My buyers are having a hard time finding my bank details on ebay since yesterday

[col52]

I had not noticed, but ebay have altered my end of auction e-mails my buyers receive. They have removed the section I wrote up advising buyers what my bank details are. This has only happened over the past few days. I had not noticed but was alerted by a buyer yesterday who could not find my bank details anywhere, even in the checkout! I have forwarded everything to RBA.

http://forums.ebay.com.au/topic/Ask-A-Member/Has-Anyone-Else/500110960

[Bellagina]

The dirty mongrels.... force us to have paypal as an option, and now are trying to drive EVERYONE to pay that way!

How could they edit your end of auction email!! ? That's so wrong.
Very naughty, ebay  :scold:

[cueperkins]

Oh my gord bella, look out, you'll be labeled anti paypal and attacked from all sides if you're not careful...oooohhh wouldn't want that.....LMAO.   Next you'll be noticing that Paypal's buyer protection is discretionary and yet costly and that it does nothing to address the actual fraud on ebay....ssshhhh!!!! - Ebay wouldn't want everyone else to catch onto their lucrative little cover up.

All you 'Extreme Consumers' who dare to think you can use B/Deposit safely or easily on Ebay, and you sellers who persist in offering it......wake up to yourselves, submit and comply to the 'Fraud is Functional' Paypal Push, and don't question why we have no choice in the matter.

Col....being a bank deposit only customer, I OFTEN have to email the seller for bank details.  Ebay have been playing this game since last year as a matter of fact.  It's misuse of market power, but I won't bore you with that.... some people (not your good self) get decidedly emotional over reality or objective debate on the subject.  Ebay will tell you it's a glitch....and who are we to question Ebay eh?

[gr8-expectations]

far out col, thats a shocker, cant believe ut (nz speak for it) where will it all end, they obviously think they can get away with anything!

[imperfect]

That's very odd Col, I haven't had an issue (thus far) all my details come up on checkout.

Have eBay gotten back to you yet??

Have you put the info back in?

[*smee*]

I dont think I have had a problem with them showing on the checkout either but since I have heard of other people having this problem I now send an invoice to the winning bidder and in the message section put a message something like "thank you for being the winner bidder on _________ if you choose to pay via direct deposit the a/c details are:- ________________________________
I find about 80% pay by paypal but at least I feel confident that they have the acount details if the want to do a transfer

[RiffRaff]

Excellent advice Smee. That is exactly how I used to get around the problem.

[gr8-expectations]

this may not be relevant but, today I went to pay a seller by bank for a book I bought, it only sold for 99 cents so i didnt want the guy to get paypal fees on both the 99 cents AND the postage as they do.

ebay now on checkout no longer call it "Bank deposit" its called "Money Transfer" on checkout, deceptive and misleading methinks because those words are associated with Western Union, also the standard warning before paying that way to put people off thats its not "Safe" like Paypal...

everything changes on ebay and rarely for the better, heavy books I now have to subscribe to ebays new limits on postage even though the actual cost of postage is higher, so the choice is add it to your auction price (not acceptable with customers) or wear yet another cost, the thing is and what really sucks about that is that of the seller does add the postage cost difference for heavy book items (many are heavy by nature) then ebay take a chunk of that in the final value fee if it sells.

I do feel like Cupie that it seems politically incorrect to state these things and people think you are whinging but I dont care, they really are a decpetive and misleading bunch, so what if they are a great marketing machine, they should be with the profits they make and the way the dominate the market, why do i still sell on there and buy? because yes it is the only one here with a pulse and offering international buyers and yes its my personal decision, does not mean I have to love them, I surely dont, would be hard pressed to find a dodgier organisation anywhere and bad example of a US business, if indeed thats what they are with their swiss bank accounts etc.

Why cant they simply subscribe to the EFT code of conduct in Australia? Why doesn tthe government make them? Why dont they pay GST? And how do they get away with doing these kind of tricks all the time? A. Noone cares and too much apathy, they cant do it in Germany for example because germans are precise and despite being a bit bureaucratic, their bureaucratic they work! Out regulatory authorities are toothless tigers.

[gr8-expectations]

Hi everyone, smee nice to see you here, welcome, and waves to all, yes I do that as well, I am not so worried about whether people pay by bank deposit or paypal, paypal is convenient, but above still applies, usually i am buying something and mainly that lately so the paypal funds are fine and on the positive a bank transfer to another country would cost, $22.00 through by bank and I dont get charged that by Paypal so thats a plus, BUT, say the last week or two i sold a number of books overseas, the buyer expects the books sent post haste and we are already dealing with much higher postage rates, they expect them fast, the total postage costs (and all paid me by Paypal with one exception) were over $200, one book set alone was $84.00 just for postage, the seller is expected to wear that, cover it and wait the 3 days or so for the money to hit the bank later and for all that we pay a fee to Paypal?

At least apparently Paymate dont play with the money on the money markets and make us wait, although noone pays through paymate because there is a small fee for using it or was last time I looked.

I just think why not be fair, become an EFT code member, dont put decpetive messages on checkout, ADD the others like Paymate and give them equal billing on checkout etc. Yes its a great service, but its not cash, cash is real money, and whay if they (Paypal) can get local rates at councils paid through Paypal didnt they focus on getting Aussie Post to accept Paypal by now? At least then we could use our Paypal money (uncleared) to pay for things, but of course Aussie Post prolly dont want to get paid by Paypal and have to also cop a merchant fee.

[RiffRaff]

Hi Gr8. I think the key thing to remember here is that PayPal is safer for buyers. We can debate the way it's force fed but in the end eBay buyers enjoy the convenience, safety and speed of PayPal. Compulsory PayPal goes a long way to ensuring buyers have a safety net and it works.

[gr8-expectations]

re above, smee I also put my bank payment details on invoice often, or at very least they do show up (but lately I have not checked with customers to see if they still do) will do a test, and yes that can work, but seems to me if ebay want a Paypal world, they should make concessions to some realities, like the fact one major cost is the post office and we should be able to pay that way there instead of using our own cash to pay for postage while we wait for a paypal payment to clear.

Riffs you said once you had one through I recall in one day, that has never happened to me, the fastest it has hit bank is 3 days, but I concede it is possible but not common. Three days is a long time to wait when you have postage piling up, so I use m y own money to send, but it can really add up at times, and imagine is massive for large sellers and powersellers.

Openly on their ads now in say categories like furniture, people are putting on their ads, No Paypal and seem to be getting away with it, ebay must know people dont prefer it, but a cash on pickup is not practical always either, I have some furniture items to collect shortly and ther eis no easy way to get there with the driver out in suburbia and pay and be there, so how do we do it?

[RiffRaff]

Gr8. Yes, that still happens with transfers from my PayPal account to my Bank of QLD account. If transferred before 9:00am the funds will be in my account by 3:00pm the next business day.

Of course Gr8, I would much rather receive a bank deposit than a PayPal payment because of the fee involved but I know that when I introduced PayPal to my eBay store, my sales increased and I kicked myself for not doing it earlier.

[gr8-expectations]

Maybe so Riffs, but there are cases where it hasnt been (like the EBS debacle affecting thousands and Paypal ONLY cam through when forced and that puts a huge question mark over their credibility in my book) and yes its good if you meet their criteria which is now even tighter and impractical in terms of how fast you can get an item back say from overseas, and I think with the fact that Aussie pot insure ALL packages for loss to $50.00 what would make sense is letting people know that up to that amount and more if registered or insured for additional costs, it is a better deal for the seller as well.

I was talking to a local guy here in the Loo who does tatooing, he was complaining that only 2 of about 23 sellers were still around since 6 months ago, ebay are losing business in droves with fees and paypal issues, Yes a seller can pay their fees via Paypal (only took ebay 3 years or more to bring it in) but they cant handle the mistrust of bank, a system that might work is having sellers log onto an Aussie post site once item is posted and lodge the receipt number for the item and that be there as a central place where customers can directly claim if their items up to $50.00 go missing, that would mean that smaller item sellers dont get knocked out by fees via Paypal and can get safely paid by Bank, it doesnt get around the dodgy seller who simple does not send but most are good.

i personally still have never had a chargeback via paypal and have found the service good, but i dont think the "safety" drive is all its cracked up to be, and with the way the new boards on ebay run now, people simply will not know about massive fraud problems, and ebay dont seem any faster on getting onto them, in the man time a lot of people dont trust ebay itself as a result and people are going to more straight forward places like Gumtree etc.

That obviously does not apply for international purchases, and yes there is a case for Paypal that way, its cheap (compared to overseas bank transfer and easy) but its not highlighted enough that buyers do have basic insurance on items posted, other options like Paymate etc., if that was centralised it would be great, i.e. number lodged when posted, selelr booted from ebay if they consistently rip people off or dont post etc.

[gr8-expectations]

wow thats very fast riffs, I am with cba, I have no idea why its 3 days but talking to others it seems the norm to be 3 days.

[RiffRaff]

On your furniture problem Gr8, I guess that it's not so much a payment issue as a location and timing issue. Had the seller sold the items through another media, the option of PayPal would not have been offered either. And I don't blame the seller as that pick-up loop-hole needs to be fixed.

Just on the EBS scenario, we shouldn't forget that none of those buyers were covered by PayPals buyer protection policy. The items were sold as pre-sale and were not covered. In the interests of eBays public face, they paid out but they didn't have to. The seller went bad, eBay acted too slow and those that paid via bank deposit suffered.

Wouldn't you have to say that the buyer experience is now safer, with compulsory PayPal?

[cueperkins]

Actually gr8, the thing to remember here is that that buyers using any other payment method are deliberately placed at risk and forced to use paypal, because  ebay don't give a flying fox about verifying sellers or cleaning up their marketplace. 

You get defrauded, and as wheels demonstrated recently, the same dodgy seller is up and running again under yet another alias?  And what if wheels hadn't noticed this fraudulent seller.......more victims?.......and even better, why does ebay rely on consumers to report frauds....don't they have the slightest duty of care to detect and remove frauds themselves?

Obviously not....Recidivism is becoming an art form on ebay and it's so easy to do, given that nobody is verified.  Just get another email address and you have access to a nation wide of potential victims....like shooting fish in a barrel really.    There again, when you can force a payment system on consumers with the excuse that it protects you from the 'fraud' that ebay do nothing about, then why not eh??. 

Ebay's failure to mitigate has made fraud so functional that you HAVE TO use their payment system or take unnecessary risks as a buyer. 

If Ebay wants to play fair and honest, and not misuse their market power pushing their own payment system down our throats, they should implement an insurance coverage for OTHER payment systems. It's ultimately an unverified seller with devious intent that is the actual CAUSE of the fraud...not  bank deposit as a payment system. 

The fact that ebay do nothing to verify sellers means that consumers have no redress with police to assist in catching these frauds....it also means that the same fraud is able to perpetuate to an extent that it is now an accepted risk?  Unbelievable.

Here's a thought....why don't ebay openly tell consumers NOT to use Bank Deposit, because Ebay will do absolutely nothing if an unverified fraud decides to do a runner?. 

Surely the way to make it a marketplace with choice, would be to allow buyers to elect to pay a sliding scaled insurance fee in line with the value of the item they've purchased plus postage, so they can use bank deposit safely.  Ebay could charge buyers 50 cents to cover a purchase up to $100.00 and $1.00 to cover insurance up to $250.00 and so on.  At least then, if they refuse to do anything to mitigate fraud on ebay, buyers would still be protected in their choice of payment systems. 

[RiffRaff]

Cupie. An insurance scheme as you suggest is not the answer. It leaves too many gaps for fraudulent claims. Proof of payment would be a nightmare. Buyers have a choice to use a safe payment method, PayPal. Why would any company duplicate a service that it already offers with no expectant revenue.

To withdraw funds from a PayPal account, you need to link it to a verified bank account. To open a bank account you need 100 points of ID. I fail to see the difference between Bank Verification and any verification process that eBay could duplicate. If you want to rip-off buyers, now you have to have a valid bank account. The introduction of compulsory PayPal and the push for buyers to choose PayPal is in the best interests of buyers. Any other option has an often unacceptable risk attached dependant on the honesty of the seller.

[cueperkins]

Just on the EBS scenario, we shouldn't forget that none of those buyers were covered by PayPals buyer protection policy. The items were sold as pre-sale and were not covered. In the interests of eBays public face, they paid out but they didn't have to. The seller went bad, eBay acted too slow and those that paid via bank deposit suffered.

Wouldn't you have to say that the buyer experience is now safer, with compulsory PayPal?

Well, no.....not when it's up to Paypal's discretion if they refund or even cover the buyer, and not when the so called buyer protection they offer is pre-requisite to buyers noticing every single thing a seller might do to void the terms.   

So you think the EBS buyers were in the wrong for not knowing or checking that pre-sale terms were correct?....what else should buyers be responsible for riff? Do Ebay have any obligation to ensure a powerseller (veritable cornerstone of the community..above reproach even), is displaying the paypal buyer protection guarantee within the terms of its use?.   Obviously the BFSO thought so, because that was the only way consumers could dispute Paypal's unconscionable refusal to honour the buyer protection guarantee. 

EBS had 750 negs and growing but ebay did nothing...they owed a huge amount to Ebay in fees, and still they were allowed to keep operating.....in fact....Ebay shut EBS down on 31/7/08, (due to consumer outrage and neg media) and meanwhile the owner had long since skipped the country. 

As for Paypal being linked to a bank account...so what....if the seller has no funds in either account, the buyer is still out of pocket.... In frauds like the EBS debacle...everyone loses when the seller skips town owing over a Million dollars.

And, as for Paypal's so called safety.....have you read their user agreement?...can you honestly say that you feel safe accepting terms that impose all 'imaginable' risk back onto you as a consumer, including fraud, data interception or identity theft?  Are you aware that EFT signatories by comparison....indemnify their account holders from all of the above? 

As for insurance being too complicated or fraught with fraud....well that's Ebay's answer to everything except Paypal these days... however, Ebay previously had buyer protection insurance Riff, and are currently implementing it in the US for other payment methods..... so I don't see  how re-implementing it here would be so terribly hard or out of the question. 

[RiffRaff]

Given all that you have written Cupie, buying anything from anyone, online, has a certain amount of risk attached for the buyer. Buyers place their trust in the sellers honesty and reputation. A buyer cannot wash their hands of any responsibility regarding an on-line purchase. Buyers on eBay know full well that they are not buying from eBay but from a seller registered with eBay. What eBay have done is make that buying experience safer for shoppers on their website.

When a buyer comes to the eBay boards with an 'item not received' problem. The unanimous quote from the boardies is 'I hope you paid with PayPal'. Honest sellers and bank deposit is a good mix. Dishonest sellers and bank deposit generally doesn't end so well.

[cueperkins]

And so, do you think ebay still have no obligation to minimise this risk by covering other payment methods as they are doing in the US?  Aussies don't deserve any type of protection when buying online unless they use Paypal?

Paypal would be redundant as far as 'safety' goes if other payment methods were covered by buyer protection.    Most sellers I buy from prefer b/deposit anyway...and I only shop with those I've bought from previously or those with a lot of solid feedback.

And no riff, I don't think buyers are without risk in online dealings.... but when I buy from Chaos or other online retailers, I use a credit card that is specifically for the internet....no huge limit, and a bank I don't generally use....so I have the ultimate buyer protection using my credit card...but....on ebay....I have to sign up to a payment system that reverses all liability onto me as a consumer...that's the real problem for me riff..I don't trust Paypal to protect me from fraud or real risk if I hand over my information because their UA says they don't....

It's the User Agreement and all encompassing waivers in the event of serious fraud that is of more concern to me as a consumer.   I buy a lot on ebay Riff, and I still choose not to use paypal because of their complete reversal of risk upon account holders in just agreeing to their terms....hence the reason they should sign the EFT and indemnify account holders....then I'd feel more inclined to join. 

You seem to be overlooking the issue of fraud on ebay in the first place....nothing to say about that?  As a seller, surely it would be in your best interest to help get rid of shonky sellers? 

[RiffRaff]

I like to look at the big picture Cupie. The UA while it is written to indemnify PayPal is purely a part of the overall PayPal system of money handling.

Buyer protection exists. It has been tried and tested and it works.

PayPal do pay out even if the seller has no funds in their account.

PayPal did honour those EBS claims even though they didn't have to.

As far as eBay minimising risk goes, they have the perfect solution, use PayPal.

To me it makes excellent business sense to have a selling venue and a wholly owned payment system. eBay attempted to make PayPal the only payment method on eBay au, making the buying process even safer in that no-one could offer alternatives and thereby cover every purchase. The ACCC said no and so we still have buyers ripped off by using bank deposit and other payment methods.

You have your reasons for not using PayPal Cupie but thousands of happy buyers use it everyday without any of the problems you outline.

As far as fraud on eBay goes, it will never be stopped completely. Although eBay tried to do something about it and were stopped by the ACCC. What eBay attempted to do was shoulder the responsibility of buyer protection on eBay au. We were having none of that.

[imperfect]

As a seller most of my buyers use paypal, ALL of my OS buyers use paypal only, this service has opened the world to me, I have no issues with paypal or paymate, they both make selling and buying OS and at home easy and safe. IMO.

[col52]

Getting back to the subject..............guess what?

My bank details have magically reappeared! A couple of sales today and all is "back to normal" ebay can claim a glitch, but I have investigated a little and this "glitch" went on for 4 days!

At least apparently Paymate dont play with the money on the money markets and make us wait, although noone pays through paymate because there is a small fee for using it or was last time I looked.

gr8, Paymate aren't charging buyers on ebay now. I have found them a good company to deal with and yes, they transfer payments straight through to your bank account and don't hold on to them.

[*barny*]

Paypal or not paypal...

Well I reckon it is OK for a buyer to use, and I have done frequently... While I see it is not perfect from a seller's point of view, I have never had a problem with it.

One thing about it from my view is that it should not be compulsory to offer it as a payment method. I want to be able to make my own decisions as to selling stategy.. Having said that, if it were not compulsory, I would make damn sure I offered it, because I want buyers to have the choices as well.

Yes Cupie, I would prefer Paypal to conform to the EFT...

Yes Riff, I will offer Paypal, but I totally object to compulsion to offer it.

 

[RiffRaff]

Good news on the 'back to normal' Col. And apologies for the sidetrack.

[*CountessA*]

Barny, your post is so sensible that - well, I'm sorry; we're taking the brick away from you.

You have proved yourself as "Not Thick".

Oh, well... we already knew the "Thick As" thing was just a masked disguise... so I suppose the Brick is still yours.

(Now I'll never get my wall built.)

[chrisntan72]

"As a seller, surely it would be in your best interest to help get rid of shonky sellers?"

As a seller, surely it would be in your best interest to help get rid of shonky Paypal !!!!!

I'm so sorry, I literally couldn't help myself from saying that

Please forgive me

[cueperkins]

The BFSO said no and so we still have buyers ripped off by using bank deposit and other payment methods.

No Riff... ACCC said no because it contravened the Trade Practices Act.  In fact, Ebay would have been prosecuted if they failed to roll back compulsory paypal.   In other words, they were breaking Australian law.  The BFSO are the independent objective dispute resolution that Paypal are required by law to adhere to under their APRA licensing....they're the ref in paypal disputes, not the regulator in the ACCC paypal only dispute.  Different animals.

As far as fraud on eBay goes, it will never be stopped completely. Although eBay tried to do something about it and were stopped by the BFSO. What eBay attempted to do was shoulder the responsibility of buyer protection on eBay au. We were having none of that.

No Riff, it won't be stopped at all, because Ebay don't think it's important.....and pushing paypal is much more lucrative than providing a safe marketplace.......By your philosophy.....Ebay should do nothing else about fraud, because anything they do won't wipe it out completely?  Great excuse to do nothing......and on your second point.....

It was the ACCC that stopped them and what Ebay tried to do was enter into exclusive dealing and anti competitive conduct thereby breaching TPA.    Do you have any respect for Australian law that protects competition and thereby consumers?

Just a little thing was it?  Probably the biggest ACCC case in Australia in quite a while I'd say...every mover and shaker in the EFT/banking/regulatory arena's bought into it including ASIC (who administer the EFT code) and RBA.....and you think that ebay were trying to protect Aussie consumers? obviously our regulators and banking industry didn't....  lol...you're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, but it's a strange way to look at fair competition in the Australian marketplace.  I for one would prefer to see Paypal sign the EFT code before being given entry into an otherwise regulated EFT system.

Hear hear....Chrisntan...!!

[cueperkins]

Hey chrisntan.....criticising ebay or paypal as a consumer is not an offence on this forum.   no need to apologise....all opinions are welcome as far as I'm aware.

[imperfect]

But supporting is?

[chrisntan72]

Cheers guys, and btw, did a previous post get edited along the lines somewhere?  I quoted a previous post before and now I can't find the one I quoted from?  Perhaps it's me eyes going funny.

[*smee*]

chrisntan #19 is the one you quoted I think

[chrisntan72]

"chrisntan #19 is the one you quoted I think"

Lol - thanks for that - told ya it was my eyes, and the four kids jumping around in the loungeroom don't help much with my concentration either

[RiffRaff]

I have changed the acronym. Thanks for pointing that out.

Cupie. We are now in a situation with eBay that allows buyers to be ripped off because scamming sellers are not forced to accept PayPal only. The ACCC decision has effectively kept the door open for scammers and less than honest sellers. I'm not sure why you don't understand that. How do you separate the good seller from the good seller who's about to run off with the money?

You are very good at putting words in peoples mouths Cue. You make statements that appear to be quotes to justify your own comments.

I don't do that. I just debate my own view. You should try it some time.

[cueperkins]

No chrisntan, nothing got edited....(trust me) you can quote here as long as it isn't meant to flame others.....debates are fine.....and healthy.

Imp...you can sing the praises of Paypal all you like, but don't be surprised that some don't. Both opinions are welcome here because there is balance in consideration of both perspectives.   Convince me I'm wrong....tell me Paypal's UA is responsible and safe in the event of major fraud?...I'm ready to stand corrected if you can show me that I am wrong.  

And if there is another EBS debacle...what would you say then if Paypal refused to refund victims of another fraud?  I'll stand with the victims...not the entity refusing them the protection they promote at their discretion entirely....  I don't think any of us can be sure about anything when it comes to commercial entities. Loyalties should go to fellow Aussie consumers and Australian business entities, not OS monopolies.

They're all in it for the dosh....no other reason.  But I'd prefer to trust Australian home grown EFT systems who are EFT code signatories...and if Paypal is going to be one of them, then I'd prefer it if they followed the same rules as other Aussie EFT providers...why is that so hard to understand?  When in Rome, do as the Romans do.   They are a guest in this country...and they abide by absolutely none of the rules that other EFT entities abide by...fair competition?  yeah sure...LOL

[cueperkins]

I have changed the acronym. Thanks for pointing that out.

Cupie. We are now in a situation with eBay that allows buyers to be ripped off because scamming sellers are not forced to accept PayPal only. The ACCC decision has effectively kept the door open for scammers and less than honest sellers. I'm not sure why you don't understand that. How do you separate the good seller from the good seller who's about to run off with the money?

You are very good at putting words in peoples mouths Cue. You make statements that appear to be quotes to justify your own comments.

I don't do that. I just debate my own view. You should try it some time.

No riff, Ebay has kept the door open for scammers because they refuse to verify them as real individuals or traders.....How can you possibly consider that exclusive dealing is an acceptable situation in the Australian EFT marketplace?  Since when did Ebay have absolutely no duty of care in all this?  Blame ACCC?  LOL.

And resorting to accusations that I'm putting words in your mouth is ridiculous and fairly immature riff..  I'm debating my own view, both then and now, having been involved in the whole debate from the start....it's fairly silly to accuse me of quoting someone elses arguments at this stage...everyone who knows me, and were also there at the time of the ACCC rebellion period.... also knows that my opinion hasn't changed.   I'm fairly consistent that way.   Hey, maybe you should try it sometime.

[*smee*]

now now people play nice

[RiffRaff]

Ebay should do nothing else about fraud, because anything they do won't wipe it out completely?  Great excuse to do nothing......and on your second point.....

Your words, not mine.

Just a little thing was it?

Your words, not mine.

Since when did Ebay have absolutely no duty of care in all this?

Your words, not mine.

it's fairly silly to accuse me of quoting someone elses arguments at this stage

Your words, not mine.

[imperfect]

isn't meant to flame others.....????


LOL, anyway I don’t need to try to convince you of anything Cue, as it will be futile considering this  - also knows that my opinion hasn't change.   I'm fairly consistent that way

You are sure of your views and I of mine.  

[cueperkins]

Imp, Whatever ya reckon....

 

[chrisntan72]

I promise to play nice and discuss rather than flame.  So let me respectfully post mortem the following comment.

"Cupie. We are now in a situation with eBay that allows buyers to be ripped off because scamming sellers are not forced to accept PayPal only. The ACCC decision has effectively kept the door open for scammers and less than honest sellers. I'm not sure why you don't understand that. How do you separate the good seller from the good seller who's about to run off with the money?"

What if the scamming sellers were forced to only accept bank deposit (for argument sake of course)?  Now within Australia of course, the seller would have to provide you with a legitimate bank account to transfer funds to right?  And to secure this bank account they would have to provide substantial identification to the bank.  Committing fraud on the part of the seller would be very risky because it would be reasonable to believe that Ebay would have the sellers details and bank account information as part of the member registration process, and would be then able to provide all the relevant protection that is currently promised by Paypal.

Do you see where I'm going with this?  Now for overseas transactions I say yay, bring on the old Paypal, but within Australian shores and transactions, I believe Ebay could work with our banks to provide the most secure protection available.  Hey, it takes time to get a bank account... time and lots of personal identification.  You are less likely to try and scam someone when it's too easy to be identified and caught and prosecuted.

Cheers guys, gotta hit the sack, but it's been a blast and great conversation.

[imperfect]

Shakes head...


chrisntan72 - interesting comment! thank you.

[RiffRaff]

Hi chrisntan72.

Three points on your post.

PayPal accounts have to be linked to a legitimate bank account to withdraw funds. So, PayPal does verify the account holder via their bank account.

Tracking the ownership of a bank deposit in some cases is going to be impossible.

The funds to protect buyers have to come from somewhere. They currently come from PayPal fees. Should eBay increase seller fees to offset claims?

[cueperkins]

You make statements that appear to be quotes to justify your own comments.

Your words not mine.

I said:   it's fairly silly to accuse me of quoting someone elses arguments at this stage

You said:  As far as fraud on eBay goes, it will never be stopped completely. Although eBay tried to do something about it and were stopped by the ACCC (amended)

Your words, not mine.

I said:  So...Ebay should do nothing else about fraud, because anything they do won't wipe it out completely?  Great excuse to do nothing.

You said:  What eBay attempted to do was shoulder the responsibility of buyer protection on eBay au. 

LMAO....is that what they tried to do?   ACCC disagreed...minor hiccup?..lol


I said: Since when did Ebay have absolutely no duty of care in all this?

*shakes head* at you too Imp...surprised? 

chrisntan....exactly !!!  It's all relative isn't it?  I buy and sell in Australia.

[imperfect]

*shakes head* at you too Imp...surprised? 


Not at all, wouldn't expect anything less...

[*CountessA*]

I'm very much in favour of requiring identification from sellers. I had to go through a reasonably stringent checking procedure when applying for my business account as a singer; I had to prove I was solvent, that I was responsible, that I was who I said I was, that my contact details were correct, etc., etc.

I am at a loss to understand why PayPal doesn't require at least some verification - and I don't mean second-hand verification piggy-backing off the verification performed by banks. You see, when I applied for a merchant account with Westpac, I already had accounts with them. That didn't prevent the process from requiring proof of my identity again, and I would have thought it strange had they NOT required it. They didn't say, "Ah, she's already got an account, so she must be okay."

PayPal has its pluses and minuses. Its standard on verification is one of its minuses in my opinion. I would have more trust in PayPal as a financial entity if I knew sellers using PayPal were verified to the same standard required by banks - and let me stress again that I don't consider the piggy-back procedure sufficiently valid, because it's not difficult to get past that if one is a scammer. (I won't mention the steps, but I investigated this myself and have satisfied myself that it is possible - even relatively easy - to get past PayPal's level of checking.)

PayPal is currently refunding buyers who meet the guidelines of the PayPal Buyer Protection Policy.

What worries me is that this is practice, not policy.

There is, in terms of PayPal's actual POLICY, no requirement for Paypal to refund buyers in the event of their being unable to recover funds from the seller if a buyer's claim is successful. I'll quote the relevant bit: "Eligible buyers may, at PayPal's sole discretion, receive a payment from PayPal or have funds recovered from sellers."

As long as PayPal believe that the payoff from their paying buyers who are eligible under the Policy is worth their paying out in those cases where a seller has skipped town, so to speak, all is fine. Of course, PayPal don't make it consistently fair or easy for "eligible buyers" to receive refunds due to them... but when challenged with the "incorrect Policy applied" line, it seems that PayPal will resolve the situation.

But what if another huge and major fraud occurs? Something not involving pre-sales? Something where each and every buyer is eligible for a full refund, although the seller has skedaddled with the money and the company's somehow folded? I worry that Paypal will refuse to pay out, pointing out (with perfect justification) that their Policy doesn't guarantee a refund and the refunds so far have only ever been discretionary.

Isn't this the major concern?

I know of no other financial institution that has this degree of refusal of responsibility within its policies. I'm afraid that one day the "discretionary" refunds will stop - and I wonder what we can do about it.

[RiffRaff]

I'll clarify for you Cupie.

I said: You make statements that appear to be quotes to justify your own comments.

When you reply to a post, you embellish your comments with what could appear to others, to be a quote from the person you are arguing with.

For example: Ebay should do nothing else about fraud, because anything they do won't wipe it out completely?  Great excuse to do nothing......and on your second point.....

To anyone else reading that, it looks like I said that.

I clearly did not.

It's a shame because I don't mind a bit of good debate when I can find one.

[cueperkins]

No Riff, it's the implication and summarisation of what you said....so do you deny implication in your statements?.....or were they devoid of same?   anyway, nothing I say would make an objective difference so why bother?  Those who know my history with this issue, KNOW that I'm arguing my own opinion....frankly I don't care what you construe from that....because that's your interpretation...and you're entitled to it.....see how that works?   ain't individuality grand?

Countess..perfectly summed up !! 

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread !!

[*Yibida*]

Once again countessa brings sanity where mayhem reigns .....




Surveillance mode enabled { no I'm not picking my nose.}

[col52]