Don't suppose anyone wants a minibus?

D

Dave Liquorice

Guest

• Jun 30, 2006

• #21

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:38:33 +0100, Tim Hobbs wrote:

> Wouldn't sell anything substantial via Paypal. Missus has had a
> couple of charge-backs for "goods not delivered", despite them being
> shipped and without any form of investigation by paypal.

The T&C's of Paypal say you should use an online trackable method of
delivery. I'd kick up one helluva stink if I got a charge back and had
evidence that the item had been delivered. This is why I and my other
half now send everything Recorded or Signed For. Buyers don't seem put
off by the extra 70 odd p for Recorded, indeed I think some view it as a
positive point.

> Maybe lost in the post, or maybe the buyer just fancied a freebie...

I think an awful lot of "freebie" goes on, with the PO picking up the
tab.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

 

M

Matthew Maddock

Guest

• Jun 30, 2006

• #22

> I think an awful lot of "freebie" goes on, with the PO picking up the
> tab.

I suspect you may be right, but the seller has to collude in it too
because it is the sender who puts the claim in, not the recipient.

My wife picked up a RM claim form the other day for something that had
gone missing she had sent, and the form has "eBay item" as a check box
for the type of item that has gone missing now! Delivery companies
profits must have gone through the roof with the explosion of Internet
shopping, and more relevantly, eBay.

Recorded delivery is always the best option, especially if they have
paid via Paypal because Paypal will only accept that you have sent an
item if they can track the parcel online (i.e. with your Recorded
delivery reference number) in the event that someone claims you haven't
sent it. Not even a proof of posting receipt is good enough for them,
it must be on-line trackable.

Speaking of which, did anyone hear the scam where people were
sending empty envelopes by Recorded delivery just so they could give
PP the tracking reference to prove that they had returned a "faulty"
item to the seller? PP were just processing the claims without a
second thought once they had the Rec. deliv. reference number.

Matt

 

W

William Tasso

Guest

• Jun 30, 2006

• #23

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:54:32 +0100, Dave Liquorice <[email protected]>
wrote:

> This is why I and my other
> half now send everything Recorded or Signed For.

as buyers, we send /all/ our ebay payments by recorded delivery

> Buyers don't seem put
> off by the extra 70 odd p for Recorded, indeed I think some view it as a
> positive point.

indeed it is.


--
William Tasso

110 V8

 

W

William Tasso

Guest

• Jun 30, 2006

• #24

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:30:28 +0100, Matthew Maddock
<[email protected]> wrote:

> ...
> Delivery companies
> profits must have gone through the roof with the explosion of Internet
> shopping, and more relevantly, eBay.

Now, there's an industry that needs a shake up. It's got so bad with
next-day deliveries that don't happen that I've taken to cross invoicing
suppliers to claw back a service I haven't received. It's beginning to
work - the odd complaint gets an apology - an invoice and follow-up gets
attention, and often, action.

--
William Tasso

110 V8

 

D

Dave Liquorice

Guest

• Jun 30, 2006

• #25

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:30:28 +0100, Matthew Maddock wrote:

> I suspect you may be right, but the seller has to collude in it too
> because it is the sender who puts the claim in, not the recipient.

"Collude" is a rather strong word. If you bought something from me and I
sent it (with proof of posting but not trackable) and you say it hasn't
arrived. Why should I take the hit, when I have entrusted the item to the
PO for delivery together with insurance up to the value of 28ish quid?

I suspect that the end result will be the withdrawal of the insurance for
items not sent by a trackable method.

> My wife picked up a RM claim form the other day for something that had
> gone missing she had sent, and the form has "eBay item" as a check box
> for the type of item that has gone missing now!

I'm not surprised. I wonder if the PO are starting to track recipients
for "lost" items...

> Not even a proof of posting receipt is good enough for them, it must be
> on-line trackable.

Thats because looking at and handling bits of paper is expensive and
requires people to be with the bits of paper. Online is cheap and can be
done anywhere...

> Speaking of which, did anyone hear the scam where people were
> sending empty envelopes by Recorded delivery just so they could give
> PP the tracking reference to prove that they had returned a "faulty"
> item to the seller?

Feckin'ell. I guess you could argue the toss with Paypal that no way
could your "faulty" widget fit inside an envelope. Send a photo of the
envelope with the recorded delivery sticker on it etc. But a lot of
hassle, I guess you could insist that they return via a carrier that
records the weight but then you'd get parcels of sand... B-)

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Jul 1, 2006

• #26

On or around Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:37:12 +0100, Matthew Maddock
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>> It's not just business it's anyone who wants to accept CC/DC payments.
>> I'm a private seller, flogging off the household dross. It if I want
>> people to be able to buy my dross by CC/DC, and most people do, I have to
>> upgrade to a "Premier Account". I then get stung by the incoming fees.
>> The real ****er is the fact that *all* incoming transactions attract a
>> fee, even those funded by a PayPal balance, thus Paypal haven't had to
>> pay a CC company fee for that money.
>
>Yes - they snuck that one in the back door - they didn't used to charge
>if it was from a Paypal account, even if you had a Premier a/c, but
>somewhere along the line they started doing so - what a scam! It's not
>like they aren't making enough money already is it?!

well, we all have to write to 'em and complain. I can't see what's wrong
with a small (and I mean small - under 0.5%) charge on ALL paypal
transactions. That would be fair and hit everyone equally and if it was
small enough no-one would mind paying a few pence for the convenience
factor. And eBay would make just as much out of it as they do charging one
part of the Paypal system all the fees.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"It is a characteristic of the human mind to hate the man one has injured"
Tacitus (c.55 - c.117) Agricola, 45

 

D

Dave Liquorice

Guest

• Jul 1, 2006

• #27

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:18:28 +0100, Austin Shackles wrote:

> I can't see what's wrong with a small (and I mean small - under 0.5%)
> charge on ALL paypal transactions. That would be fair and hit everyone
> equally ...

That assumes that most Paypal accounts aren't Premier Accounts. I suspect
that anybody who has sold more than a few things has a Premier Account,
you can't take CC funded payments via Paypal if you don't. The vast
majority of items on eBay have Paypal as an option and show the CC logos,
(I think you can switch the CC logos off).

> And eBay would make just as much out of it as they do charging one
> part of the Paypal system all the fees.

That one part is probably the majority of active accounts.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Jul 1, 2006

• #28

On or around Sat, 01 Jul 2006 21:56:48 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:18:28 +0100, Austin Shackles wrote:
>
>> I can't see what's wrong with a small (and I mean small - under 0.5%)
>> charge on ALL paypal transactions. That would be fair and hit everyone
>> equally ...
>
>That assumes that most Paypal accounts aren't Premier Accounts. I suspect
>that anybody who has sold more than a few things has a Premier Account,
>you can't take CC funded payments via Paypal if you don't. The vast
>majority of items on eBay have Paypal as an option and show the CC logos,
>(I think you can switch the CC logos off).
>
>> And eBay would make just as much out of it as they do charging one
>> part of the Paypal system all the fees.
>
>That one part is probably the majority of active accounts.

yeah, but the people doing most of the selling aren't the ones doing most of
the buying, and it's the sellers that are getting charged. Buyers gain just
as much convenience from Paypal as sellers do, but if you predominantly buy
then you get a free ride, paid for by the sellers. It'd still be fairer if
everyone paid a small amount rather than the sellers copping all of it.
Granted, they're not daft, people who take a LOT of money get to pay a lower
percentage. the smaller sellers are worst hit, like me, paying 3.4%, which
is not excatly a trivial amount. On the things I sell regularly in my shop,
it amounts to anything from about 3 to about 6 quid per sale, typically.
Although in that case I could up the price to compensate.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Satisfying: Satisfy your inner child by eating ten tubes of Smarties
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

 

D

Dave Liquorice

Guest

• Jul 3, 2006

• #29

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 23:16:08 +0100, Austin Shackles wrote:

> Buyers gain just as much convenience from Paypal as sellers do, but if
> you predominantly buy then you get a free ride, paid for by the
> sellers.

You mean just like everyone who uses a CC to buy anything. I know that UK
law allows a surcharge for CC payments but how many common retail outlets
apply a surcharge?

> the smaller sellers are worst hit, like me, paying 3.4%, which is not
> excatly a trivial amount.

So get a merchant account to accept CCs directly then you can legitmately
charge extra for CC payments. I suspect you'd be hard pushed to get 3.4%
for a low volume merchant account...

> Although in that case I could up the price to compensate.

Which is what business's do. So cash customers are the ones really get
ripped off paying more than they should to cover the (non-existant) CC
fees, though it could be argued that handling cash also has it's costs,
security, trips to bank etc...

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

 

B

beamendsltd

Guest

• Jul 3, 2006

• #30

In message <[email protected]>
"Dave Liquorice" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 23:16:08 +0100, Austin Shackles wrote:
>
> > Buyers gain just as much convenience from Paypal as sellers do, but if
> > you predominantly buy then you get a free ride, paid for by the
> > sellers.
>
> You mean just like everyone who uses a CC to buy anything. I know that UK
> law allows a surcharge for CC payments but how many common retail outlets
> apply a surcharge?
>
> > the smaller sellers are worst hit, like me, paying 3.4%, which is not
> > excatly a trivial amount.
>
> So get a merchant account to accept CCs directly then you can legitmately
> charge extra for CC payments. I suspect you'd be hard pushed to get 3.4%
> for a low volume merchant account...
>
> > Although in that case I could up the price to compensate.
>
> Which is what business's do. So cash customers are the ones really get
> ripped off paying more than they should to cover the (non-existant) CC
> fees, though it could be argued that handling cash also has it's costs,
> security, trips to bank etc...
>

I'd agrue that - going to the bank is an expensive business in
time and money, plus the bank charges for paying in cash and
cheques. Cards are, for an "average" transaction, no more,
and probably less than other payments, particlarly as cash
payments are a rapidly diminishing proportion of sales making
the trip less and less "viable".

I still wouldn't trust PayPal though - it'll be interesting
to see how Google's new payment system works out.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Jul 3, 2006

• #31

On or around Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:10:00 +0100, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>>
>
>I'd agrue that - going to the bank is an expensive business in
>time and money, plus the bank charges for paying in cash and
>cheques. Cards are, for an "average" transaction, no more,
>and probably less than other payments, particlarly as cash
>payments are a rapidly diminishing proportion of sales making
>the trip less and less "viable".
>
>I still wouldn't trust PayPal though - it'll be interesting
>to see how Google's new payment system works out.

I suspect that Paypal is now big enough that it's bothered about its
reputation. Like credit cards, it relies on enough people trusting it - if
people don't trust it and use it then it makes no money. Thus, they have to
be seen to act in the event of problems - it wouldn't take many vociferous
****ed off ex-customers to make a dent in the profits...
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"There are three sorts of people in the world - those who can count,
and those who can't" (Anon)

 

I

Ian Rawlings

Guest

• Jul 3, 2006

• #32

On 2006-07-03, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> I suspect that Paypal is now big enough that it's bothered about its
> reputation. Like credit cards, it relies on enough people trusting it - if
> people don't trust it and use it then it makes no money. Thus, they have to
> be seen to act in the event of problems - it wouldn't take many vociferous
> ****ed off ex-customers to make a dent in the profits...

Have a search for "paypal" on the weber-net, you'll find a lot of
****ed off ex-customers, both buyers and sellers.. Perhaps one day
they'll change. Ebay used Billpoint years ago, realised how crap it
was and then bought Paypal, who are creating the same kind of stink
amongst buyers and sellers that Billpoint did.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

 

M

Matthew Maddock

Guest

• Jul 3, 2006

• #33

Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:10:00 +0100, beamendsltd
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> I'd agrue that - going to the bank is an expensive business in
>> time and money, plus the bank charges for paying in cash and
>> cheques. Cards are, for an "average" transaction, no more,
>> and probably less than other payments, particlarly as cash
>> payments are a rapidly diminishing proportion of sales making
>> the trip less and less "viable".
>>
>> I still wouldn't trust PayPal though - it'll be interesting
>> to see how Google's new payment system works out.
>
> I suspect that Paypal is now big enough that it's bothered about its
> reputation. Like credit cards, it relies on enough people trusting it - if
> people don't trust it and use it then it makes no money. Thus, they have to
> be seen to act in the event of problems - it wouldn't take many vociferous
> ****ed off ex-customers to make a dent in the profits...

Bit like this you mean...http://www.paypalsucks.com/
(I particularly like the "PayPal Terrified" logo!)

Has been going for years - I found it after someone tried to scam me
by paying for a car using another users account. At the time PP
offered absolutely no protection to the seller if the funds were
fraudulent. I was lucky at the time in that I had to delay the guy
coming to pick it up, and during the delay the fact that the payment
was fraudulent was picked up.

Matt