..... Or better still if the buyer used direct deposit I would have the whole lot ... so based on this how can anyone say paypal is as safe or safer than direct deposit for seller ??????
I don't think anyone would argue that direct deposit isn't better for the seller - but the whole payment issue has to balance good & bad buyers versus good & bad sellers. Direct deposit for a bad seller, I think we would all agree, is not going to be in the best interests of the buyer. To be prudent in the discharge of their responsibilities, Paypal need to treat every transaction with an open opinion on its legitimacy. As such, I don't have a problem with precautionary procedures,
per se, but I believe the appeals mechanism and acceptable evidence rules need work.
I will acknowledge some fundamental logistic constraints, in that the more forms of evidence you accept, the more work you create in verifying it, collating it and applying it to a case - as well as offering more opportunity for conflicting points to emerge. Also, when you complicate things, scammers will look for - and often find - weaknesses, which are then dutifully exploited.
This does not excuse Paypal from the responsibility of correctly resolving each and every case, just that doing so will require additional resources - overheads that any business would rather do without. This is especially true when performance is measured - the guide to justification of resource levels. Using the old 80/20 rule, those additional resources will only clear (on a count) one quarter of the cases of their counterparts. Without legislative constraints or those that would exist by signing the EFT code (for example), the cost/benefit analysis of those additional resources could fall outside their 'acceptable' limits. Taking up such a position would require some pretty thick-skinned management - but I think there would be many who consider Paypal as having excelled in that area.
In my view, Paypal have - whether actively or passively - allocated the appeals escalation process to the Ombudsman. It is an independent office; doesn't cost Paypal anything unless a case is brought before them; does all the hard work and hands down a resolution - a process which, by the way, would likely have been pursued if the plaintiff wasn't happy with Paypal's decision - no matter how many levels of escalation it may have been through. So why even bother? Paypal would be further encouraged to take this stand with the simple fact that many people would baulk at approaching the Ombudsman, for any of a number of reasons.
I would, therefore, recommend all reasonable steps be taken to resolve the matter with Paypal - which must allow for Paypal defined processes, requirements and timeframes - collecting all evidence on the item, postage, communications, Paypal and so on. (You must be seen to have given the 'offending' party every opportunity to address your complaint.) If that fails to resolve in your favour, then take it to the Paypal escalation service ... the office of the Banking and Financial Services Ombudsman.
