Paypal Scam, I need help!

[SQ1]

Now THAT, I do agree with 100%

 

I here you, I have never had a dispute before with 197 sales.

 

You dont know the regulations until you are confronted with them

[TinaTurner2]

Trading Standards say...

 

"If you buy from a Private Seller you are not covered by the Distance Selling Regulations"

Swansea County Council - Consumer Support Network - Consumer Advice - Internet Auctions: A guide for buyers

 

In addition, the DSRs only apply to Buy-It-Now items (and 2nd chance offers) from traders.

 

So, in any case, if the XBox was sold through a traditional auction or by a Private Seller then the DSRs don't apply.

 

Just so you know

[perplexity]

Just so you know, eBay is not an Internet auction.

 

This is from eBay's own submission to the EU Commissioners, with regard to the Distance Selling Consultation:

 

Transactions concluded on eBay are not auctions. eBay is neither an auction house nor a retailer. Transactions on eBay can, however, be conducted via a competitive bidding process.

 

eBay strongly believes that to protect consumers’ and sellers’ rights auctions (as clarified to mean all contracts concluded by competitive bidding) should be brought within the scope of the acquis and in particular the Distance Selling Directive. See eBay’s submission to the public consultation on the implementation of the Distance Selling Directive.

If an eBay listing were an auction section 57 of the Sale of Goods Act would then apply, whereby

 

A sale by auction is complete when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of the hammer, or in other customary manner; and until the announcement is made any bidder may retract his bid.

which is not what happens on eBay where the right to retract a bid is deliberately limited.

 

If Trading Standards none the less insist that eBay is an auction I suggest to insist that they prosecute eBay for that.

 

 

There was long since a High Court precedent in Germany where a seller sued an eBay buyer for non payment and lost, mistakenly assuming that an eBay auction is excepted.

 

This memo from eBay to a House of Lords Select Committee refers to that:

 

"ONLINE AUCTIONS" AND THE DISTANCE SELLING DIRECTIVE

45. Contracts concluded at an auction are excluded from the Distance Selling Directive (97/7/EC). Although online auctions on eBay have an auction style, they differ from traditional auctions in a number of key respects. Unlike traditional auctions, eBay does not conduct the bidding process using a human agent, nor does it make an assessment of the value or condition of the goods or take possession of any goods to be sold by eBay sellers to buyers. Furthermore, eBay is merely a trading platform for both sellers and consumers, and it is not involved in the conclusion of the contract between the seller and the buyer. Accordingly, eBay is not an "online auctioneer" contrary to what is often assumed. This view has been confirmed by the Germany Federal Supreme Court (BGH).

Sales are allowed to be private at a public auction; the auctioneer is not obliged to reveal the identity of a seller because the auctioneer accepts the responsibility instead. On eBay the usual legislation applies, whereby the seller is obliged to identify himself and provide a geographical address, and a failure to do so may be prosecuted as an offence.

 

8-)

Edited April 7, 2010 by perplexity

[TinaTurner2]

Errmm...not sure I mentioned ebay auctions...and I think there's a bit of confusion between a private seller (as in individual who is not a business, to which I was referring) and a private auction (to which I think plexity refers) which is a different thing altogether.

 

Under the DSRs a business is required to show their full trading information to prospective buyers but a private seller doesn't have to do this. eBay rules are the same - in any item sold on eBay there is no requirement for a private individual to provide their address information to prosepctive buyers. In fact, even if you are a trading partner of a completed transaction with a seller who is a private individual then eBay still won't give out their address (as SQ1 has found).

 

Whilst eBay might 'strongly believe' that sales on their site should come under the regs, they don't as yet (although I understand from TS that the regs are up for review so you never know....) and whilst TS believe that 'auction' style sales are not covered then this is the advise they will give consumers and consumers will accept it as the law - because TS are who they turn to first in most cases, when things go sour.

 

I believe that buyers are able to retract their bids fairly simply using an online form which does so automatically.

 

Although eBay appears to have their own rules and regulations that don't necessarily equate to logic, law or good business practice (in my experience anyway), their guides to sellers and buyers do state that only BIN and 2nd chance offers are covered by the DSRs and TS appear to concur. So it beats me why ebay say one thing on their site but another to EU commissioners....

 

I have had my own little run-in with ebay a couple of years ago whereby they cancelled all my listings but still charged me the listing fees on the basis that they had evidence of shill-bidding. It was a load of rubbish - and I wrote to them a number of times asking them to tell me what the account was that was supposedly bidding on my behalf on my own auctions but was told that they couldn't supply any information as it breached data protection. So for a year I didn't pay the listing fees of £200. Everytime they wrote I told them they were wrong and to provide their evidence but got the same response - they wouldn't provide evidence or any other information. They transferred the debt to a DCA who wrote twice - both times I responded by telling them ebay were in error and that I'd asked them to re-check their systems and supply evidence (as they would need to in any court case) but they had yet to do so and whilst the account was in dispute and ebay were yet to respond (either to my request or that of the DCA) then I couldn't see exactly how the DCA were expected to progress their case. They stopped writing (although ebay have since suspended any account registered by any other person at the same address as me - which is a bit unfortunate!!)

[perplexity]

This is mistaken:

 

Under the DSRs a business is required to show their full trading information to prospective buyers but a private seller doesn't have to do this. eBay rules are the same - in any item sold on eBay there is no requirement for a private individual to provide their address information to prospective buyers.

 

The duty to provide a name and a geographical adress is established by the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002, which applies to a "service provider" who is "any person providing an information society service".

 

Furthermore the EU Directive 2000/31/EC that the Regulations implement is perfectly clear that

 

(20) The definition of "recipient of a service" covers all types of usage of information society services, both by persons who provide information on open networks such as the Internet and by persons who seek information on the Internet for private or professional reasons.

The right to cancel a bid on eBay is deliberately restricted:

 

It is possible for you to cancel a bid you've placed before the end of an auction, but only in the exceptional circumstances listed below.

....... etcetera ....

During the last twelve hours of the listing: Your most recent bid will be automatically cancelled, as long as you placed it in the last hour. If you want to cancel a bid you placed more than an hour ago, please ask the seller to cancel your bid. eBay can't cancel your bid for you.

Which is definitely not in line with s.57 of the Sale of Goods Act.

 

eBay's representation to the EU commissioners should not be so much of a surprise given that eBay is an international organisation and the EU Distance Selling Directive applies to a majority of eBay sales in Europe, indisputably, as a matter of fact, for want of an exception for any auction, or because a member state's implementation defines to the effect that an online auction is not excepted.

 

Given then that the very purpose of the Directive is that "consumers should be able to have access to the goods and services of another Member State on the same terms as the population of that State", Trading standards officers who would beg to differ are distinctly out of order.

 

It is probably because of ignorance more than malice but should not be put up with, not for as long as the OFT, to their credit give the correct advice:

 

How do the DSRs apply to auction sites on the internet?

2.19 This depends on specific circumstances, for example:

• the contractual relationship between the website provider and the seller

 

etcetera

The contractual relationship for all eBay members is supposed to be equivalent, on all the ebay sites, and the Distance Selling Regulations apply to that Agreement, so it is fundamentally wrong to prejudice one seller against another, or one sale against another, or one country against another.

 

(10) of the Directive's objectives is fairly clear about that, if you want to look into it.

 

[noomill060]

This is going way off topic. CAG exists to help others. All you are doing is confusing the issue.

 

perplexity- this isnt a Ebay community forum thread.

 

Most Caggers actually have experience of the court system and how it works, unlike the numpties over at the Ebay Payments and Paypal forum.

 

Your posts are not helping SQ1 and are confusing other readers.

 

If you want to discuss DSR 2000, Ebay and irrelevant German court judgements *please* start your own thread.

 

I notice that you havent started any threads of your own all you seem to do is hijack other Caggers.

Edited April 7, 2010 by noomill060

[perplexity]

I had not yet noticed that SQ1 had said it's not helping.

 

I would rather have thought it helpful to respect what a member has to say for himself.

 

[paul-j]

SQ1,

 

are you aware that Microsoft can trace the i.p address of stolen 360's if you have a xbox live account, and the unit serials are registerd for warranty .

the units mac address is linked to the i.p. and can be tracked to the place the machine is at.

i did this when my house was robbed feb 2009. also got a lot of other stolen stuff back , call microsoft xbox support you never know your luck.

 

hope this helps

 

good luck

[JonCris]

SQ any firm or person who helps to facilitate a fraud by the transmission of proceeds from the criminal act is guilty of the offence of 'money laundering' which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. & ignorance really is no defence in the case of ML

 

So tell PP that the next time you get the brush off

[perplexity]

I read the thread again and it is far from clear what has actually happened, what the story is.

 

If Paypal simply froze a seller's account there is nothing at all unusual about that. They do it all the time, especially with electronic goods. It is rather unusual that a seller would get the money into his bank account before they froze the Paypal account!

 

What then is the "it" that this refers to?

 

It was cancelled about 30mins after collection.

 

If a buyer formally informs a supplier that the contract is cancelled, he is entitled to do so, and the seller is then obliged to refund, in which case "the supplier shall reimburse any sum paid by or on behalf of the consumer under or in relation to the contract to the person by whom it was made free of any charge..." , so it is not so unreasonable if a buyer wants the money back, and the involvement of Paypal would then be incidental. He could sue a seller for the money, whatever happens with Paypal.

 

If that is not what happened, if the buyer failed to declare that the contract is cancelled, or words to that effect, then let's at least be clear on that, rather than waste the time on the Distance Selling Regulations, but if that is indeed what has happened, it needs to be pointed out that a supplier could be prosecuted for failing to tell a buyer that the right to cancel exists.

 

I am not kidding. Going on the information provided so far, piecing it all together with only one side of the story heard, an alternative understanding would be that this is a buyer who knows exactly what he is doing and who he is doing it to, with nothing to hide.

 

Perhaps he wants to get back at the Police because the same happened to him some time ago, and the Police did not want to know.

 

[TinaTurner2]

The IT referred to in SQ1's notes refers to the payment made by the buyer via PayPal. As he later notes, in the PayPal email he attached, the buyers bank reversed the funds.

 

So, the buyer paid via paypal, SQ1 used the 'withdraw' option to take his money out of the paypal account giving a nil balance in his paypal account, buyer then informed his bank or paypal of a fraud and the money was taken back out of SQ1s paypal account giving a negative balance. But the money is still in his bank account where it was withdrawn to.

 

If the buyer brought with him documentation which identified him as the owner of the paypal buyer account and address information which matched the paypal account, then it would seem to me that either he was the person in the identification - in which case it must be easy to catch him and paypal should pay out because even if the box had been posted to the address the same person would still have received it - or he was someone with fraudulent identification - in which case you would assume PayPal's confirmation of identitiy process was at fault (am I not right in thinking that banking-type institutions, etc require that you show photo id and proof of residence before opening an account - I certainly had to email paypal my id when I opened my seller account?)

 

But ebay and paypal tend to do what they please in any case

 

I don't see how the buyer would specifically mark the seller in retaliation for perceived bad policing. How would he know when he bid on the item that the buyer was in the police force just from the ebay member name?

 

SQ1 - would you like me to send my brothers round to him ;-)

[JonCris]

Whilst the sellers account may be frozen a buyer MUST return the goods BEFORE receiving his refund & if ebay arbitrarily chooses to give a refund prior to the return of goods any loss falls on them

[perplexity]

How would a member cancel a Paypal payment that has already arrived in the bank account of the person paid to?

 

Paypal do not so much as cancel an e-cheque. There was another thread about that:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/online-stores/254118-cancelled-paypal-transaction-overdrawn.html

 

It is possible, of course, to cancel a credit card payment, but the buyer would have asked his credit card company for that, not the bank, and the cancellation would not have been immediate.

 

It has been known to happen that a buyer maliciously targets a particular victim, but I am not suggesting that this is a likely story, just encouraging to see that there is another way to construe.

 

I am guessing that the buyer expects to cancel under the Distance Selling Regulations, because of the use of the word "cancel" which makes no sense to me otherwise, and for want of any explanation of why there would seem to have been a Paypal dispute resolution process in progress.

 

If a Paypal account was hijacked, or a member of a family used a sibling's account without permission, or something like that, it should have been clear by now, what the story is. When that happens Paypal's reaction is a good deal more forthright, to protect Paypal, and if a dodgy buyer does a runner the seller is likely to win the dispute by default, because the buyer fails to respond, so why then the plea for help with regard to civil action?

 

If this is about a buyer's right to cancel, my advice to a buyer is to threaten civil action, not to rely on Paypal, precisely because paypal do what they please in any case. Paypal is a safe haven for criminal practice, not an enforcer of the law, but that's another matter.

 

It could also be that the goods the buyer purchased failed to work, in which case any buyer is perfectly entitled to get his money back, and a seller who retaliates by deliberately damaging a person's reputation could be sued for that.

 

 

P.S.

 

This is wrong, commonly asserted but not what the Paypal User Agreement says, and not what always happens:

 

Whilst the sellers account may be frozen a buyer MUST return the goods BEFORE receiving his refund & if ebay arbitrarily chooses to give a refund prior to the return of goods any loss falls on them

I have seen several reports from sellers, to the eBay Community Forum, who had thought it true and then, in a state of shock, they complain that Paypal refunded without requiring that a buyer returns the goods.

 

It then has to be pointed out that Paypal's terms do nothing more than allow Paypal to require that a buyer returns, if Paypal so see fit.

 

And by the way, whenever this has happened lo and behold, further examination reveals that the seller's listing policy insists: "no returns", strangely enough. They'd fooled themselves by imagining that this would deprive a buyer of his right to a refund, which of course it does not.

 

8-)

Edited April 8, 2010 by perplexity

[TinaTurner2]

As a buyer, if you contact paypal or your bank and tell them a transaction on your paypal account was fraudulent, they will immediately reverse it and paypal will place the sellers account (or, at least, the disputed amount) on hold. The onus is on the seller to prove that it wasn't fraudulent.

 

The issue SQ1 has raised is obviously one of fraud/theft/whatever, not whether or not the buyer has a right to cancel or if the items were faulty. The paypal email that SQ1 published clearly notes that the buyer claims the payment from his account was 'not one he authorised'.

 

The buyer is not claiming to want to cancel the contract, nor is he claiming the item to be faulty. So the DSRs aren't relevant in this case.

[perplexity]

The onus is on the seller to prove that it wasn't fraudulent.

 

No, no no.

 

Fraud is a crime, so it's the crime that has to be proved. The onus is on the person with the account to prove that it was used by somebody else with no authority.

 

Otherwise, whatever is paid from an account is absolutely the responsibility of the owner of the account, and that's the way that it's treated by Paypal.

 

When a buyer claims that his account is hijacked, Paypal begin by assuming that the buyer is trying it on. I have seen dozens of reports of that happening, eBay members turning up to complain that their account was hijacked but Paypal refuse to believe it.

 

If it's a straightforward case of an unauthorised payment the seller would then be in touch with the victim who is more than happy to assist with the investigation, so what on Earth is the talk of civil action all about, and the Paypal dispute?

 

Edited April 8, 2010 by perplexity

[TinaTurner2]

When you contact your bank, as the buyer has done in this case, your bank will reverse the charge and in most cases this will be immediately initiated. It is called a 'chargeback'. The onus is on the retailer (or seller in SQ1s case) to prove that the transaction wasn't fraudulent after all and the buyer will also be expected to complete a form. Having been an online retailer for 6 years and also had to claim a fraudlent item on a personal credit card as a consumer, I know this is absolutely the case.

[perplexity]

When I have tried to chargeback it had to be way of the credit card company, not the bank who referred me to the company, and the process was anything but immediate or straightforward.

 

Please tell, which is the bank that'll do a chargeback straight away, with no questions asked?

 

They don't just do it on a whim, precisely because they may never get the money back from a seller it was paid to.

 

 

P.S.

 

Reading the thread again, what is is this about if not the Distance Selling Regulations right to cancel?

 

Also, intent comes in to play- instead of contacting SQ1 and bringing the thing back, asking for a refund, he simply reversed the payment and appears to believe he can keep the xbox.

 

This is analagous to cancelling a cheque and keeping a purchase.

 

Why else would a buyer appear to believe he could keep the purchase?

 

The buyer is wrong if he does. A buyer who cancels has to give the seller the opportunity to reclaim the goods, but I am finding it impossible to otherwise understand why the buyer would appear to believe.

 

I have seen exactly the same said before, and it turned out that this is what was happening.

 

Edited April 8, 2010 by perplexity
P.S.

[SQ1]

The IT referred to in SQ1's notes refers to the payment made by the buyer via PayPal. As he later notes, in the PayPal email he attached, the buyers bank reversed the funds.

 

So, the buyer paid via paypal, SQ1 used the 'withdraw' option to take his money out of the paypal account giving a nil balance in his paypal account, buyer then informed his bank or paypal of a fraud and the money was taken back out of SQ1s paypal account giving a negative balance. But the money is still in his bank account where it was withdrawn to.

 

If the buyer brought with him documentation which identified him as the owner of the paypal buyer account and address information which matched the paypal account, then it would seem to me that either he was the person in the identification - in which case it must be easy to catch him and paypal should pay out because even if the box had been posted to the address the same person would still have received it - or he was someone with fraudulent identification - in which case you would assume PayPal's confirmation of identitiy process was at fault (am I not right in thinking that banking-type institutions, etc require that you show photo id and proof of residence before opening an account - I certainly had to email paypal my id when I opened my seller account?)

 

But ebay and paypal tend to do what they please in any case

 

I don't see how the buyer would specifically mark the seller in retaliation for perceived bad policing. How would he know when he bid on the item that the buyer was in the police force just from the ebay member name?

 

SQ1 - would you like me to send my brothers round to him ;-)

 

YES PLEASE!!!!

[puma1998]

Same thing happened to my son regarding a laptop earlier this year.In his case the so called buyer had hijacked an ebayers account, and was purchasing numerous items. I did contact other sellers and warn them that he would want to pay by paypal then collect. 1 did contact me later and he had tried the same thing with him. My son has just received letter and phone calls from iQor. The guy that ripped us off was buying things from around Bucks and Herts.

Appalled by paypal and ebay for allowing this to happen, Yes in hindsight no collection when paying by paypal. But I cant remember ever having seen it in bold on paypal or ebays website. We def wont be so trusting in future.

[SQ1]

My difficulty is that you MUST offer paypal as a payment option! Howcan this be?

 

Does that rule out collection items?

[noomill060]

You have no option to offer Paypal- Ebay make the rules as its their site and you agree to them- BUT you dont have to accept Paypal when the buyer collects in person.

[SQ1]

Paypal have been very obstructive and will not provide details of their own investigation to myself or the investigating officers. It's hard work!

[perplexity]

My difficulty is that you MUST offer paypal as a payment option! Howcan this be?

 

Does that rule out collection items?

 

Paypal is owned by eBay, which is to suggest that the "MUST" deliberately exploits a virtual monopoly.

 

There was long since a good deal of comment to the effect that a regulatory body ought to put a stop to it, before ebay ran away to Luxembourg, since when the so called regulators (FSA and OFT) show no regret whatsoever about the escape, let off the hook along with eBay and Paypal, and so the sleeping dogs are allowed to lie, so to speak.

 

When eBay is eventually dragged to a court of law it's a commercial company that has to go the extra mile, with regard to the blind eye that eBay turns to the sale of counterfeit goods for instance.

 

It makes a lot more sense as soon you allow yourself to believe that eBay is a completely corrupt criminal organisation, but allowed to get away with it. Otherwise it is only ever likely to perplex, the extremity of the nonsense, in practice.

 

If I am not mistaken, eBay sellers are allowed to ask for cash on collection. That is tolerated but the appearance of the Paypal logo etcetera is automatic, in the UK at least.

 

Elsewhere, on ebay.de for instance, it is not compulsory to offer Paypal. Because the members at a large would never sign up to Paypal, for the most part, eBay would lose too much to inflict Paypal there (which they already did to some extent).

 

They get away with it here because the Police let the buyers down over and over again with regard to the protection that the law should provide. In Germany the members are encouraged to treat every seller's failure to deliver as a fraud to be reported to the Police, who take it seriously. If one is then so daft as to suggest the same to eBay members in the UK "you must be joking" is a typical retort.

 

One should therefore gloat, perhaps, about the irony of it, when a Police officer gets a taste of the same but I don't. It is far to sad a situation for that.

 

 

P.S. A word of warning further to this:

 

Paypal have been very obstructive and will not provide details of their own investigation to myself or the investigating officers. It's hard work!

 

One of the easiest mistakes to make with eBay or Paypal is to assume that there is such a detail, as if to expect there to be some sort of system, a person in charge who would know what is going on. Ever since eBay began their ambitions exceeded their ability to cope, by far. Not so long ago they laid off a lot of the staff to cut the cost, so what is left to hold the line may be that much brighter than what there was before, but from time to time it is wise to wonder. Who would want to work for a firm like that anyway?

 

Not me.

 

Edited April 23, 2010 by perplexity
P.S.

[SQ1]

Hi Folks, I know its been a while.... We got him and the money back.... **** bag was well at it.

 

My advice..... Dont accept paypal for collection in person. It leaves you as a seller vulnerable. Paypal only covers items that are damaged in transit, lost in the post, not as described etc.

 

I have just sold something this morning and the buyer got upset because I refunded the paypal for a collection in person. I requested cash on collection or other direct means of payment.

 

 

Thanks for your help a couple of years ago folks... Hard work gets the bad guy in the end... I would rather not have the hassle though!!!

 

[andydd]

 

My advice..... Dont accept paypal for collection in person. It leaves you as a seller vulnerable. Paypal only covers items that are damaged in transit, lost in the post, not as described etc.

 

:

 

Yep...same advice I give people, unfortuntaly people have to go through an ex[perience like yours before they realise.

 

Andy