paypal chargeback after leaving +ve feedback?

[bennyniccolo]

Hi, I have just received a Paypal 'Temporary Hold Pending Investigation'  on another ID. I rarely get these and am not sure what to do. The item was a character t shirt sent to USA, just regular mail ($22 shirt + postage all up). Buyer has left positive feedback about 1.5 weeks after I sent it.

Today I have received a Paypal email as buyer has said her credit card use was unauthorised. I checked her feedback and she has bought similar items from a UK seller just days prior, so I just emailed that seller. That seller has also received positive feedback, and has said she has had a dispute opened today too, but is yet to get back to me on the details of if it is the same buyer...

Where do we stand if the same thing has happened to both of us, and why the positive feedback left if it is someone using unauthorised credit card? Obviously they have the buyer's Paypal AND ebay details then???

Thanks so much

[digital*ghost]

The delivery address being the same as the cardholder's isn't even considered enough proof for a seller to win an unauthorised use claim. If a family member uses someone else's account and card, and doesn't bother to change the delivery name, it still doesn't mean that the card was authorised to be used and feedback still won't prove that it was - the eBay account won't be reported as highjacked because there's no benefit in doing so for the account holder in that particular circumstance.

The circumstantial evidence might be damning, but it still does little to help a seller's case. I'm not saying feedback etc is not relevant to me, but getting indignant about circumstantial evidence not being able to prove something doesn't help anyone.

[viewmont1071]

The delivery address being the same as the cardholder's isn't even considered enough proof for a seller to win an unauthorised use claim. If a family member uses someone else's account and card, and doesn't bother to change the delivery name, it still doesn't mean that the card was authorised to be used and feedback still won't prove that it was - the eBay account won't be reported as highjacked because there's no benefit in doing so for the account holder in that particular circumstance.

The circumstantial evidence might be damning, but it still does little to help a seller's case. I'm not saying feedback etc is not relevant to me, but getting indignant about circumstantial evidence not being able to prove something doesn't help anyone.

link??? or hearsay??? no link ....no belief

[digital*ghost]

We'll call it hearsay and end it there, ok. 🙂

[viewmont1071]

http://www.ehow.com/how_8402729_appeal-chargeback.html

[viewmont1071]

BTW being sure of your advice I believe does not illustrate indignanace, however offering advice without substantiation will lead those that are not easily led to disagree or to disbelief 🙂 IMO 😐

[digital*ghost]

BTW being sure of your advice I believe does not illustrate indignanace, however offering advice without substantiation will lead those that are not easily led to disagree or to disbelief 🙂 IMO 😐

I don't disagree with that, but you're clouding the issue - the question was why members were advising that receiving feedback will not help a seller win a dispute where an unauthorised use claim has been initiated. Receiving feedback does not prove a cardholder authorised a payment, it's as simple as that.

The seller is never given the cardholder's details, not even the name let alone the address, in a PayPal transaction, so when a chargeback is initiated due to unathorised use, perhaps you can tell me who looks at the evidence and how would feedback help show that the cardholder authorised the payment? The address would be the pertinent evidence, but the seller only ever has the eBay account holder's details and delivery address, which may or may not belong to the cardholder. Does anyone check or verify the cardholder's details and the delivery address are identical? And if they do, why would such a chargeback even be entertained if it was enough proof that the purchase was authorised? (Legitimate questions).

You're also forgetting that unauthorised use chargebacks aren't always initiated by the cardholder. They're also initiated by the bank when the cardholder defaults on repayments etc. In that circumstance, matching delivery/cardholder details and feedback will again do nothing. The bank is the one claiming the cardholder themselves was unauthorised to use the card.

[fishing_4_tupperware]

Digital is completely correct, some of the so called experts around here have no clue.

A chargeback is through the buyers bank account claiming unauthorised use of the card.  It has nothing at all to do with whether the item was received or not.  Sadly this is a growing trend and people need to be prepared as it will happen to you and a tracking number does not prove the payment was authorised.

[viewmont1071]

I don't disagree with that, but you're clouding the issue - the question was why members were advising that receiving feedback will not help a seller win a dispute where an unauthorised use claim has been initiated. Receiving feedback does not prove a cardholder authorised a payment, it's as simple as that.

The seller is never given the cardholder's details, not even the name let alone the address, in a PayPal transaction, so when a chargeback is initiated due to unathorised use, perhaps you can tell me who looks at the evidence and how would feedback help show that the cardholder authorised the payment? The address would be the pertinent evidence, but the seller only ever has the eBay account holder's details and delivery address, which may or may not belong to the cardholder. Does anyone check or verify the cardholder's details and the delivery address are identical? And if they do, why would such a chargeback even be entertained if it was enough proof that the purchase was authorised? (Legitimate questions).

You're also forgetting that unauthorised use chargebacks aren't always initiated by the cardholder. They're also initiated by the bank when the cardholder defaults on repayments etc. In that circumstance, matching delivery/cardholder details and feedback will again do nothing. The bank is the one claiming the cardholder themselves was unauthorised to use the card.

Um digital have a good look at a paypal item paid notification or actually read the information that paypal supplies on your sales summary

........ sellers are given the credit card holders name.

 It often varies from the buyers name.When my wife buys using paypal on her ebay account  my name appears on the paypal account summary as the cardholder and her name appears as the buyer....go figure

Anybody that thinks that  you do not need prove that the cardholder used the card to successfully defend an unauthorized card use chargeback for a purchase in any situation other than maxing out their credit limit  has rocks in their head.l

Delivery proven to the cardholder proves ownership whether the cardholder likes it or not.

If the credit card company has initiated the chargeback because the card is maxxed out then the chargeback is pretty well undefendable...... however the buyer is still liable

Did you not read paypals chargeback guide regarding who will investigate??? I quote

"We will help you build a powerful case" paypal will do the investigation

...or at the very least they can explain to the financial ombudsman why they didnt.

[viewmont1071]

Digital is completely correct, some of the so called experts around here have no clue.

A chargeback is through the buyers bank account claiming unauthorised use of the card.  It has nothing at all to do with whether the item was received or not.  Sadly this is a growing trend and people need to be prepared as it will happen to you and a tracking number does not prove the payment was authorised.

:^O

:^O

:^O

[viewmont1071]

Why would an unauthorized use chargeback be entertained???

are you kidding me?

Because the numpty card holder was in for a bit of friendly fraud  after havinga b it of a google and  a readabout  and they intiiated it knowing that many advise that an unauthorized use chargeback is hard for a seller to defend. ... so they had a crack  at it anyways

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fraud

Friendly fraud, also known as friendly fraud chargeback, is a credit card industry term used to describe a consumer who makes an Internet purchase with his/her own credit card and then issues a chargeback through his/her card provider after receiving the goods or services.

When a chargeback occurs, the merchant will always be responsible, regardless of what they did to verify the transaction.

The challenge with friendly fraud is that there is no way to verify the authenticity of the transaction, which is in fact legitimate, because the consumer is the one that is not legitimate.