Credit Card Chargback

[dylan11235813]

I had a buyer about 2 months ago order an item for about $7 and I got a chargeback thing for the transaction through paypal. I decided to fight it as it was for an unauthorised use of a Card (not realising it actually cost me $15 to do so by paypal). I stated in my claim that it was paypals and the banks fault because they initially allowed the fraudulent transaction. I had no proof of shipping an item or anything.

Anyway I won (after about 2 months) and they only refunded me the $7 and not the $15 fee paypal charge. Shouldn't the bank  or paypal pay the $15 fee as they have admitted they are in the wrong by refunding me.

[clarry100]

------------------------------------------------------------------

some chargebacks are initiated by the Bank because the ''buyer'' is overdrawn on their c/card and not paying the monthly minimum payment.

______________________________________

In our case the reason given from PayPal was "unauthorised use". This would not seem to fit the overdrawn scenario.

We asked the buyer but she declined to tell us what happened.

[5kazam]

Thanks for your response.

However, doesn't it go back to what 'termalert' said -  that sellers should have the right to accept C/C payments or not.  

As sellers are unaware that C/C is the payment method being used,  if things go haywire with the transaction, why should the seller be slugged with any costs from PayPal, when it is PayPal who have allowed a C/C to be used, with no prior approval (knowledge) by the seller.

The fee may be in PayPal T&C, but it's a bit of a backdoor way of getting money.  

The buyer screws up with their C/C, the bank charge a fee, PayPal on-charge the seller the fee, and presumably buyer gets off scot free...!!!   ??? !!!

Note - you can have payments direct from your bank account, as long as you have a C/C or D/D card attached to your PayPal account.  Depends on what payment options you have set up with PayPal.

[Anonymous]

I asked a PayPal rep because I was worried about possible charge backs at the time

and they wouldn't tell. Something to do with buyer privacy but it's not like I was asking

for the credit card numbers. 

If we don't get a choice then PayPal should take the risk, not us.

[digital*ghost]

---

@5kazam wrote:

Thanks for your response.

However, doesn't it go back to what 'termalert' said -  that sellers should have the right to accept C/C payments or not.  

---

Well, in theory, yes, they do have that right, but it boils down to being able to comply with both eBay's site policies, and PayPal's T&Cs, all of which are made known up front. So, then you have the choice about what you want to do - I'm not a fan of the "if you don't like it, go elsewhere" type of responses, I know they're not helpful or constructive, but that's what it boils down to on eBay - i.e. if you do not want to accept any form of credit card payments whatsoever, selling on eBay is not an option because choosing to sell here obliges you to provide that option to buyers (for most items, anyway). 

Sellers aren't all unaware, unwitting particpants in a transaction - PayPal tell people up front what they do, then sellers choose to list on eBay, choose to provide PayPal, all knowing (or all should-be knowing) the inherent risks, and knowing these risks but proceeding with opening PayPal / eBay accounts, then using them, is deemed acceptance of those risks. 

The way I look at it is that PayPal is a payment processor - a cheap alternative / catch-all solution for both buyers and sellers. They allow sellers to receive credit card payments without having a merchant account with a bank, so the basic thing is that accepting CCs is the benefit of PayPal, rather than a drawback (particularly when you consider very few payment processors will actually provide a seller with any protection against a genuine chargeback. By which I mean if someone's credit card is stolen and used, with most other payment processors, merchant accounts etc, all the postage / delivery evidence in the world is unlikely to help you). 

For my money, the banks are sometimes the bigger 'criminals' (for lack of a better word) in chargeback scenarios - most particularly when they initiate unauthorised use chargebacks if the cardholder has gone over their limit or defaulted on payments - in that case, the bank is making the merhcant pay for their bad credit decisions, and that's just wrong to me. 

[2106greencat]

Pick your battles - seriously - $7.00 - the buyer must be in real dire straights to have to claim that back. LOL

[5kazam]

I understand what you are saying, and although a lot of it irks me, I have to agree with it.  The one exception is where you state 'choose to provide PayPal'.  Okay PayMate is an option, agreed.  But I'm sure their T&C wouldn't differ much from PayPal.  So there is the rock and a hard place there.  But sellers are not given the option of excluding PayPal/PayMate.  It has to be one or the other. Not really much of  a choice.

I also have no problem using PayPal (the payment processor - agreed a cheap and safe method of money transfer).

However, I think you are missing, have not addressed, the point I made about a buyer screwing up the transaction.  The costs associated in a failed transaction  via CC should be between the bank/PayPal/buyer.  It should not be at the seller's expense. He/she/store has sold an item in good faith, and should not be financially penalised because the buyer has not adhered to their end of the 'contract' - that is clear payment for the item purchased.  

And I have to say, from what I have seen on these threads, there seems to be an inordinate amount of 'unauthorised' use of credit cards going on.....(Pigs in formation overhead!!!!).  

[digital*ghost]

I meant choose PayPal in geneal as something that goes hand in hand with making the initial choice to sell online, eBay specifically, rather than the choices you get after you decide to sell on eBay. 

Paymate's T&C's are similar, but they will provide no protection for a genuine unauthorised use claim. They will fight a chargeback, but you can only win or lose, they won't pay on your behalf if you lose but have proof of postage / delivery to the address provided - PayPal will (in certain conditions), so they provide you with a means for protection against fradulent use of their service, which is what you seem to be asking for. 

[5kazam]

I'm not actually asking for anything.

Merely stating that a seller shouldn't be charged a fee ($15.00), when the seller is not party to the buyers mismanagement of payment of the purchase.

There should not be any financial impost on the seller at all.

[digital*ghost]

PS - I'm not actually disagreeing with you, BTW, I think there are some circumstances where PayPal or the bank should bear the loss regardless, eg when a payment is processed as instant (i.e. so approved by the bank and accepted via PayPal) due to having a debit card attached to a bank account, but it in fact turns out that there were not enough funds to cover the payment in the account, so it often gets reversed - if the bank says 'yes, there's money here, take it', and PayPal say 'it's all good, you can post', then later (sometimes a couple of days later, so the item's already been posted) they're all like... 'uhhh, hang on a minute....we didn't do that right, there's no money'. then IMHO the seller's account should not be debited - the bank or PayPal should take that responsibility.

[digital*ghost]

---

@5kazam wrote:

I'm not actually asking for anything.

Merely stating that a seller shouldn't be charged a fee ($15.00), when the seller is not party to the buyers mismanagement of payment of the purchase.

There should not be any financial impost on the seller at all.

---

The seller won't be if they qualify for seller protection, it's not ideal - I liked it more the old way - but it is avoidable in many circumstances. 

It's actually a bit worse now that a seller can not qualify for protection if the buyer doesn't log into a PP account to pay. 😞