AustPost now has tracking on everything- does PayPal accept it?

[kustomizer99]

AP still 'offer' a signature-required 'service' for $2.95, but will now PP accept the standard tracking as it pertains to Seller Protection?

I hope so, this would save a packet and increase sales. I for one would certainly start listing a heck of a lot more.

[viewmont1071]

"I do wish buyers knew about alleged seller protection regarding post proof, but most buyers only simply don't, nor should be expected to."

Well, who has been telling them the wrong information re "alleged seller protection proof"???

If you have been spreading PP's BS propaganda because you believed it as well the you are part of the problem not part of the solution...

Buyers need to be aware that if more than one postage service is offered then it is their responsibility to select the most appropriate form of freight and security for the item offered.

Sellers need to understand that by offering more secure forms of freight, and availing the buyer to the risks involved and who is liable for the loss that they have (benerally) met the deemed delivered terms in the SOGA

[viewmont1071]

'You only have to provide proof of postage for Paypal'

Incorrect. If you've been lucky enough to catch a slacker at PayPal who'll accept a receipt and reject a claim purely on it, you should be buying a lotto ticket.

In my experience, they have requested proof of lodgement (receipt is not proof of lodgement - it needs to show the address of where you sent it and stamped by AP), and it needs to have proof of delivery (address including suburb etc - not the next suburb over, the LPO, the mail centre etc). It's a warm fuzzy if it's traceable in between. 

PayPal may tell you that they have had plenty of people send in receipts and they assess them on a 'case by case' basis but a) that is a pure grey area in their policy as it stands which they are entitled to reject and b) I don't enjoy grey areas when some dodgy scammer wants to play silly buggers.

I am sure many of you think some of us are being over-excitable and should just take our chances but for the time and effort we put in and the bias in the system, this is the very last way we have to protect ourselves and it's now in doubt. That's worth being worried about.

Well, how about supplying us with some links from the paypal user agreement to back up your argument...

mine are all over the place in this fora but I am happy to reproduce them here if you require

BTW I do not care what paypal "tells me" I use their service and make decisions based upon the user agreement that both parties agreed to ... not "what paypal tells me"

Just like a sellers terms and conditions govern a sale and form part of the CONTRACT

[viewmont1071]

Having said all that now about minimum requirements

... if somebody asked what I believe is best practice for successful remote sale product delivery then.....

I believe best practice is for sellers to offer and provide a service that is at least commensurate to the item's cost and percieved security risk regardless of the buyers freight predeliction rather than relying on a policy from a third party payment provider company for seller "insurance" so that the buyer is afforded the greatest probability of successful product delivery while also in the case of non delivery  having some form of freight insurance regardless of the payment type.

ie.

for more expensive products (over $100) only offer them with insurance and SOD,

for less expensive products  AP discretionally offer $50 compensation for regular post if delivery is not proven or damage is admitted on a deemed adequately packaged product.

[thecatspjs]

Going back to the issue that was raised.  I will clarify.

If I buy an expensive item say $300, from a seller that does not offer appropriate post method for value of goods, the SoG act ain't going to protect the seller then, as regular post ain't going to cut it, nor will a post code receipt on its own - without other supporting evidence.

[punch*drunk]

Going back to the issue that was raised.  I will clarify.

If I buy an expensive item say $300, from a seller that does not offer appropriate post method for value of goods, the SoG act ain't going to protect the seller then, as regular post ain't going to cut it, nor will a post code receipt on its own - without other supporting evidence.

Buyers and sellers need to both be aware of their rights and the best way to protect themselves. If people choose to take risks, either buyer or seller, that's their call.

According to paypals latest policies, a postcode receipt does in fact qualify for seller protection.

[thecatspjs]

I will agree to disagree on the interpretation of paypals policy, as they also set out under eligibility that there is also a requirement to prove that item was sent to address elected by buyer on checkout in addition to proof of post. Postcode receipt can not demonstrate it was sent to a particular address in a suburb.  The balance of probability can be easily disproved.

In any case, Paypal has to abide by the law - the SoG Act is one of the many pieces of legislation that governs trading in our states, and that indicates that:  

(2) Unless otherwise authorised by the buyer, the seller must make such contract with the carrier on behalf of the buyer as may be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the goods and the other circumstances of the case. If the seller omit so to do, and the goods are lost or damaged in course of transit, the buyer may decline to treat the delivery to the carrier as a delivery to the buyer, or may hold the seller responsible in damages.

[punch*drunk]

Its really not that hard.

Sellers have seller protection if they use the correct postage methods as outlined in paypals policies. In the case of a lost article, they have the right to use seller protection....or not. Its up to them. If they have followed all the rules and paypal incorrectly fnd against them, they have the right to contact the ombudsman.

There will always be scenarios that arent quite black and white, there will always be people that arent aware of their rights and there will always be scammers. There is no perfect system.

[thecatspjs]

I choose to support and promote ethical and fair trading where the consumer is accorded not only with the protections that they are entitled to under legislation, but also just get the very best customer service possible, including that the post option that goods are sent by, is appropriate to the value of goods being sent. 

[viewmont1071]

I will agree to disagree on the interpretation of paypals policy, as they also set out under eligibility that there is also a requirement to prove that item was sent to address elected by buyer on checkout in addition to proof of post. Postcode receipt can not demonstrate it was sent to a particular address in a suburb.  The balance of probability can be easily disproved.

In any case, Paypal has to abide by the law - the SoG Act is one of the many pieces of legislation that governs trading in our states, and that indicates that:  

(2) Unless otherwise authorised by the buyer, the seller must make such contract with the carrier on behalf of the buyer as may be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the goods and the other circumstances of the case. If the seller omit so to do, and the goods are lost or damaged in course of transit, the buyer may decline to treat the delivery to the carrier as a delivery to the buyer, or may hold the seller responsible in damages.

(2) Unless otherwise authorised by the buyer,

The acceptance of the contract by the buyer ie. their payment

means that the seller has been   otherwise authorised by the buyer to use the designated postage method and the buyer also accepts all the sllers other terms and conditions

[thecatspjs]

A sellers terms and conditions and/or where a consumer agrees to them by purchasing an item do not negate a consumers rights in relation to unfair contracts - if post options are offered are inappropriate for value it can be contested that contract conditions are unfair etc