Item said Not recieved Ebay/Paypal Charge Back

[queenslander-one]

I have today had a Paypal chargeback for an item said not recieved by Ebay/Paypal. Have advised the FOS as Paypal under Ebay's instruction have removed money from my account when I had Proof of Postage. (Photograph of item correctly addressed and Postmarked by my Postmaster. Waiting to hear the outcome.

Copy of my response to Ebay/Paypals removal of funds below.

Hi I sent the buyer a photo of the item posted at the Post office on the 5th Feb to his Paypal Address (Please see my Ebay emails sent) or can supply again to Ebay.

Also under Australian law item 101 of Australia post rules. 101 Articles carried by post to be taken to be Australia Post’s property.

Quote For the purpose of any legal proceeding or action in relation to an article carried by post or under the control of Australia Post, the article shall be taken to be, while it is being carried by post or under the control of Australia Post, the property of Australia Post.

In Australia, the seller is not legally responsible for delivery, only postage, therefore proof of postage is what is required Also under Paypal rules.

What is proof of shipment? • The date the item was sent; and

•An official acceptance by the shipper, such as a postmark or online status. (Status that shows the item was delivered is also acceptable.) It must also include either: •The recipient’s delivery address, showing at least the state, city and postcode (or international equivalent); or •A receipt from Australia Post showing at least the recipient’s suburb, city or postcode (or international equivalent).

If money is removed by Ebay from my Paypal account over this correctly sent item I WILL be lodging a complaint with the Financial Services Ombudsman. Ebay if it wants to provide an insurance service for so called non delivered items can but not at my expense.

Will see how I fair

[thecatspjs]

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

---

@thecatspjs wrote:

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

Maybe because nuts has admitted that he has NFI due to his selling conditions?

And that his opinion is not based on reality? As he has NFI?

---

Given his customer rating and experience (sales volume on one ID) is relatively high compared to most of the regular posting IDs selling IDs, then I for one think his view is far more relevant to my selling and trading activity than most "regular" posting IDs on the trading boards.

Being ethically concerned about a buyer not getting goods the goods they paid for, is something I am interested in.  Hats off to sellers that have superior ethics to other traders. 

As far as NFI, it is irrelevant if you do not hold the similar ethics.   Knowledge of how eBay (or paypal) operates, as it relates to trading ethics *insert many cat LOLs" IMO is meaningless in such a discussion.

This of course is my opinion and relevant to the thread topic.  Unlike others commentary that seek to belittle others contribution to the thread topic IMO.

[joethenuts]

fair enough i will have to take your word for that    have a nice day

[elusiveeditions]

---

@elusiveeditions wrote:

But.... he is a lawyer. He's said so many times.

He's provided info many people wouldn't already have had (which is all I meant by 'free legal advice').

Not quite grasping your laughter here?

---

I have not viewed posts where this posting ID has claimed it is a lawyer. 

Please provide links to such a thread where this posting ID claims this.

I would be interested to see these posts  (though doubt such posts exist - IMO just another board furphy that has been "fueled" by a small number of regulars).

Just so you are aware (easily verified if you are not confident that I am relaying correct information) as far as I understand (and I am not a lawyer) such representations (if they exist) and associated advice may be illegal if the posting ID is not appropriately qualified and does not hold a current practicing certificate under the relevant legislation (noting the requirements vary between jurisdictions).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Hmm, I think I see what you mean. On further reading, he doesn't actually say he's a lawyer, so my bad on that. He says an awful lot about statutory interpretation and court experience though. Granted, it could be invented- but jeez he's an amazing imposter.

Again, he's provided some solid info people wouldn't already have had. Up to them to interpret, as you clearly have.

Also on further reading, it's obvious you've a long-running beef with him. I didn't realise that. That's fine, but no need to take it out on others (eg, copying my post so as to have a laugh). You come across as a tad scornful at times.

But I do take your point. I think 🙂

[bombbloke]

---

@thecatspjs wrote:

the posting ID does not say they are lawyer in this thread.

many para legals serve as advocates for others in such legal settings.

---

 ... to be honest, I was actually expecting you to attempt to pick holes in the idea that the ID itself had not made the claim. So well done for exceeding my expectations... I guess.  😉

---

@thecatspjs wrote:

This of course is my opinion and relevant to the thread topic.  Unlike others commentary that seek to belittle others contribution to the thread topic IMO.

---

 

That one made my night, thanks.  🙂

[digital*ghost]

---

@joethenuts wrote:

what is the answere  for both sellers and buyers  i dont know.

---

The answer for sellers, I personally think, is a lot more simple than a thread like this can make it seem. I am not qualified (in any way whatsoever) to provide legal advice - I can learn, interpret, experience and relate to rules, legalities, policies etc, but that's as far as it goes.

If instead I were to provide business advice*, it would be the same as I have always said - be the kind of seller you would like to deal with, especially if there is a problem. 

*I'm not qualified to provide business advice, either. 

[thecatspjs]

---

@elusiveeditions wrote:

---

@elusiveeditions wrote:

But.... he is a lawyer. He's said so many times.

He's provided info many people wouldn't already have had (which is all I meant by 'free legal advice').

Not quite grasping your laughter here?

---

I have not viewed posts where this posting ID has claimed it is a lawyer. 

Please provide links to such a thread where this posting ID claims this.

I would be interested to see these posts  (though doubt such posts exist - IMO just another board furphy that has been "fueled" by a small number of regulars).

Just so you are aware (easily verified if you are not confident that I am relaying correct information) as far as I understand (and I am not a lawyer) such representations (if they exist) and associated advice may be illegal if the posting ID is not appropriately qualified and does not hold a current practicing certificate under the relevant legislation (noting the requirements vary between jurisdictions).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Hmm, I think I see what you mean. On further reading, he doesn't actually say he's a lawyer, so my bad on that. He says an awful lot about statutory interpretation and court experience though. Granted, it could be invented- but jeez he's an amazing imposter.

Again, he's provided some solid info people wouldn't already have had. Up to them to interpret, as you clearly have.

Also on further reading, it's obvious you've a long-running beef with him. I didn't realise that. That's fine, but no need to take it out on others (eg, copying my post so as to have a laugh). You come across as a tad scornful at times.

But I do take your point. I think 🙂

---

I am scornful at times.

I am imperfect.  Its a lifetimes work in progress I suppose.

If you think I have taken something "out on you" then maybe reread the post.  If I have an issue with a posters advice I think I am pretty clear about why I have that issue.  

[davewil1964]

Very succinct and relevant, as usual.

[thecatspjs]

---

@i-love-my-sheep wrote:

---

@elusiveeditions wrote:

---

Again, he's provided some solid info people wouldn't already have had. Up to them to interpret, as you clearly have.

Also on further reading, it's obvious you've a long-running beef with him. I didn't realise that. That's fine, but no need to take it out on others (eg, copying my post so as to have a laugh). You come across as a tad scornful at times.

But I do take your point. I think 🙂

---

The feline has a long running beef with almost all the regular posters, so TB isn't anyone special in that respect. If you read through most threads you will see a distinct pattern that the lol'ing cat is the only one who is right and the only one who knows all the answers. It doesn't matter what the topic is, she is always right and everyone else is always wrong. lol

As for TB's qualifications and experience, as usual, the cat as only read the bits she can pick apart. Taken from post 71 of this thread:

I don’t formulate opinion on the basis of having read it somewhere in a book.  I formulate opinion based on a decade and a half of research and experience arguing real cases, in real courts, before real judges, with my area of specialty being legislation and statutory interpretation.

Probably a tad more experienced than someone who has only ever consulted google.

---

IMO it is only individuals that have little confidence in themselves that point the finger at others.

I have many peers that I like and respect on these boards, and that indicate that the feeling is mutual.

My profile demonstrates that not "almost all regular posters"  share your view.

[davewil1964]

ONE does not equate to not almost all.

[queenslander-one]

As Ebay Customer support have been telling me that their Policy is correct and I must supply Proof of delivery not Postage only over a number of emails to get their non delivery DSR removed from my site. I have now placed the whole question of the Australian law only requiring Proof of Posting not proof of delivery and  Ebays shonky MBG in their hands to investigate. Part Copy of report lodged below.  I trust other sellers will do the same. The more reports to the ACCC the better may get some realistic action from Feebay.

Who is the complaint against?
Name of business:	EBAY AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND PTY LIMITED
ABN:	22 086 288 888
ACN:	086 288 888
Complaint details
Complaint description:	For a few weeks now I have been in contact with Ebay regarding an item I sent with proof of postage and have been slammed by Ebay as said item was marked not received by Buyer. I was of the understanding that in Australia proof of posting was deemed proof of an item sent and not proof of delivery as they expect. Ebay appear to be forcing a policy on sellers that is unjust and unfair due to Ebay wanting to operate outside of Australia's Consumer laws. They appear to have no understanding of Australian Law and wish to force addition onus on a seller for no reason. If they wish to offer a money back guarantee for non delivery they should insure themselves it should be at their cost not a seller who can prove an item was posted. Sample of emails attached.