Strange Buyer ID

[clarry100]

Yesterday we had a buyer buy two different items using two different IDs but the mailing address was identical so its the same person.

The user IDs are a long string of weird letters/numbers but not quite identical.

We packed and mailed those items out yesterday so she would not have received them just yet.

Now this morning we have yet another order from the same person but under yet another variant of the same weird ID.

All these userIDs show a ZERO FB score.

It could be purchases made as a guest I'm thinking and perhaps nothing to be concerned about.

But on the other hand I'm wondering if we could be being setup for something down track. We use regular mail so no tracking and the items are all under $10 each.

Anyone have any thoughts on this kind of activity.

[joethenuts]

did that buyer get a refund   do you think ebay is going to pay out buyers out of there pocket  [you must be dreaming ]

and did the queenslander get a deficit point  mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm    he was lucky ebay refunded the poor buyer his money back otherwise a big fat red dot for non delivery ; look it does not matter whos fault it is  but if you were a buyer and did not get your goods what would you do   mmmmmmm   have a nice day

my law is comom sense 

[digital*ghost]

---

@expanded_perceptions wrote:

---

That is cracking information!! So what would you do, if for instance you do get a buyer that shows up as 'unregistered'? We as sellers should really be able to have the option of blocking unregistered accounts from PayPal too, the scales are so far out of whack it is going to hid us on the head!!

---

The thing that gets me about it is that was the best thing PayPal had going for it - seller protection for a chargeback, no matter the circumstances, as long as the seller fulfilled eligibility requirements, which they no longer have full control over (as far as I know, as I've never seen an option to restrict payment type except for limiting it to credit cards only). And by that I mean a chargeback can be contested, but in the case of unauthorised use (particularly genuinely unauthorised use, eg. the buyer has used a stolen credit card). it's pretty hard to contest and the retailer is the one who gets made to pay the cost - and how many people who use stolen credit cards will actually maintain an active PayPal account, plus log into it to make a purchase?  

[crichtonscraftgwen]

Did all three purchasers use the same Paypal Account.

[cq_tech]

---

@joethenuts wrote:

did that buyer get a refund   do you think ebay is going to pay out buyers out of there pocket  [you must be dreaming ]

and did the queenslander get a deficit point  mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm    he was lucky ebay refunded the poor buyer his money back otherwise a big fat red dot for non delivery ; look it does not matter whos fault it is  but if you were a buyer and did not get your goods what would you do   mmmmmmm   have a nice day

my law is comom sense 

---

I already told you I wasn't going to waste my time arguing the point with you, but in answer to your question, as a seller I'm fully aware of where my responsibility ends so as a buyer, I know that Australia Post bears the responsibility for delivering my item but as they only provide a statutory cover of $50, if my item cost any more than that, I would have paid the seller to register my item prior to sending so that I was fully covered in the event of loss by AP. If I'm stupid enough to have a $500 item sent to me without insurance and it goes astray in the mail, then that's my bad luck and I have to wear it, not the seller, and not AP (beyond their statutory $50 limit for uninsured mail). If you'd read up on Consumer Law, you'd know that, and not simply rely on "common sense" which, despite what you may believe, has absolutely no place in law.

[mbselections00]

clarry, another way around it would be once the staff have done their bit & you've paid, take the envelopes to the side so the next customer can be served and take your photos and then hand them back - happens frequently at my local (very busy, but very friendly)  PO.  The staff are very considerate of everyone & before they serve the next customer, will say, when you're finished just pass them back to me, so the customers don't think you're jumping the queue

99.9% of my items are sent large letter, so when I do my postage labels I do a duplicate list which I take with me to the post office, so when I go in they stamp each address for me & attach the list to the receipt, that way there's basically no delay at the counter and you have a hard copy so to speak.  On the couple of occasions I have needed the proof of sending, I have simply taken a photo of the list & the receipt & edited out the names and street addresses & just left the suburb of the irrelevant buyers & left the required one showing in full.

I guess it comes down to what works best for you, but I agree, I wouldn't want to be standing at the counter taking photos (I have been in the line behind people who do it, & as a customer, it's annoying & I know it annoys the staff, but they are quite happy for you to move aside to do it)

If you have a photocopier at home, you could copy the addressed envelopes as stawks suggested, but do it at home & get the staff to stamp the photocopy.

I have had a few items go missing & am usually willing to replace them, but I do like to send the buyer proof that their order was posted in the first instance, for their peace of mind that I am not a scammer.  It's also quite amazing that once the 'proof' has been sent to them, the item often miraculously turns up, (showing who the scammer really is )  so I really do believe it is worth the extra effort to have thorough detailed records.

[lyndal1838]

---

@joethenuts wrote:

my law is comom sense 

---

This explains why you have no idea how ebay works.  Common sense has no relation to ebay "law" or policy, just as ebay policy has no relation to Australian Law.

[joethenuts]

very simple you can argue what you think that ebay is going against the law  there are posts going back 4 months about we are going to thhe fos and the law and stuff , but has the paypal 21 day policy gone has the ebay buyer protection gone [no] [no] there is a reason why policys change think about it [i dont have to agree with all there policys and i dont agree with these but its there site and if you wanna play in it thats there rules , no good arguing about the law as there are too many floors in it, and thats why these policys are still there  and if you want to believe the bearded one thats why he is selling cups and suses on ebay and not earning $750 an hour as a layer.

[clarry100]

Yes all three purchases used the same PayPal account.

[clarry100]

We mail out around 15-20 envelopes per day, so to put those over the counter with photos will be a real pain.

Also the odd one pushes the boundaries of large letter a "bit" so we may get some rejected as opposed to putting them in the red street box where it seems they never check for envelope thickness as we never get pinged.

We get about 1 in 500-600 or so where we get an INR claim (always by message rather than official), and after explaining our reporting process quite often they mysteriously show up. We would send out a replacement for a real lost item about 1 in 1000 I would think.

I was trying to imagine other possible avenues for a scam when I originally posted this. INR wasn't the real bother.

But I could not think of anything, just wondered if others may have been be able to.

So far nothing back from the buyer and by now she would have received 2 of the 3 items. No FB left either.

[cq_tech]

You appear to be continuing to labour under the misapprehension that whatever eBay states in their user policy must be followed to the letter because it's their site, but the fact is that eBay's policy is in breach of Australian Consumer Law, and as a result is unenforceable.

Furthermore, no company policy is legally permitted to abrogate Australian Law and because eBay's does, it is consequently null and void, and no longer applies. You seem to believe that eBay Policy and the Law are the same thing when nothing could be further from the truth.

Because eBay is not a financial institution themselves, the FOS has no real legal jurisdiction over them except insofar as those areas where it's clear that eBay and Paypal are working together, which is why the FOS can order Paypal to lift their illegal 21 day hold on sellers' deposits (and why Paypal comply when so ordered).

However, eBay's MBG is a real can of worms because it appears that they are providing a form of insurance while not licensed to do so, and it is up to the ACCC to do something about it and I wouldn't mind betting that eBay's actions are being investigated as I speak.

Finally, it's pretty bad form to slag off another member when you have absolutely no idea of what he currently does in real life and it would pay you to be very careful because nobody who publicly publishes inaccurate information about somebody is immune from a libel suit.