Discussing the case of Jale Avcil - UK seller

[*CountessA*]

http://www.ozroundtable.com/index.php?topic=317.msg15074#msg15074

It's a case of a seller being covered by the relevant policy when a buyer claims not to have received an item (even though the Royal Mail tracking service shows someone with the buyer's name at the buyer's address signed for the item) - but PayPal acting as though the seller were not covered.

It is good to read that the poor seller was finally reimbursed seven months down the track, but I believe it highlights one major problem with PayPal, which is that there aren't real live people reading the communications in respect of disputes and claims. Generic bot-generated replies clearly do not cut the mustard.

It is also good to know that PayPal's customer protection policy for sellers in the UK (changed in Sep 2008) should cover such sellers, as long as the correct policy is applied. There's the catch - as long as the correct policy is applied.

Oh, and it was certainly interesting that the buyer had done this sort of thing before - claimed non-receipt even though she'd signed for the item with another seller.

Are serial non-receipt-claiming-buyers on the increase?

[*Ubbie Max*]

Sadly, with sellers unable to leave negative feedback warning other sellers of buyers attempts to defraud, as in this situation, attempted scams as outlined in the Jale Avcil case will continue, many successfully, & will possibly increase.

[*Brum6y*]

It would seem to me that if buyers such as this were serial offenders, it would be a simple exercise in tracking them down. No effort to conceal, just relying on the faceless 'bot driven policy buried somewhere in cyberspace.

The real challenges are:
1. Identifying the existance and scale of the problem
2. Resourcing efforts to address it eg Police

Apathy will let them get away with it.