----------------------------
21 December, 2007 | 12:10PM GMT

Following on from our announcement on 10th August 2007 we wanted to let
you know that from mid-January well be expanding our ongoing efforts to
protect eBay buyers and sellers by only allowing PayPal to be offered as
a payment option on certain listings.

Weve looked at the results of the earlier payment restrictions that we
put in place in August, and weve already seen a decrease in
transactions where eBayers have been left dissatisfied. The safety of
the eBay trading environment and prevention of fraud is very important
to us, so well continue to monitor and closely analyse the listings
where weve restricted payment methods.

From around 10th January, PayPal will need to be the only payment
method for sales in the following listings:

* those that are set for a one-day auction
* those in the following categories:
o Computing Software
o Consumer Electronics MP3 Players
o Wholesale & Job Lots Mobile & Home Phones
o Business, Office & Industrial Industrial Supply / MRO

If you would like to sell in the categories, youll need to sign up for
a PayPal account if you dont already have one:

* Sign up for a PayPal account
* Learn more about how PayPal protects the buyers/sellers

We appreciate your continuing support in helping to keep eBay a great
place to buy and sell.

Regards,

The eBay Team

----------------------

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

On 2007-12-28 00:56:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

----------------------------
21 December, 2007 | 12:10PM GMT

Following on from our announcement on 10th August 2007 we wanted to let
you know that from mid-January well be expanding our ongoing efforts
to protect eBay buyers and sellers by only allowing PayPal to be
offered as a payment option on certain listings.

Weve looked at the results of the earlier payment restrictions that we
put in place in August, and weve already seen a decrease in
transactions where eBayers have been left dissatisfied. The safety of
the eBay trading environment and prevention of fraud is very important
to us, so well continue to monitor and closely analyse the listings
where weve restricted payment methods.

From around 10th January, PayPal will need to be the only payment
method for sales in the following listings:

* those that are set for a one-day auction
* those in the following categories:
o Computing Software
o Consumer Electronics MP3 Players
o Wholesale & Job Lots Mobile & Home Phones
o Business, Office & Industrial Industrial Supply / MRO

If you would like to sell in the categories, youll need to sign up for
a PayPal account if you dont already have one:

* Sign up for a PayPal account
* Learn more about how PayPal protects the buyers/sellers

We appreciate your continuing support in helping to keep eBay a great
place to buy and sell.

Regards,

The eBay Team

----------------------

Basically I can see that unless you have paypal, you won't be ABLE to
use ebay shortly.

Hard to say from this whether it is a fraud reduction game (the
categories listed may well be ones for scams and piracy) or whether
it's simply an excuse for a gradual lockin to the inhouse payment
vehicle so that they can make a turn on that component as well.





Isn't this in contravention of some monopoly legislation somewhere

I don't think so. There are other big players with their own payment
systems (Google, Amazon) and there are other trading sites.

More to the point will be whether people don't like Ebay's moves and go
elsewhere.

In message 47745442@qaanaaq, at 01:41:22 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Andy
Hall remarked:
Hard to say from this whether it is a fraud reduction game (the
categories listed may well be ones for scams and piracy)

Mainly, yes. For a seller to accept PayPal they must have verified a
bank account with them, so it adds a big chunk of traceability and
scares away people who want to sell-and-run using disposable accounts.
If the merchant wants to sell more than £500 a month through PayPal they
*also* have to register a credit card.

or whether it's simply an excuse for a gradual lockin to the inhouse
payment vehicle so that they can make a turn on that component as well.

Buyers find it convenient to pay by PayPal, as it gives any seller the
ability to receive funds from a buyer's Credit card. At that point
there's Credit Card commission and buyer protection involved (and quite
likely cashback to the buyer as well) and that has to come from someone
other than the tooth fairy.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 00:56:00 on Fri,
28 Dec 2007, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
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

I don't think the PayPal fees are going to put off sellers any more than
the listing charges do, although I agree that it's slightly less
convenient for people selling a one-off item in those categories. Then
there's the other side of the coin - I won't buy off people who refuse
to take PayPal, as it means a huge delay while I mail a cheque to them
and they wait for it to clear. Very few sellers have direct Credit Card
Merchant facilities, and not PayPal. Not accepting PayPal is a huge
alarm bell.

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.

In any event I have yet to find a transaction (as either buyer or
seller) where there has been any objection at all to paying by
cash-on-collection [even if the sale was "PayPal only" in theory].
Although both parties have to realise that the transaction is final at
that point (like buying at a car boot sale) and subsequent problems are
most unlikely to be sorted out.
--
Roland Perry

"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.

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

On 2007-12-28 09:24:29 +0000, "Tim Ward" said:

"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.

Doesn't that depend on how it is used?

For example, one could just put enough funds into the account to cover
a purchase and take out any balance after making a sale.

However, I don't really see the problem in this. Nobody *has* to use
Ebay. The world did function perfectly well before they came on the
scene and there are other choices.

In message 4774c2e2@qaanaaq, at 09:33:22 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Andy
Hall remarked:
Nobody *has* to use Ebay. The world did function perfectly well before
they came on the scene and there are other choices.

eBay is very good for both buying new items and recycling used items. To
that extent it is a huge improvement. It has saved me lots of money by
finding "hard to get" items without having to fruitlessly visit dozens
of shops.
--
Roland Perry

On 2007-12-28 09:45:32 +0000, Roland Perry said:

In message 4774c2e2@qaanaaq, at 09:33:22 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Andy
Hall remarked:
Nobody *has* to use Ebay. The world did function perfectly well before
they came on the scene and there are other choices.

eBay is very good for both buying new items and recycling used items.
To that extent it is a huge improvement. It has saved me lots of money
by finding "hard to get" items without having to fruitlessly visit
dozens of shops.

Yes I can understand that, but it's still not a "must have" - i.e. they
are not the only route to buying food and medicines.

OTOH, I would argue that Microsoft isn't a "must have" either (in fact
better if it were a shouldn't have, but that's not likely any time
soon) but they have been chided for monopolistic practices.

In article 4774c2e2@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-12-28 09:24:29 +0000, "Tim Ward" said:

"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.

Doesn't that depend on how it is used?

For example, one could just put enough funds into the account to cover
a purchase and take out any balance after making a sale.

Indeed. Or if you prefer to do it via a credit card get one solely for use
with Paypal.

However, I don't really see the problem in this. Nobody *has* to use
Ebay. The world did function perfectly well before they came on the
scene and there are other choices.

True.

I'd just add the one major loss I've had with Ebay - and really the only
loss - was buying something and paying cash on delivery by the seller. It
was an secondhand engine and not in the condition as described. But I'm
not sure paying by any other method would have helped in this
circumstance. I've not had any problems with Paypal despite using it for
about 400 transactions. Certainly the *obvious* scammers don't use it -
they usually insist on Western Union.

--
*It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 09:45:56 on Fri, 28 Dec
2007, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:


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.

Doesn't that depend on how it is used?

For example, one could just put enough funds into the account to cover
a purchase and take out any balance after making a sale.

Indeed. Or if you prefer to do it via a credit card get one solely for use
with Paypal.

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.

I'd just add the one major loss I've had with Ebay - and really the only
loss - was buying something and paying cash on delivery by the seller. It
was an secondhand engine and not in the condition as described. But I'm
not sure paying by any other method would have helped in this
circumstance.

It's just like buying at a car boot sale. Why would you expect anything
different buying in cash from a stranger?

I've not had any problems with Paypal despite using it for about 400
transactions. Certainly the *obvious* scammers don't use it - they
usually insist on Western Union.

And there's a reason for that!

As for "transactions gone bad" [1], the only one I had was for one of
these new categories (ie Software). It did end up being a failure of
eBay's processes because the item was not as described (but not
extremely so, it wasn't a counterfeit for example) and yet as a result
of I assume someone else complaining, the trader was evicted from eBay
at which point it's impossible to view the item listing any more, so
off-eBay dispute resolution is tricky [2]. That *is* an area I think
they should improve upon.

[1] Other than things turning up late, damaged, or not as described [3],
none of which is PayPal/eBay's fault, and for which the remedies will
often lie in the physical rather than online world if the seller is
intransigent.

[2] Moral: Print off a hard copy of any listing that really matters to
you.

[3] One of the things I've learnt is that "untested" is often code for
"we have tested it, and it definitely isn't working". But that's back to
car boot sale politics again.
--
Roland Perry

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article 4774c2e2@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:

Doesn't that depend on how it is used?

For example, one could just put enough funds into the account to cover
a purchase and take out any balance after making a sale.

So - if you have a Paypal account, but it's empty when you make a
purchase so the full amount of an above £100 purchase gets pulled from
your credit card, does that give you buyer's protection from your credit
card (even though the transaction still goes through your Paypal account?

Indeed. Or if you prefer to do it via a credit card get one solely for use
with Paypal.

What's the benefit of using a credit card dedicated to PayPal?
(Wondering whether I should have one, that's all, as opposed to the
'online only' credit card I use now.)

David

In message , at 09:24:29 on Fri, 28
Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:

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.

In what kinds of way? Their dispute resolution process can be a bit
opaque, but my High Street Bank doesn't even *have* such a process.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:24:29 on Fri, 28
Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:

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.

In what kinds of way?

There are plenty of horror stories on the web.

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:

(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.

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.

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

That's the bank I use for my business accounts and some personal accounts.
Another personal account with another bank is a postal account: that doesn't
give me (3) (except that I have in the past had personal attention from the
MD), and instead of a fax number I have a secure online messaging system,
but essentially I get the same features.

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

Tim Ward wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:24:29 on Fri, 28
Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:

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.
In what kinds of way?

There are plenty of horror stories on the web.

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:

(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.

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.

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

That's the bank I use for my business accounts and some personal accounts.
Another personal account with another bank is a postal account: that doesn't
give me (3) (except that I have in the past had personal attention from the
MD), and instead of a fax number I have a secure online messaging system,
but essentially I get the same features.


For once Tim,. you have stated the issues clearly and accurately.

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?)

--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:43:44 on Fri, 28
Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:
My bank has the following, which PayPal is reputed not to have, or at least
does not absolutely clearly visibly have all of:

(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.

I stumbled over this just now:

14. Disputes with PayPal

14.1 Contact PayPal First. If a dispute arises between you and PayPal,
our goal is to learn about and address your concerns and, if we are
unable to do so to your satisfaction, to provide you with a neutral and
cost effective means of resolving the dispute quickly. Disputes between
you and PayPal regarding our Services may be reported to Customer
Service online through the PayPal Help Center at any time, or by calling
the customer support telephone number located on the PayPal WebSite(s).

14.2 Financial Ombudsman Service. You may contact the UK Financial
Ombudsman Service and escalate a claim against us. You may obtain
information regarding the Financial Ombudsman Service at
http://www.financial€“ombudsman.org.uk.

14.3 Governing Law and Jurisdiction. This Agreement and the relationship
between us shall be governed by English law. For complaints that cannot
be resolved otherwise, you submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of
the English courts arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the
provision of our Services without prejudice to your right to also
initiate a proceeding against PayPal in that context before the
competent courts of and in Luxembourg.

and: PayPal (Europe) S.Ã* r.l. & Cie, S.C.A.
5th Floor
22-24 Boulevard Royal
L-2449, Luxembourg
(+352) 27 302 143
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:24:29 on Fri, 28
Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:

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.

In what kinds of way? Their dispute resolution process can be a bit
opaque, but my High Street Bank doesn't even *have* such a process.

I think that you'll find that it does. IIRC, there has to be a notice about
it on every branch premises.



--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)

In message , at 10:16:45 on Fri, 28
Dec 2007, Fergus O'Rourke 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? Their dispute resolution process can be a bit
opaque, but my High Street Bank doesn't even *have* such a process.

I think that you'll find that it does. IIRC, there has to be a notice about
it on every branch premises.

That'll be about disputes between the customer and the bank. Since when
would they act as mediator between me and a trader over a dispute about
something I bought?
--
Roland Perry

On 28 Dec, 09:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:24:29 on Fri, 28
Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:

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.

In what kinds of way? Their dispute resolution process can be a bit
opaque, but my High Street Bank doesn't even *have* such a process.
--
Roland Perry

Dispute resolution opaque ? Non-existent I'd say. Earlier this year I
bought a camera on Ebay and paid with Paypal. Depite assurances that
the camera was in perfect condition it was in fact in rag order.
Seller refused to take it back and offered derisory discount. On Ebay/
Paypal advice I posted it back using their recommended postal method.
Despite this when the seller didn't cough up Papal said they had
insufficient proof of delivery of the returned item. End of story.
Closed door. Worse than dealing with "We don't do refunds"-Ryanair who
scammed me by charging double price for two tickets one time and that
was their response. So I ended up paying for the camera and postage
and the return postage and got sfa.

If anyone on this group thinks Ebay/Paypal gives a tupenny f**k about
their customers thay are living in La La Land.

If anyone thinks they give a tupenny f**k about counterfeit goods they
are living in La La Land. Despite having pointed out to them by an art
expert that signed sketchs on sale were dated two years AFTER the
death of the artist concerned they refused to pull the auction.

Do a Google on Ebay Sucks.

The only bright light is that apparently Amazon are now making in-
roads into their market

Paul Mc Cann

On Dec 28, 11:26*am, " wrote:
On 28 Dec, 09:41, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 09:24:29 on Fri, 28
Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:

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.

In what kinds of way? Their dispute resolution process can be a bit
opaque, but my High Street Bank doesn't even *have* such a process.
--
Roland Perry

Dispute resolution opaque ? Non-existent I'd say. Earlier this year I
bought a camera on Ebay and paid with Paypal. Depite assurances that
the camera was in perfect condition it was in fact in rag order.
Seller refused to take it back and offered derisory discount. On Ebay/
Paypal advice I posted it back using their recommended postal method.
Despite this when the seller didn't cough up Papal said they had
insufficient proof of delivery of the returned item. End of story.
Closed door. Worse than dealing with "We don't do refunds"-Ryanair who
scammed me by charging double price for two tickets one time and that
was their response. So I ended up paying for the camera and postage
and the return postage and got sfa.

So, if you had paid by cheque what would your bank have done? SFA.

If you had paid cash, what would you have done?

Why do you think PayPal have any responsibility?

You've got the sellers address, make a claim through the small claims
court.

Andrew

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:24:29 on Fri, 28
Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:

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.

In what kinds of way? 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.

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.

Chris Owens.

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.
--
Roland Perry

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.

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

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

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

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?
--
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?

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.

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?

On 28 Dec, 08:31, Roland Perry wrote:

I don't think the PayPal fees are going to put off sellers any more than
the listing charges do, although I agree that it's slightly less
convenient for people selling a one-off item in those categories.

I took Paypal when I first started selling on eBay. If you're selling
small items, you lose a high percentage pf your sale price to Paypal,
taking into account the flat fee as well as the percentage charge.
Added to the straight eBay costs it all eats into your profit. I
stopped taking Paypal, and have never had any problems with buyers'
willingness to provide cheques.

I see an awful lot of auctions where the seller expressly won't take
Paypal, for this very reason. Often it's couched in euphemistic terms,
as eBay have a habit of removing listings containing text that they
don't like.

There may well be a security benefit to using Paypal, but let's be
under no illusion that eBay's motivation for doing this is any
different from their motivation for doing anything else - to milk you
for as much money as possible while giving you a warm glowy feeling
about "community" and "membership". Nice work if you can get it.

Regards
Richard

Regards
Richard

In article
,
geraldthehamster wrote:
I took Paypal when I first started selling on eBay. If you're selling
small items, you lose a high percentage pf your sale price to Paypal,
taking into account the flat fee as well as the percentage charge.
Added to the straight eBay costs it all eats into your profit. I
stopped taking Paypal, and have never had any problems with buyers'
willingness to provide cheques.

Sending a cheque off costs *me* time and money too. As does accepting a
cheque for many businesses.
Most ebay sellers make a profit on the postage/packing charges anyway.
It's no big deal to absorb any Paypal etc charges in those.

--
*Be more or less specific *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message
, at
03:36:24 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, geraldthehamster
remarked:
On 28 Dec, 08:31, Roland Perry wrote:

I don't think the PayPal fees are going to put off sellers any more than
the listing charges do, although I agree that it's slightly less
convenient for people selling a one-off item in those categories.

I took Paypal when I first started selling on eBay. If you're selling
small items, you lose a high percentage pf your sale price to Paypal,
taking into account the flat fee as well as the percentage charge.

Someone has to pay for the credit card commission and the various Paypal
dispute processes. As well as making a profit.

Added to the straight eBay costs it all eats into your profit. I
stopped taking Paypal, and have never had any problems with buyers'
willingness to provide cheques.

I won't buy/sell on eBay by cheque, except for very large items like
cars. It just isn't worth all the extra delay and faffing about for
things costing a few quid.

I see an awful lot of auctions where the seller expressly won't take
Paypal, for this very reason. Often it's couched in euphemistic terms,
as eBay have a habit of removing listings containing text that they
don't like.

You can't charge a fee for taking Paypal, but apart from the items that
started this thread, I'm not aware there's any compulsion to take Paypal
at all.

There may well be a security benefit to using Paypal, but let's be
under no illusion that eBay's motivation for doing this is any
different from their motivation for doing anything else - to milk you
for as much money as possible while giving you a warm glowy feeling
about "community" and "membership".

For the fairly small number of listed items it's pretty clear it's an
anti-fraud measure.

Nice work if you can get it.

Start a competitor then.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 00:56:00 on Fri,
28 Dec 2007, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
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

I don't think the PayPal fees are going to put off sellers any more than
the listing charges do, although I agree that it's slightly less
convenient for people selling a one-off item in those categories. Then
there's the other side of the coin - I won't buy off people who refuse
to take PayPal, as it means a huge delay while I mail a cheque to them
and they wait for it to clear. Very few sellers have direct Credit Card
Merchant facilities, and not PayPal. Not accepting PayPal is a huge
alarm bell.

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.

In any event I have yet to find a transaction (as either buyer or
seller) where there has been any objection at all to paying by
cash-on-collection [even if the sale was "PayPal only" in theory].
Although both parties have to realise that the transaction is final at
that point (like buying at a car boot sale) and subsequent problems are
most unlikely to be sorted out.


I won't deal paypal only. End of story. If ebay makes it compulsory I
won't use ebay.


Had too many problems with them.

On 2007-12-28 11:38:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 00:56:00 on Fri,
28 Dec 2007, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
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

I don't think the PayPal fees are going to put off sellers any more
than the listing charges do, although I agree that it's slightly less
convenient for people selling a one-off item in those categories. Then
there's the other side of the coin - I won't buy off people who refuse
to take PayPal, as it means a huge delay while I mail a cheque to them
and they wait for it to clear. Very few sellers have direct Credit Card
Merchant facilities, and not PayPal. Not accepting PayPal is a huge
alarm bell.

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.

In any event I have yet to find a transaction (as either buyer or
seller) where there has been any objection at all to paying by
cash-on-collection [even if the sale was "PayPal only" in theory].
Although both parties have to realise that the transaction is final at
that point (like buying at a car boot sale) and subsequent problems are
most unlikely to be sorted out.


I won't deal paypal only. End of story. If ebay makes it compulsory I
won't use ebay.


Had too many problems with them.

Quite. 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.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-12-28 11:38:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

I won't deal paypal only. End of story. If ebay makes it compulsory I
won't use ebay.


Had too many problems with them.

Quite. 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.

I can't agree there I'm afraid: our family has conducted hundreds of
ebay transactions over the years, both buying and selling, and 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.

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).

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

David

"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".

What matters is when things go wrong.

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

On 2007-12-28 13:34:24 +0000, Lobster said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-12-28 11:38:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

I won't deal paypal only. End of story. If ebay makes it compulsory I
won't use ebay.


Had too many problems with them.

Quite. 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.

I can't agree there I'm afraid: our family has conducted hundreds of
ebay transactions over the years, both buying and selling, and 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.

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.




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 so I prefer to
mitigate risk. Ebay transactions significantly increase the risk
element and if something goes wrong, the decision becomes:

- Take action and chase after the supplier. Very time consuming and delay

- Write off the transaction. Then one has to source the item again,
more time and cost, or forget the whole thing, although if it's the
latter, then what was the reason to buy in the first place?

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

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.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:31:16 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

Too many people are being ripped off by rogue sellers, and the PayPal
restriction is actually so that sellers are better monitored ...

If only, eBay has a serious problem with the "sellor is always in the
right".

... and refunds can be given to buyers more easily if there's a problem
later on.

I suggest you go off and read *all* the small print relating to PayPals
various "buyer protection" programs. There are an awful lot of exclusions,
get outs and weasel words that many transactions will fall foul of. Like
the item has to be sent via an "trackable online proof of delivery"
service. I'm reasonably certain that Royal Mails Recorded Delivery does
not count as it is not an online *trackable* service.

A buyer is better off paying by credit card (maybe via PayPal) and getting
the refund from them rather than ****ing about with PayPal.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.net...

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.

In theory that is. At the moment the server is saying "too busy, **** off".

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

On 2007-12-28 12:17:23 +0000, "Tim Ward" said:

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.net...

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.

In theory that is. At the moment the server is saying "too busy, **** off".

That's because of that other universal excuse for poor service - Christmas.

Ne'er do well suppliers can make that one last from early November
until the end of February at least

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