paypal buyer protection

[dylan11235813]

Yes another thread about paypals fantastic buyer protection. This has probably been said before but i don't care.

Example : Buyer purchases item from ebay and pays by paypal. The seller ships using 'click and send' which comes with a nice tracking number (no requirement for signature on delivery is selected).

The item then goes missing, a claim is lodged by the buyer with paypal and they loose because the seller can prove shipping as required for paypal.

The seller then gets negged and bad feedback on ebay and looses top seller rating and the buyer ends up with no item and no money.

Isn't paypals buyer protection just great.

[purple.cow]

This actually has not happened to me. I have just been reading some posts where some still think that C&S and Paypal offer the buyer some form of protection (in the case I have shown)when they clearly do not.

This is nothing more than my own thoughts and opinion now Dylan, it certainly doesn't mean they are factual in any regard ...

I tend to think that as it's Ebay offering the C & S service to sellers it shouldn't have any bearing on Paypal's decision to refund or not to the buyer, EVEN though Ebay and Paypal are owned by the same parent company.

Ebay is proving their service to the seller ONLY, whereas Paypal is governed by Australian banking laws and would therefore been seen as not being a party to Ebay's offered service to the seller, thereby Paypal's own buyer protection should stand as usual.

I hope you get what i'm attempting to suggest.

It's certainly the sort of arguement I would be putting forward if I were affected by such a situation.

Just my opinion mate.

Steve.

[dylan11235813]

This is nothing more than my own thoughts and opinion now Dylan, it certainly doesn't mean they are factual in any regard ...

I tend to think that as it's Ebay offering the C & S service to sellers it shouldn't have any bearing on Paypal's decision to refund or not to the buyer, EVEN though Ebay and Paypal are owned by the same parent company.

Ebay is proving their service to the seller ONLY, whereas Paypal is governed by Australian banking laws and would therefore been seen as not being a party to Ebay's offered service to the seller, thereby Paypal's own buyer protection should stand as usual.

I hope you get what i'm attempting to suggest.

It's certainly the sort of arguement I would be putting forward if I were affected by such a situation.

Just my opinion mate.

Steve.

That post was not directed at you just stuff that I had been reading from other threads and others thinking how C&S and paypal are so great.

C&S has nothing to do with ebay or paypal (to my knowledge, obviousely there is the flat rate satchels) and I totally agree that paypal should operate within the law, which in the case I have given I believe they do.

The main point I was getting at is that paypals so called buyer protection is IMO non existent, who do they protect in the case I have given?

And to supernova who do you think should pay the extra $1 to get 'signature on delivery' with C&S I wonder.

I am not trying to attack anyone just thought I would see what people thought about how PP operate.

[thecatspjs]

Paypal may still offer a discretionary payment to buyer after a seller has provided satisfactory evidence of addressee details and lodgement.  I don't know if they do this or not. Paypal will not advise a seller if they reimburse the sellers buyers or not. I spose they are waiting to see if a seller will refund out of the kindness of their heart or for fear of negative feedback.

Click and Send ebay flat rate satchels are an output of an Aust Post and Ebay corporate partnership and are promoted to sellers as being paypal compliant where there is proof of lodgement.

[dylan11235813]

Paypal may still offer a discretionary payment to buyer after a seller has provided satisfactory evidence of addressee details and lodgement.  I don't know if they do this or not. Paypal will not advise a seller if they reimburse the sellers buyers or not. I spose they are waiting to see if a seller will refund out of the kindness of their heart or for fear of negative feedback.

Click and Send ebay flat rate satchels are an output of an Aust Post and Ebay corporate partnership and are promoted to sellers as being paypal compliant where there is proof of lodgement.

I think they would refund they buyer as you say. Which may actually increase everyones fees.

Does anyone else not think that being "forced" to refund to mitigate the chance of bad feedback is too much?

[digital*ghost]

The main point I was getting at is that paypals so called buyer protection is IMO non existent, who do they protect in the case I have given?

Buyer protection is not non-existent, per se, it's just that it (in my opinion) has been long misunderstood by buyers.

As I have said before, and to put it as simply as possible, Buyer Protection is not to protect the buyer from not receiving an item, it is to protect the buyer from sellers who don't send items but keep the money. When an INR dispute is lodged and the seller can not prove (to PayPal's satisfaction) that the item was posted, the assumption made is not that the buyer didn't receive the goods, but that the seller didn't post them, and that's why the seller will lose their funds back to the buyer in that circumstance.

There is an ongoing debate about when buyers assume ownership and risk of goods when it comes to (basically) mail order, but PayPal are governed by the laws of Australia, and as far as I'm concerned it's those laws that have seen proof of postage as the requirement in Australia, whereas in countries where the law clearly states the seller is responsible until a buyer receives an item, proof of delivery is required.

[dylan11235813]

I think I had read you post something similar to that previously and I agree with what you say. But in the case I have given the buyer and seller get penalised when both are trying to be as honest as possible. Maybe I shouldn't have said non existant but I dont think it works very well.

I thought the debate about when ownership passed to the buyer was over.

[digital*ghost]

I think I had read you post something similar to that previously and I agree with what you say. But in the case I have given the buyer and seller get penalised when both are trying to be as honest as possible. Maybe I shouldn't have said non existant but I dont think it works very well.

In the scenario you outlined, the buyer apparently made two important decisions.

1. To accept the use of C&S as the postage method without the option for insurance for loss.

2. To blame and then punish the seller for not compensating for the item when it was lost. 

PayPal do not insure purchases against loss, as it were, so it's not really a PayPal issue. The carrier, lets say for the sake of ease, Australia Post, offers options to insure against loss, and if such a service has been requested by the buyer, the seller then has a legal obligation to seek any compensation due and pass it on to the buyer. 

As that should illustrate, if any buyer wants full and absolute insurance / recourse for lost items, they need to request an insured service, and perhaps consider blaming themselves if they don't and an item is lost as they have left themselves without any option to be compensated. 

Despite appearances to the contrary, the above is not how I conduct my business, or deal with lost items as a seller. 

[digital*ghost]

 if any buyer wants full and absolute insurance / recourse for lost items,  

Absolute is probably a poor choice of words there. 

[zenremix777]

PayPal buyer protection protects the buyer when the seller can't provide adequate proof of posting. In the case you outlined, the seller provided the tracking number and that then made the buyer protection null and void.

If the seller in this case wanted to compensate the buyer somewhat, they're entitled to. If they were genuinely feeling that the buyer did not receive their item, a 50% refund seems appropriate. That way, you're both out by around the same amount/loss.

[dylan11235813]

I think that paypal make it seem like they are insuring a purchase when clearly they do not offer insurance.

I just sold some items totaling about $30 and the buyer reqested an invoice. I thought OK one item was free post so I will include the others with no aditional cost, the others had $1.95 for post combined.

Usually I would give all for free post as it really doesn;t cost any more, but I wanted to see what the the buyer would choose. So I sent an invoice for regular post at $1.95 and to register $2.95 what did the buyer select?

I hope that makes sense.