Click and Send satchels - proof of sending for sellers?

[elves*n*sparkles]

I have only used Click and Send a few times as a seller to send to buyers, but am starting to use more.

It has changed since I last used it.

I am just wondering what the proof of sending part is that I should retain as proof of sending for PAYPAL?

Under the old system when you printed the label you got a copy of the label and the post office stamped this, but now there is only one copy of the address label that you put on the parcel.

I was under the impression you filled out the SAME little registered post slip as you do for regular parcels but tick the box that says "Signature Item prepared through Click and Send", and Auspost stamp this. I have asked them to do this but many times they have said that it is ONLY for registered post, NOT for Click and Send.

There IS the option to pay for "signature on Delivery" with Click and Send and I am assuming this is the only time you can use the registered post slip, and tick that box, and then retain as proof of sending.

So, if you use Click and send WITHOUT paying extra for the signature on delivery (ie, just use standard Click and Send with tracking), is there NO proof of sending you can retain for Paypal purposes?

I have asked Auspost but they have no idea. They barely know how to process my Click and Send items as it is!

Thank you for your help.

[tall_bearded]

There is a reason for everything.

PayPal didn’t introduce Seller Protection voluntarily.  Instead as a condition for the continued use of Buyer Protection as a vehicle to induce Buyers to use the service, it was ‘suggested’ to PayPal that its policies should include a provision which advised both buyers and sellers as to when recovery rights exist, and under which circumstances they don’t, which under the current legislation is when shipment is proved.  That is under the current legislation, if the seller can prove the item was handed to the carrier, subject to any other preclusions contain in the Act, the buyer has no right of recovery against the seller, and all that Seller Protection does is mirror that fact.

PayPal didn’t amend its policies lowering the threshold of what constitutes proof voluntarily.  When seller protection was first introduced the only proof acceptable under the policy was documentation proving the item as sent registered post.  Four or so years later, the minimum proof is a dated receipt with a post code.  Now it goes without saying that the lower the threshold the greater likelihood that the seller can prove postage, resulting in a lot of dissatisfied buyers who placed their trust in PayPal Buyer Protection only to find they weren’t protected at all.  The solution, if the seller proves postage PayPal pays out of its own pocket (discretionary payment), but the lower the threshold the greater the exposure to make such payments.  So the question which arises is, why would PayPal reduce the threshold thus increasing its exposure.  That is why not just leave it as it was - registered post.  The answer, it was ‘suggested’ to PayPal that if it wanted to keep Buyer Protection as a means of inducing buyers to use its service, then it needed to bring its policies in line with what is more commonly accepted as proof by the very courts/tribunal /quasi judicial authorities who are reguarly required  reviewing PayPal’s decisions.

So what in store in the future, particularly when the benefits arising from making discretionary payment is outstripped by the financial loss incurred, with there being three possible solutions.

• They could stop making discretionary payments, but what of the buyer backlash


• They could reduce their exposure to make discretionary payments by limiting Buyer Protection to where buyers chose to pay for and use receipted delivery (registered post or equivalent) but then the question arises –  if it’s insured anyway, why do I need Buyer Protection.


• They could change the policy substituting “proof of postage” to “Proof of Receipt” but the only way they could do that is if they induced to seller to contract out of their “deemed delivery" rights, which creates a huge problem.  You see proof of shipment is a right conferred by statue, and as such, it can only be contracted out of if PayPal provides the seller with a monetary benefit of equal or greater value in return.

As for me, when discretionary payments  out-strip the commercial benefit they provide my monies on Option No 2.  Option 2 because option 3 has always been available and would have provided PayPal with it best commercial outcome – no more requirement to make discretionary payments – but  has never been included in the Australian agreement.  So ask yourself why?  Could it be because contracting out provisions are a legal minefield of epic proportions and are therefore the option of absolute last resort. 

[breracing-1]

do you think it is OK for somebody to keep their money when they could have sent an empty satchel to any address in the buyer's suburb and offer that as proof of having sent the item?

What about the other side of the coin where a buyer does receive the item and lodges an item not received claim to get a funds reversal and ultimately score a freebie at the seller's expense?. A buyer claiming an INR has not one thread of evidence other than a mere statement in confirmation that their item wasn't received with a motivation factor to make false INR declarations in a bid to obtain items free of charge?.

[davewil1964]

PayPal didn’t introduce Seller Protection voluntarily.....

If it was indeed 'suggested' to Paypal that they provide protection, why does said protection only apply to eBay? The standard non-eBay protection is only applicable if Paypal can recover the money from the seller and I believe they don't try very hard (they will take the money if the seller has funds in their account, but that's the extent of it). They specifically state that no seller protection applies to any non-eBay transactions.

I imagine they introduced protection to drive business to eBay, otherwise they would offer proper protection for all transactions using their service.

[tall_bearded]

Because if you look at the historical data you would see that seller protection was introduced at the same time that eBay attempted to make PayPal a mandatory payment option.

That is, when they tried to introduce mandatory PayPal as a prequel to PayPal only they were told their application wouldn’t get past first base unless they cleaned up their act when it to reversing payments without proper evidence in support.

Unfortunately they didn’t mend their ways fast enough because not only did the regulators reject eBay’s PayPal only application, but a couple of years later, they  invited them to rethink the policy requiring sellers’ offer PayPal as one of their safe payment options, and when the regulators invite someone to do something it’s a case of do it or else.

As for why the same doesn’t apply to non eBay transactions, the fact is it does. 

If the seller proves postage, irrespective of where the item was sold (eBay or elsewhere) PayPal can’t reverse the transaction.  However, eBay owns PayPal.  So it behoves PayPal to wherever possible put a positive spin on legislative requirements, a spin which benefits itself or its parent without falling within the definition of misleading or deceptive conduct.  That is, create in the mind of the customer the existence of a benefit which only exists if you sell on eBay.  The practice is common in business.  As an example, a store may put up a sign saying ‘if the item is faulty we will replace it our cost’ which to the uninformed infers if you buy it somewhere else you may not get a replacement,  whereas to the informed, the  sign simply mirrors the legislation. 

It’s called spin.  Politicians use it.  So does business.

[digital*ghost]

The difference between Seller Protection available on eBay and elsewhere, is that if a buyer initiates a credit card chargeback and is successful, it doesn't matter what proof of postage you have, you don't get protection - my understanding of that is it's because the bank makes the decision about whether the reversal is granted. so you can fight it and win, meaning the buyer doesn't get a refund, or either accept liability, or fight and lose, both of which means you lose the funds and pay an extra $15 for the privilege.

On eBay, as long as you provide proof of postage, you should qualify for seller protection and retain the funds even if the reversal is successful (in other words, PayPal pays the bank back on your behalf). On the payment notifications I receive for non-eBay sales, it always says Seller Protection - Not Eligible, but I believe (and I may be wrong) that if it is a PayPal claim, the same rules regarding proof of postage will apply, in that if I supply it, the buyer's claim probably won't be successful and I will retain the funds.