I sent a package to a guy in Australia, and the guy said to paypal that he did not recieve the item.

I got in touch with Australia post and they confirmed that it had been signed for in Australia.

I gave paypal all the evidence, even emails from the guy saying that he had recieved it but they still took the buyers side and made my account -£300.

I got ****ed off trying to convince them and i said to paypal i have already taken the money out of my account, so it is in YOUR best interests to sort it out as i have my cash and you do not.

I closed my account and just lest it.

Then i got a a letter for iQor debt collection agency saying i was due them them cash in big red letters.

I then swiftly send them out a Debt Collection Agency Rebuttal letter.

2 months later i get this letter attached.

The letter is pretty weak and i can make much scense of it.

Do you think i should send the same Debt Collection Agency Rebuttal letter again and see what happens.

Heres the letters.

This is in response to this letter:

Notice of Request To Cease Harrassment.

To:

Dear Sirs,

Please read the following notice thoroughly and carefully before responding. It is a notice. It informs you. It means what it says.

I refer to your letter dated .

As you are a third party intervener in this matter acting without authority, I DO NOT give you permission to interfere in my commercial affairs as you have no legal standing. I do not have a contract with you and any permission that you believe you may have from me is hereby withdrawn. If you believe that you have power of attorney to act on my behalf you are hereby fired, and any consent that you believe you may have, tacit or otherwise, is hereby withdrawn.

I am familiar with the terms of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. And I believe, should you continue in contacting me after my request for you to cease your activity, that you will be guilty of harassment and blackmail, and you will be in breach of these acts, and you will be reported to the relevant bodies.

I am well aware of Section 40, sub-section (3) which you may consider entitles you to proceed. However upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury you will need to supply the following Proofs of Claims:

1. Proof of Claim that your actions are reasonable.

2. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part is due, or believed by you to be due to you, and not to some other party.

3a. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part is to yourself by providing sight of the appropriate contract, or

3b. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part to persons for whom you act by providing sight of the appropriate contract.

4. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part protects you from any future loss.

5. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part is enforcement of a legal process on a Human Being under Common Law jurisdiction, who cannot possibly have such liability under said jurisdiction.

You would of course need to provide these Proofs, including showing the full and audited accounting, if you chose to go to law.

Please also note that if you contact me by telephone, after a formal request not to, you will also be in breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and, as such, I will report you to both Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading. And take further note that continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

Finally, you do not, nor have you ever had, my permission to use or process my personal data in any way, and so pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1998, I hereby demand that you cease use of any and all data with regard to me, and that you immediately destroy all of my data held on your records. Failure to do so will result in a report being submitted to The Information Commissioner for Data Protection breaches.

You will be deemed to have been served notice of my request and I will deem it served three (3) days from the date of this letter. This has been sent by recorded delivery. I am advising you that any communications from you including but not limited to letters, phone calls and text messages received after this date will be recorded/noted with the intention of them being used as evidence.

Do not contact me again.

Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity,

: of the family

Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural, Inalienable, Rights reserved.

Please address all future correspondence in the matter to a direct Human Self, namely : of the family, as commonly called.

Encl: Original paperwork as received.

Thanks

Steven

Hello and Welcome,

I'll move this thread to the appropriate Forum.

Regards.

Scott.

The onus of the debt existing is with igor and paypal, simply write back and state that until any alledged debt it proven you will not be entering any dialogue with paypal or igor, and that your original correspondence outlined the dispute and that if they do not understand the dispute then they had better return the debt to paypal

end off, then file any further verbal diatribe from the cretins under ignore

Someone sent me this on a different forum.

Its the paypal terms and conditions.

10. Your Liability – Actions We May Take

10.1 Your Liability.

(a) You are responsible for all Reversals, Chargebacks, fees, fines, penalties and other liability incurred by PayPal, a PayPal User, or a third party caused by your use of the Services and/or arising from your breach of this Agreement. You agree to reimburse PayPal, a User, or a third party for any and all such liability.

(b) Liability for PayPal Buyer Protection Claims and Buyer Complaint Policy Claims. Notwithstanding any other section of this Agreement, if PayPal makes a final decision that you lose a Claim filed directly with PayPal, you will be required to re-imburse PayPal for your liability. Your liability will include the full purchase price of the item and original postage costs (and in some cases, you may not receive the item back). PayPal Seller Protection may cover your liability, see section 11 below.

© Reimbursement for Your Liability. In the event you are liable for any amounts owed to PayPal, PayPal may immediately remove such amounts from your Balance (if available). If there are insufficient funds in your Balance to cover your liability, PayPal reserves the right to collect your debt to PayPal by using any payments received in your Account and otherwise you agree to reimburse PayPal through other means. PayPal may also recover amounts you owe us through legal means, including, without limitation, through the use of a debt collection agency.10.1 Your Liability.

(a) You are responsible for all Reversals, Chargebacks, fees, fines, penalties and other liability incurred by PayPal, a PayPal User, or a third party caused by your use of the Services and/or arising from your breach of this Agreement. You agree to reimburse PayPal, a User, or a third party for any and all such liability.

(b) Liability for PayPal Buyer Protection Claims and Buyer Complaint Policy Claims. Notwithstanding any other section of this Agreement, if PayPal makes a final decision that you lose a Claim filed directly with PayPal, you will be required to re-imburse PayPal for your liability. Your liability will include the full purchase price of the item and original postage costs (and in some cases, you may not receive the item back). PayPal Seller Protection may cover your liability, see section 11 below.

© Reimbursement for Your Liability. In the event you are liable for any amounts owed to PayPal, PayPal may immediately remove such amounts from your Balance (if available). If there are insufficient funds in your Balance to cover your liability, PayPal reserves the right to collect your debt to PayPal by using any payments received in your Account and otherwise you agree to reimburse PayPal through other means. PayPal may also recover amounts you owe us through legal means, including, without limitation, through the use of a debt collection agency.

What do you think?

They can write whatever they like in their terms an conditions. That does not make them necessarily enforceable in a court of law. I'd like to see them try and prove that you do owe any money

In any case, you don't owe anything - the buyer got his goods and you have proof of that.

I would simply not reply to them, starting a game of letter tennis is pointless, your argument lies firmly with PayPal

It is for them to sort out this fiasco, lodge a formal complaint with paypal, and instruct them to call off their chosen DCA immediately.

I would also make a formal complaint to TS via consumer direct.

Ignore Iqor clown outfit, it has sweet F.A to do with them, hammer PayPal..

Hi, I've had problems with PayPal in this manner before; and I am currently doing research to try and ascertain whether the terms and conditions on which they base their claims are, in fact, enforceable through the courts.

However, the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 is no longer in force; it was repealed by the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, s 125(1), Sch 9, Pt 1.

If they are acting on behalf of PayPal then they will be entitled to persue the matter and issue a claim; but only in the name of PayPal.

If they have bought the "benefit" of the alleged debt, then this would be under an absolute assignment within the meaning of the Law of Property Act 1925. This would give them lawful right to pursue the alleged debt through the court in their own name; but only to recover any outstanding balance. They would not be able to sue for damages resulting from any breach of contract.

The first example is a common law exception and the second a statutory exception (recognised by the courts) to the doctrine of privity. These common law exceptions are recognised within S7(1) Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999; which allows that the Act will have no effect on any remedy available to third parties, outside the Act.

This being said, I will continue to look into the terms and conditions that PayPal purport to be relying on because they seem very harsh to me.

How bl**dy cheeky are these lot though? Demanding that YOU provide them with evidence that you don't owe the money!!!

I would write back to them and in no uncertain terms tell them that you do NOT believe you owe the money and that the burden of proof falls directly and entirely on them, as they are the ones making demands!!

Hope this helps.

Cheers.

UF

Also I'd definitely be complaining to the OFT about their demands that you provide evidence that you do not owe the money!! I really think that's well out of order!

I've had similar demands from a certain Mr Carter in the past... and he was also told swiftly where he could put himself and his stupid demands!!

Cheers.

UF

Although I definitely want to do more reading on this matter... what are peoples thoughts about these T&C's in relation to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999?

Unfair Terms

5. — (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.

The contract's for PayPal are definitely "Standard Form" and as such, none of the terms have been indivisually negotiated.

If PayPal's T&C's are saying that their decision is final and that they do not need to act reasonably and there is no appeal process; then I would think this is creating a substantial inbalance in rights and this would be to the detriment of the consumer.

On this basis, I think such terms might be considered as unfair and, as such, not enforceable. However, I am not an expert and I might be miles off track and entirely wrong. So please do not take this as fact.

I would be interested to hear what others think though?

In the meantime, I'm going to go and do some more reading.

Cheers.

UF

Just ignore them, Ive had the same, they'll eventually go away.

Andy

Although I definitely want to do more reading on this matter... what are peoples thoughts about these T&C's in relation to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999?

This is not the correct forum for asking peoples thoughts on this, hijacking the OP's thread with irrelevant posts is certainly not helpful.

S5.2 blows this out of the water, all financial agreements will clearly state that they may use 'third parties' in order to recover outstanding balances.

This is not the correct forum for asking peoples thoughts on this, hijacking the OP's thread with irrelevant posts is certainly not helpful.

 

S5.2 blows this out of the water, all financial agreements will clearly state that they may use 'third parties' in order to recover outstanding balances.

I was actually thinking more about the fact that their T&C's appear to imply that in the event of a dispute being raised by a buyer, PayPal are free to act as Judge and Jury and award in favour of the buyer regardless of any evidence presented by the seller that proves that the seller had, in fact, completed his obligations under the contract of sale; and that the seller would be liable for any money removed from their account for such reasons by PayPal.

On that basis, I feel that the terms that imply this could be in breach of the legislation I spoke of earlier. This has nothing to do with third parties recovering the balance; I am afraid you have misread my posts.

Surely if my thoughts are correct, then I am not posting anything irrelevant to the thread? Nor am I hijacking the thread! I was merely attempting to offer another point of thought for the OP in his quest to deal with this issue.

If you read my first post in this thread, you will see that I have already stated that the DCA has every right to attempt recovery of a debt, if that debt is in fact owing. Again showing that what I am speaking of has nothing at all to do with the third parties issue; this issue is set firmly in law and I understand this.

I do not feel that asking for other members thoughts on the points I have raised is wrong either, as the more opinions the OP can get, the better position they will be in to make a decision on where they go next!

Please read my first thread again and you will see what I am saying!

Many Thanks.

UF

__________________

I am a first year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. If you are in doubt, always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

 

What do you think?

I think maybe you a paypal employee:mad:

I think maybe you a paypal employee:mad:

I don't think so...... that quote is by the OP wishing to fight PayPal

oops so it is, must remember to check the ops name

haha I've done that before lol