better; and have made/saved so much (in terms
of cash and time) over the years that when the odd one goes bad (as
it recently did with me as mentioned elsewhere in this thread) that
I'm prepared to swallow that).

I can't think of that many items that I buy that would fall into that
category though. I certainly use on-line traders quite a bit, but
don't tend to find things that I would want on Ebay.

I have found many items on eBay that are unobtainable elsewhere. Well,
unless you happen to know the one specialist shop in the country, that
doesn't have a website, and which might have the item if you are lucky.

I'm currently looking for a Pentium II processor chip for a 1990's
Compaq server; any offers on a shop that might have one? There's one on
eBay for £8.95, and frankly, if it arrives and doesn't work I'll just
chuck it and try again.

But you certainly wouldn't catch me buying something like a new
laptop through ebay...!

Right. It's the cost/time/risk equation.

To me, the most expensive component is time,

And for many retired folks, housewives, unemployed, part-time workers,
time is their greatest asset.

One size doesn't fit all.
--
Roland Perry

In message . co.uk, at
12:01:52 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Jules
remarked:
What were the most time consuming parts? I find that the five minute
walk to the Post Office (when a seller) is the worst part. None of the
other steps takes more than a minute or two.

I sold a few (electronic) things before I left the UK. It all took way too
much time:

Properly testing the items.
Gathering packing materials.
Taking a range of good photos.
Researching what I was selling.
Writing up auction text.
Calculating postage costs.
Making sure items were *properly* packed.

The five minute walk to the post office was definitely the easy bit.

It's possible to spend ages, but I would suggest that if you
think it was "way too much" then perhaps you are using the wrong channel
to get rid of them. Depending on how much you value your time, and the
expected revenue, it should be fairly easy to decide if it's worth while
or not.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:44:38 on Fri,
28 Dec 2007, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
Tim Ward wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
I don't think the PayPal fees are going to put off sellers any more
than the listing charges do
I'm not sure that's the main objection to PayPal. I get the
impression that the main objection, and the reason I won't use it,
is that it simply doesn't conduct itself to the standards we expect
of a UK bank even in these benighted times.

Precisely.
if there is any dispute, they hang onto the money from everyone, and
take weeks to clear it.

Whereas it is clearly preferable to let the guilty party do a runner
with the funds, and leave the aggrieved party empty handed?

When I conduct a transaction with someone, I don't want a 3rd party in
between.

That's a bit difficult if you want to use a cheque, credit card or
PayPal to buy something, I agree.

Particularly one who won't let me have details of the counterparty.

That's something that might need a little work.

I'm looking for a "test case", if anyone has such a thing. I'm fed up
with mere innuendo and need something to get my teeth into.

And who tales my money, banks it for weeks, and charges me for the
privilege.

Charges you more than it would just for handling a non-troublesome
transaction?


Ok Roland... I bought a Mac G4 in the summer on Ebay for £250. The
seller rejected my Pay Pal payment by mistake, and shortly afterwards
sent me an email to apologise and asked if I'd phone him to sort out
what we should do.

The best way (from trawling through all the FAQs seemed to be for him to
cancel the transaction) and for me hit the Pay Now button again as soon
as I got the confirmatory email from Ebay acknowlwedging the
cancellation. So I waited until I'd got the email and paid again.

Only trouble was PayPal took £250 from my account, then another £250
from my account, then when I'd phoned the bank and had the second
transaction charged back took another £250 this time from my credit
card, meanwhile the seller still hadn't received his payment as I was in
dispute (although not with him, with PayPal). Both of us had a totally
stressful 3 week period trying to keep track of what the f*ck was going
on, resulting in my having to cancel every card PayPal had heard about.

I had to wait over 2 weeks to get £250 back and the seller waited even
longer to get his payment out of PayPal.

Concrete enough for you?

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:52:16 on
Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Chris Owens remarked:
Their dispute resolution process can be a bit opaque, but my High
Street Bank doesn't even *have* such a process.

Yes it has - it's a requirement of the FSA that they have to have a
complaints resolution process and a complaints register.

For complaints between me and one of their customers?

PayPal is regulated by the FSA as well. Stories abound of them acting
in a way that does not treat customers fairly (Google FSA "treating
customers fairly"), however, and it surprises me that the FSA hasn't
come down hard on them about it.

When you are in a position such that you see both sides of most
disputes, it becomes clear that there are "bad customers" as well as
"bad companies". And you can see why it's necessary to act in various
ways rather than prejudge the situation before the facts have emerged.

As stated earlier, I'm looking for case studies where people have a
verifiable story to tell about being treated unfairly online. By email,
preferably.

Try this:

http://www.paypalsucks.com/forums/showforum.php?fid=17

In message , at 13:01:48 on
Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Owain remarked:
The ... prevention of fraud is very important to us
But less important than protecting the privacy of the fraudster.
Depends on who is paying to cover the cost of the fraud
Yes, if a Credit Card Company allows a chargeback after a dispute
with a seller, you don't expect them to tell you the dodgy trader's
personal details as well.

On the contrary, your credit card company will give you contact details
of the merchant for any transaction on your credit card, on request.
I've had to do this when transactions have appeared with unrecognisable
names and I've had to phone up ABC Widgets Ltd and ask them if they are
also trading as Magic Widgets.

I would have expected that telling you the proprietors name was well
into "no, because of Data Protection" territory. But if the Card
Companies are happy to reveal that stuff (having built it into their
merchant agreements) I'll take my hat off to them.
--
Roland Perry

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:44:38 on
Fri, 28 Dec 2007, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
Tim Ward wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
I don't think the PayPal fees are going to put off sellers any
more than the listing charges do
I'm not sure that's the main objection to PayPal. I get the
impression that the main objection, and the reason I won't use it,
is that it simply doesn't conduct itself to the standards we expect
of a UK bank even in these benighted times.

Precisely.
if there is any dispute, they hang onto the money from everyone, and
take weeks to clear it.
Whereas it is clearly preferable to let the guilty party do a runner
with the funds, and leave the aggrieved party empty handed?

When I conduct a transaction with someone, I don't want a 3rd party
in between.
That's a bit difficult if you want to use a cheque, credit card or
PayPal to buy something, I agree.

Particularly one who won't let me have details of the counterparty.
That's something that might need a little work.
I'm looking for a "test case", if anyone has such a thing. I'm fed
up with mere innuendo and need something to get my teeth into.

And who tales my money, banks it for weeks, and charges me for the
privilege.
Charges you more than it would just for handling a non-troublesome
transaction?

Definitely.
Loss of income on money not in the bank is quite substantial

Say £100 for a month ...

interest of 50 pence ?

--
geoff

In message , at 10:31:45 on
Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Lobster remarked:
I can't do a credit-card chargeback as the transaction is below 100
quid,

You are confusing two different procedures. Chargebacks work for any
value of transaction.

the bloke is still selling the same fairly unusual item on ebay (ie a
one-off item relisted multiple times) with impunity.

So you didn't leave some fierce negative feedback?

If you think it's a deliberate fraud, then there are other options
available.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:31:53 on
Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Andrew Gabriel remarked:
Are credit Card companies accepting that payment by Paypal using a CC
is a a normal CC transaction ?

No. They warned recently that payment to Paypal was to be treated as
a cash advance to top up another cash account for protection purposes

Do you have a cite for that, as it contradicts advice I've had
elsewhere.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 21:42:18 on
Fri, 28 Dec 2007, magwitch remarked:
As stated earlier, I'm looking for case studies where people have a
verifiable story to tell about being treated unfairly online. By
email, preferably.

Try this:

http://www.paypalsucks.com/forums/showforum.php?fid=17

Ill have a plough through. Although the problem with sites like that is
it's full of sellers who have had the rug pulled from under them as a
result of buyers mysteriously being able to "reverse" payments at a
whim; and buyers who can't get their payment reversed however hard they
try. Something odd is going on.
--
Roland Perry

On 2007-12-28 21:35:02 +0000, Roland Perry said:

In message 477513b0@qaanaaq, at 15:18:08 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Andy
Hall remarked:
For buying relatively low-value, possibly hard-to-obtain items I don't
know of anything better; and have made/saved so much (in terms of cash
and time) over the years that when the odd one goes bad (as it
recently did with me as mentioned elsewhere in this thread) that I'm
prepared to swallow that).

I can't think of that many items that I buy that would fall into that
category though. I certainly use on-line traders quite a bit, but
don't tend to find things that I would want on Ebay.

I have found many items on eBay that are unobtainable elsewhere. Well,
unless you happen to know the one specialist shop in the country, that
doesn't have a website, and which might have the item if you are lucky.

I'm currently looking for a Pentium II processor chip for a 1990's
Compaq server; any offers on a shop that might have one? There's one on
eBay for £8.95, and frankly, if it arrives and doesn't work I'll just
chuck it and try again.

I might have a couple of those :-)



But you certainly wouldn't catch me buying something like a new laptop
through ebay...!

Right. It's the cost/time/risk equation.

To me, the most expensive component is time,

And for many retired folks, housewives, unemployed, part-time workers,
time is their greatest asset.

One size doesn't fit all.

Of course.

geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:44:38 on
Fri, 28 Dec 2007, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
Tim Ward wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
I don't think the PayPal fees are going to put off sellers any
more than the listing charges do
I'm not sure that's the main objection to PayPal. I get the
impression that the main objection, and the reason I won't use it,
is that it simply doesn't conduct itself to the standards we
expect of a UK bank even in these benighted times.

Precisely.
if there is any dispute, they hang onto the money from everyone, and
take weeks to clear it.
Whereas it is clearly preferable to let the guilty party do a runner
with the funds, and leave the aggrieved party empty handed?

When I conduct a transaction with someone, I don't want a 3rd party
in between.
That's a bit difficult if you want to use a cheque, credit card or
PayPal to buy something, I agree.

Particularly one who won't let me have details of the counterparty.
That's something that might need a little work.
I'm looking for a "test case", if anyone has such a thing. I'm fed
up with mere innuendo and need something to get my teeth into.

And who tales my money, banks it for weeks, and charges me for the
privilege.
Charges you more than it would just for handling a non-troublesome
transaction?

Definitely.
Loss of income on money not in the bank is quite substantial

Say �100 for a month ...

interest of 50 pence ?

How about a £50 penalty for exceeding overdraft limit?

In message , at 21:40:31 on
Fri, 28 Dec 2007, magwitch remarked:

Ok Roland... I bought a Mac G4 in the summer on Ebay for £250. The
seller rejected my Pay Pal payment by mistake, and shortly afterwards
sent me an email to apologise and asked if I'd phone him to sort out
what we should do.

The best way (from trawling through all the FAQs seemed to be for him
to cancel the transaction) and for me hit the Pay Now button again as
soon as I got the confirmatory email from Ebay acknowlwedging the
cancellation. So I waited until I'd got the email and paid again.

Only trouble was PayPal took £250 from my account,

Was that the first £250 that the seller had rejected, and after it had
been confirmed by eBay?

then another £250 from my account,

And that was the second £250?

then when I'd phoned the bank and had the second transaction charged
back

So you got the second £250 back.

took another £250 this time from my credit card,

So this is a third payment; what do you think triggered it? Was it
perhaps the earlier requested "Pay Now" transaction you had asked for,
but subsequently pulled the rug from underneath? What were you expecting
to happen - especially if your expectation was that the vendor had
already received the money. The first £250 is caught in a warp
somewhere, but if you asked to send it again, that's what they are
trying to do.

meanwhile the seller still hadn't received his payment as I was in
dispute (although not with him, with PayPal).

This is of more concern. Who started the dispute, and over which of
these £250's was it?

Both of us had a totally stressful 3 week period trying to keep track
of what the f*ck was going on, resulting in my having to cancel every
card PayPal had heard about.

Why did you think that a third £250 might have been withdrawn? They
already had £500.

I had to wait over 2 weeks to get £250 back

Is that the first £250 back?

and the seller waited even longer to get his payment out of PayPal.

Was there some delay in telling eBay that the dispute (whatever it was)
had been resolved?

Concrete enough for you?

A good tale of woe (and mainly it seems about delays in the dispute
process) but not nearly as bad as you originally suggested.
--
Roland Perry

In message 4774e3fb@qaanaaq, at 11:54:35 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Andy
Hall remarked:
No. They warned recently that payment to Paypal was to be treated as
a cash advance to top up another cash account for protection purposes
(although they don't seem to charge the extra cash percentage) and you
might want to think carefully before giving paypal a continuous
authority on your cards.

I wonder also about their requirement to have a direct debit
arrangement with a connected bank account in order to be able to
withdraw funds from Paypal

I do wonder what this is for, if not as a way to reimburse buyers when
the seller has emptied their PayPal account - but that goes against all
anecdotal evidence of what happens, and what the PayPay T&C describe. I
have yet to get to the bottom of this one, unless it is as simple as
being necessary to make the test payments to validate the bank account,
and for withdrawing funds (assuming the trader never uses PayPal-via-DD
to buy things himself, of course).

and whether or not the direct debit guarantee applies.

The trader sends them a classic Direct Debit form, so I guess the answer
is "yes".

One does wonder about having a company unregulated by UK law having
access to DD facilities.

The Financial Ombudsman will adjudicate disputes with PayPal.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:03:49 on
Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Owain remarked:
No. They warned recently that payment to Paypal was to be treated as
a cash advance to top up another cash account for protection purposes
(although they don't seem to charge the extra cash percentage)

NatWest charge Paypal transfers as cash advances, with the percentage
and no interest free period.

My CC (not Natwest) doesn't seem to treat it as a Cash Advance (there's
no 3% fee, anyway; nor is there any interest charged at the end of the
month).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:06:52 on
Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Andrew Gabriel remarked:
Paypal are subject to the jurisdiction of the FSA.

Not since they moved out of the UK in July this year.
It now comes under Luxemburg financial law.

Since July, PayPal are under a voluntary agreement to continue to be
regulated by the FSA.
--
Roland Perry

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:44:38 on
Fri, 28 Dec 2007, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
Tim Ward wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
I don't think the PayPal fees are going to put off sellers any
more than the listing charges do
I'm not sure that's the main objection to PayPal. I get the
impression that the main objection, and the reason I won't use
it, is that it simply doesn't conduct itself to the standards we
expect of a UK bank even in these benighted times.

Precisely.
if there is any dispute, they hang onto the money from everyone,
and take weeks to clear it.
Whereas it is clearly preferable to let the guilty party do a
runner with the funds, and leave the aggrieved party empty handed?

When I conduct a transaction with someone, I don't want a 3rd
party in between.
That's a bit difficult if you want to use a cheque, credit card or
PayPal to buy something, I agree.

Particularly one who won't let me have details of the counterparty.
That's something that might need a little work.
I'm looking for a "test case", if anyone has such a thing. I'm fed
with mere innuendo and need something to get my teeth into.

And who tales my money, banks it for weeks, and charges me for the
privilege.
Charges you more than it would just for handling a non-troublesome
transaction?

Definitely.
Loss of income on money not in the bank is quite substantial

Say 0 interest of 50 pence ?

How about a £50 penalty for exceeding overdraft limit?

overdraft ?

never had one of those

What failed, your maths or your logic ?

--
geoff

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:27:17 on
Fri, 28 Dec 2007, magwitch remarked:
What is the risk you are trying to avert? That Paypal makes an
unauthorised withdrawal from a credit card, and that the CC company
refuses to chargeback the transaction? Both seem very unlikely.

Happened to me 7 times last summer during one transaction.

Something happened, but it wasn't unauthorised withdrawals, and I doubt
your credit card ended up with seven times the original charge, which
was subsequently never refunded. Please don't over-dramatise as it ruins
your credibility.


Yes they *were* unauthorised withdrawals and I can supply documentary
evidence of them.

Being £500 in the red for 3 weeks might be peanuts to you, but I can
assure you it was the most frustrating and worrying financial experience
I have ever had (even worse than when my card was skimmed to the tune of
£1600 — at least then I could contact the bank and they were both
sympathetic and rectified the problem as soon as they were informed).

PayPal not only stonewalled both me and the seller, but also without my
authorisation helped themselves to £250 on two occasions.

When the FSA tentatively started to act on the many complaints they'd
received, PayPal scurried off to Luxemburg.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
----------------------------
Basically I can see that unless you have paypal, you won't be ABLE to
use ebay shortly.

Isn't this in contravention of some monopoly legislation somewhere


How long before they offer their own currency I wonder?

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:40:31 on
Fri, 28 Dec 2007, magwitch remarked:

Ok Roland... I bought a Mac G4 in the summer on Ebay for £250. The
seller rejected my Pay Pal payment by mistake, and shortly afterwards
sent me an email to apologise and asked if I'd phone him to sort out
what we should do.

The best way (from trawling through all the FAQs seemed to be for him
to cancel the transaction) and for me hit the Pay Now button again as
soon as I got the confirmatory email from Ebay acknowlwedging the
cancellation. So I waited until I'd got the email and paid again.

Only trouble was PayPal took £250 from my account,

Was that the first £250 that the seller had rejected, and after it had
been confirmed by eBay?

then another £250 from my account,

And that was the second £250?

then when I'd phoned the bank and had the second transaction charged back

So you got the second £250 back.

took another £250 this time from my credit card,

So this is a third payment; what do you think triggered it? Was it
perhaps the earlier requested "Pay Now" transaction you had asked for,
but subsequently pulled the rug from underneath? What were you expecting
to happen - especially if your expectation was that the vendor had
already received the money. The first £250 is caught in a warp
somewhere, but if you asked to send it again, that's what they are
trying to do.

meanwhile the seller still hadn't received his payment as I was in
dispute (although not with him, with PayPal).

This is of more concern. Who started the dispute, and over which of
these £250's was it?

Both of us had a totally stressful 3 week period trying to keep track
of what the f*ck was going on, resulting in my having to cancel every
card PayPal had heard about.

Why did you think that a third £250 might have been withdrawn? They
already had £500.

Preeecisely. They still went ahead though and got another £250 from the
credit (secondary) card on their records.

I had to wait over 2 weeks to get £250 back

Is that the first £250 back?

and the seller waited even longer to get his payment out of PayPal.

Was there some delay in telling eBay that the dispute (whatever it was)
had been resolved?

Concrete enough for you?

A good tale of woe (and mainly it seems about delays in the dispute
process) but not nearly as bad as you originally suggested.


NO! PayPal were fully aware of the situation and exploited it as far and
for as long as they could. Nice people.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:31:16 UTC, Roland Perry
wrote:

You seem to be glossing over the main issue here - which is consumer
protection. Too many people are being ripped off by rogue sellers, and
the PayPal restriction is actually so that sellers are better monitored
and refunds can be given to buyers more easily if there's a problem
later on.

But it doesn't work. Last year I bought an item and paid by PayPal.
Seller never sent it. Paypal closed the seller's account and said
"there's nothing in his account so we can't do anything". I got the
money back by tracing the seller's father and writing to him. Paypal are
still saying they can't get the money.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com