The latest Paypal issue

[John Lever]

I just sold a jacket for £50 on ebay. The buyer paid with PP. I receive a message to say that because this is a high risk sale due to the possibilities of fraud, PP will hold the funds until I receive + feedback.
I have a score of 94, 100 % positive.
What an insult !
I certainly would think very carefully about the sale of high value goods

You've received a payment, detailed below. We've placed a temporary hold on the funds for this transaction.

eBay and PayPal are working together to make it safer than ever to buy on eBay. One of the boldest steps is to identify transactions that pose the greatest risk of fraud and holding the payments from sellers for a period of time to help ensure that the transactions go smoothly.

We'll release the payment for the eBay item if either of the following occurs:

* The buyer leaves you positive feedback on eBay.
* It's been 21 days since the payment date and you haven't received a dispute, claim, chargeback, or reversal on the transaction being held

 

[bazelot]

Whooaaa... That's insane. Ebay is getting worse and worse for sellers.

 

[HHjackets]

another 6 positive feedbacks and you should be ok!

https://www.paypal.com/uk/cgi-bin/websc ... ts-outside

 

[jacketimp]

any other members with john's similar experience of paypal?

 

[TankBuster]

Yes,
I have a friend that had the same issue. You have to have a feedback of 100+ to
avoid having them hold your funds now. Kind of a silly idea!

 

[asiamiles]

Yes,
I have a friend that had the same issue. You have to have a feedback of 100+ to
avoid having them hold your funds now. Kind of a silly idea!

"Silly" is not the word for it. I wonder if during this 21 day period the money remains with the buyer or is retained by Paypal enabling them to earn interest on it?

I just don't understand the whole eBay/Paypal thinking putting more and more power in the hands of the buyer. I mean it's not like you can walk into a shop, buy something, and say "You'll get your money in 3 weeks time, providing of course that I'm happy with the goods."

 

[zoomer]

They must think, "gee, sellers screw buyers more often than buyers screw sellers. So let's go with the numbers."

Mass market thinking: find the largest market segment and cater exclusively to that one segment. :| Hey, it worked for the mortgage industry... :lol:

 

[John Lever]

Why was I deemed trustworthy in the past but not any more ?
I have 94 trouble free previous deals. Seems to me it's about greed from PP. I have to offer it and unless my buyer does not have a PP account, then they will use it, then I have to wait.
What happens if the buyer decides they no longer want the purchase and decide to send it back or just to keep it a say it never arrived ?
This could be the end as we know it. Several people that I know will no longer accept PP because of their charges. Seems that PP is like a virus in your bank account where they can just take money.

 

[C.J.]

I had this happen to me a short time back when selling an M-422a from ELC. I called paypal to complain and they ended up being willing to release the funds immediately. Unfortunately, the buyer then backed out of the deal.

I agree with you, though. Way too over-controling for my liking.

 

[Jason]

I wonder if during this 21 day period the money remains with the buyer or is retained by Paypal enabling them to earn interest on it?

Thats exactly the real reason behind it, I'm sure. Imagine how many extra millions of dollars/pounds PP will make annually if they hold on to just 10% of transactions for an average of just 7 days, over the (guess) millions of transactions per week. All done under the auspices of "making paypal safer". Surely they'd know that such a tactic would make paypal less attractive/popular to use, but since they hold a near-monopoly on this market, they know that the market share they lose will be outweighed by the profit gains made.
All big companies do similar things.

Sigh. Wish the old ethic of providing a service for your customers still had as much priority as making a buck in business now. Seems like the priorities in business now are:
1) making money at the expense of everything else
2) meeting regulatory obligations / appearing to be a good corporate citizen / avoiding any litigation
and a very distant 3) providing a good service or product to your customers.

 

[donsom]

I had the opposite happen when I purchased some computer hardware and never received it (around $200 Canadian $). I was able to get the full refund from PayPal for it ... but only after filing a standard eBay/PayPal complaint and then waiting 30 days for the seller (who had duped a few others and left with the cash) to respond and try to settle it.

John, I believe that your situation is definitely different.

Sometimes, big corporation's answers are like driving a picture frame nail into the wall with a bulldozer .. it only makes sense to them .. and they make it so widespread that the wrong folks get flogged for the sins of the others...

 

[asiamiles]

What happens if the buyer decides they no longer want the purchase and decide to send it back or just to keep it a say it never arrived?

Unless you can provide proof of delivery to the buyer's address, a buyer can claim non-delivery of goods and will automatically be refunded by Paypal.

If a buyer decides they don't like the item, they simply claim the item is not as described, and while they will have to pay to ship the item back to the seller, Paypal will refund their money, leaving the seller short of not only the selling price but also the shipping costs.

So as a buyer it means you can buy a jacket (or anything else for that matter) and if you're not 100% happy with it you can return it and get refunded by Paypal, no matter what the seller's Terms (ie. "no returns") are. Of course, it's very unfair to honest sellers.

Several people that I know will no longer accept PP because of their charges.

Soon, they won't be allowed to sell on eBay, as Paypal is to become mandatory.

 

[John Lever]

Miles, that is true for most English speaking sites, but not so in Europe. In France and Germany many sellers will not take PP.

 

[Cliff]

I actually never sell anything on ebay, only buy, but my view is if enough people stop selling, as surely they will, with this latest restriction, then eventually ebay will either close down or get rid of Pay Pal, though I thought they were all part of the same company.

I actually believe they try these things on for a few weeks / months, make a few pounds and then email us all to say how they have improved their service by removing such ridiculous practices !

rgds

cliff

 

[jacketimp]

doubt the little voices will prevail.......remember most pro sellers have over 100 feedback......it's all in the numbers.......

so the buyers will still buy and the pro sellers will still sell.........now for the little ones......you take your choice.....

 

[John Lever]

The seller has just left positive feedback for me so we'll see how long it takes PP to release the funds. Nothing doing as yet.

 

[Cliff]

John maybe you should ask PP for interest on your money that you are lending to them

what a crazy monetary world we now live in ! :?

 

[John Lever]

Maybe. It seems that in order to be taken seriously and valued, you must have a feedback score of at least 100. That takes several years.

 

[Lignemaginot]

I was in the San Francisco airport on Monday and saw a guy who had a paypal business card on his suit case; wanted to go over and tell him what a crappy company he works for, but thought better of it.

Given my back ground in credit card processing, I'll tell you the simplified reason as to why paypal is doing this (other than because they can, given their strength through being a part of ebay).

Only banks can become members of Visa or Mastercard, and thereby issue cards and process transactions. Paypal is not a bank (not in the US, anyway - they do now have a banking license in Luxembourg), so it must pass its transactions through a bank, just like any other vendor who accepts credit cards as payment (like your local grocery store or clothing shop). If your local grocery store accepts payment by a credit card that turns out to be fraudulent, then (depending on their agreement with the processing bank) they usually have to eat the loss.

Now, most people don't know this (and even if they did, they wouldn't do it), but you could walk into a store, charge a bunch of stuff, and then announce that you didn't do it - and you won't be liable for it. Depending on the agreement with the processing bank, the issuing bank, and the store, one of those entities is going to eat the loss. If the store says that they'll eat ANY losses, then their transaction costs are the lowest they can be. In this instance, with Paypal saying that they'll hold these types of transactions, they're essentially covering themselves against almost any chance of fraud - and so will be able to get the lowest transaction rates.

There are other factors involved, but the explanation above basically covers what's going on. The major point is that most stores would love to be able to do the same thing as paypal, but they aren't so omnipotent.

 

[SuinBruin]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, that sounds very plausible, Maginot... but can't you get a PayPal credit card? How does that fit into your analysis?

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=xpt/cps/general/PPPlusCC-outside&channel=1&promo=503

Edit: Ahhh, it looks like PayPal is not the bank issuing the cards... the issuer appears be GE Money Bank. Sorry for the confusion.