Options
NY Times Consumer Advocate Complaint About Paypal
RichR
Posts: 3,983 ✭✭✭✭✭
From yesterday's Sunday paper...not specifically coin-related...but we can all relate. And I love how their customer reps just plain lie and deceive at will.
When 24 Hours Is 23:59 Too Long
By DAVID SEGAL
Published: April 21, 2012
THE Haggler’s recent column about PayPal, the online money transfer company, summoned forth a fresh round of “I can’t stand PayPal” e-mail. This one stood out.
Q. My company is new, and as yet has processed just three transactions using credit cards through PayPal. In all of these cases, the payment has been held up for about 24 hours because the buyer was “unverified.” This has happened even when the credit card was the corporate card of a well-known company. Twenty-four hours may not seem long, but in my case it is critical.
My company sells schedule risk analysis software. It can be downloaded from the Web for a 30-day free trial, at the end of which the user must buy a license key to continue using the software. This key is delivered automatically, by e-mail, within seconds of the purchase — except when this purchase is made through PayPal, in which case it takes 24 hours or more.
Furthermore, while PayPal informs me of the delay, it does not apparently inform the buyer. This is allegedly meant to be a protection for me, but other Internet vendors accept credit cards without question, and I don’t see why PayPal should be any different. Also, in my particular case, if I were not to get paid for some reason I can retrospectively disable the license key. So I don’t need or want this protection. I have tried to make this case to PayPal several times, but I get bland responses that avoid the key points. Can you help? Tony Welsh
A. The Haggler got in touch with a publicist at eBay, which owns PayPal, and learned that Mr. Welsh simply misunderstood a key detail about payment review, as this feature is known. Namely, that he can opt out of it.
Which led the Haggler back to Mr. Welsh: Why didn’t you just say you wanted no part of payment review?
He had. Several times. He sent the Haggler a few of the many e-mails between him and PayPal reps. One was this bracing no-way-José from an Executive Escalations team member: “You asked why you are unable to opt out of the payment review process. Payment review is an automatic process within the PayPal system that cannot be overridden. It is a tool we use to prevent loss for our customers and ourselves. If PayPal allows an unauthorized transaction to process, we are at risk for reversals from the credit card companies.”
Not only does this contradict the notion that anyone can forswear payment review, but it says that opting out isn’t possible because it’s “automatic.” Further, it contradicts the point of the program, which a publicist said was all about protecting merchants. Now we learn that it’s about protecting merchants and PayPal.
It gets better. The Haggler was told that most reviews occur in a matter of seconds; 24 hours is a worst-case-scenario number. But Mr. Walsh was told, in yet another e-mail, that a review “usually takes 24 hours, although in some cases this time frame can extend to 48 hours.”
The Haggler bundled up all this information and forwarded it to eBay/PayPal. Katherine Hutchison, a senior director at PayPal, apologetically explained that her underlings had given Mr. Welsh wrong information. She added that as a result of his experience, the company was in the process of retraining its reps so they understand that payment review is optional.
The Haggler doesn’t doubt that the PayPal phone and e-mail agents are about to be retrained. But the Haggler can’t help but notice a pattern. The previous column was about the thousands of eBay sellers who were chagrined to learn that their money would be held by the company for as many as 21 days. In that matter, as with this current one, eBay/PayPal spokespeople said that preventing fraud — not enhancing profits, by accumulating bank interest — was the point of hanging on to the money.
That might well be true, but the Haggler must humbly suggest that PayPal has a credibility problem. It stems from its policy, described in this space two years ago, of asking users to “verify” their account after transferring $10,000 over the company’s network. One can get “verified” by either handing over bank account information or signing up for a PayPal-affiliated credit.
PayPal has long described this as a “risk-prevention technique,” but that makes little sense, because even customers with perfect track records must comply. No, PayPal wants bank account information, as a spokeswoman acknowledged in that 2010 column, because it’s cheaper to scoop money from a bank than to deal with a credit card. And if PayPal has to deal with a credit card, it would like to deal with a PayPal credit card.
In short, this is more about profits than risk prevention. Nothing wrong with profits. But PayPal says not a word about the financial upsides it enjoys courtesy of “verification.” Ms. Hutchison said that the verification process is evolving and that users can now be verified without giving bank account information or acquiring a PayPal credit card. But amazingly, that option never shows up on any online menu. It’s available only to people annoyed enough to call or write.
“We are working to improve the experience,” Ms. Hutchison wrote in an e-mail.
Great. But until then, the process is a pretty shabby one for consumers. The Haggler thinks that when PayPal asks to “verify” its customers, it should level with them. Until then, in disputes like the one involving Mr. Welsh — which could either stem from poor communication, as the company contends, or be part of a strategy to enhance the bottom line — it will be hard to give the company the benefit of the doubt.
When 24 Hours Is 23:59 Too Long
By DAVID SEGAL
Published: April 21, 2012
THE Haggler’s recent column about PayPal, the online money transfer company, summoned forth a fresh round of “I can’t stand PayPal” e-mail. This one stood out.
Q. My company is new, and as yet has processed just three transactions using credit cards through PayPal. In all of these cases, the payment has been held up for about 24 hours because the buyer was “unverified.” This has happened even when the credit card was the corporate card of a well-known company. Twenty-four hours may not seem long, but in my case it is critical.
My company sells schedule risk analysis software. It can be downloaded from the Web for a 30-day free trial, at the end of which the user must buy a license key to continue using the software. This key is delivered automatically, by e-mail, within seconds of the purchase — except when this purchase is made through PayPal, in which case it takes 24 hours or more.
Furthermore, while PayPal informs me of the delay, it does not apparently inform the buyer. This is allegedly meant to be a protection for me, but other Internet vendors accept credit cards without question, and I don’t see why PayPal should be any different. Also, in my particular case, if I were not to get paid for some reason I can retrospectively disable the license key. So I don’t need or want this protection. I have tried to make this case to PayPal several times, but I get bland responses that avoid the key points. Can you help? Tony Welsh
A. The Haggler got in touch with a publicist at eBay, which owns PayPal, and learned that Mr. Welsh simply misunderstood a key detail about payment review, as this feature is known. Namely, that he can opt out of it.
Which led the Haggler back to Mr. Welsh: Why didn’t you just say you wanted no part of payment review?
He had. Several times. He sent the Haggler a few of the many e-mails between him and PayPal reps. One was this bracing no-way-José from an Executive Escalations team member: “You asked why you are unable to opt out of the payment review process. Payment review is an automatic process within the PayPal system that cannot be overridden. It is a tool we use to prevent loss for our customers and ourselves. If PayPal allows an unauthorized transaction to process, we are at risk for reversals from the credit card companies.”
Not only does this contradict the notion that anyone can forswear payment review, but it says that opting out isn’t possible because it’s “automatic.” Further, it contradicts the point of the program, which a publicist said was all about protecting merchants. Now we learn that it’s about protecting merchants and PayPal.
It gets better. The Haggler was told that most reviews occur in a matter of seconds; 24 hours is a worst-case-scenario number. But Mr. Walsh was told, in yet another e-mail, that a review “usually takes 24 hours, although in some cases this time frame can extend to 48 hours.”
The Haggler bundled up all this information and forwarded it to eBay/PayPal. Katherine Hutchison, a senior director at PayPal, apologetically explained that her underlings had given Mr. Welsh wrong information. She added that as a result of his experience, the company was in the process of retraining its reps so they understand that payment review is optional.
The Haggler doesn’t doubt that the PayPal phone and e-mail agents are about to be retrained. But the Haggler can’t help but notice a pattern. The previous column was about the thousands of eBay sellers who were chagrined to learn that their money would be held by the company for as many as 21 days. In that matter, as with this current one, eBay/PayPal spokespeople said that preventing fraud — not enhancing profits, by accumulating bank interest — was the point of hanging on to the money.
That might well be true, but the Haggler must humbly suggest that PayPal has a credibility problem. It stems from its policy, described in this space two years ago, of asking users to “verify” their account after transferring $10,000 over the company’s network. One can get “verified” by either handing over bank account information or signing up for a PayPal-affiliated credit.
PayPal has long described this as a “risk-prevention technique,” but that makes little sense, because even customers with perfect track records must comply. No, PayPal wants bank account information, as a spokeswoman acknowledged in that 2010 column, because it’s cheaper to scoop money from a bank than to deal with a credit card. And if PayPal has to deal with a credit card, it would like to deal with a PayPal credit card.
In short, this is more about profits than risk prevention. Nothing wrong with profits. But PayPal says not a word about the financial upsides it enjoys courtesy of “verification.” Ms. Hutchison said that the verification process is evolving and that users can now be verified without giving bank account information or acquiring a PayPal credit card. But amazingly, that option never shows up on any online menu. It’s available only to people annoyed enough to call or write.
“We are working to improve the experience,” Ms. Hutchison wrote in an e-mail.
Great. But until then, the process is a pretty shabby one for consumers. The Haggler thinks that when PayPal asks to “verify” its customers, it should level with them. Until then, in disputes like the one involving Mr. Welsh — which could either stem from poor communication, as the company contends, or be part of a strategy to enhance the bottom line — it will be hard to give the company the benefit of the doubt.
0
Comments
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
They'd like everyone to buy their 'money' from them.
Buyers simply pay them with higher prices.
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
The whole relationship of eBay mandating the use of their own vehicle (Paypal) to the exclusion of other valid types of payment, has never smelled right with me.
And their entire escalating fee structure is really becoming a problem too.
<< <i>Is anyone really surprised by this? >>
NOPE!
Not really looking for much these days but if I were, it might be a toner.
JMHO.
Best.
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
My Aussie customers come here and transfer money to my bank from their cell phone and I have the money instantly.
And there , one can acquire the skills necessary to manage a small online business that might take one to the cleaners by way of a bank or two.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>I'm just surprised that nobody has attempted to bring an anti-trust complaint against eBay/Paypal yet.
The whole relationship of eBay mandating the use of their own vehicle (Paypal) to the exclusion of other valid types of payment, has never smelled right with me.
And their entire escalating fee structure is really becoming a problem too. >>
Your options are either use paypal and pay the fees or sneak around it and have 0 protection. by doing things the old way. Those are your options. Im waiting for ebay to mandate the whole "bill me later" mess. Most places if you dont like their terms you can shop elsewhere. but for the amount to choose from Ebay is the only major game in town. and payments should have options. Ebay should not cry foul if you send snail mail. They are just mad that they cant take 2 bites from the same apple ( the ebay side and the paypal side). can you imagine if your local gas station did this. Gas price of 4.00 a gallon, + a service fee of .50 a gallon and then you pay by credit its an extra 10 cents a gallon.How many bites will you allow per transaction? Here the gas price is the amount ebay gets off the bat for the realized price broken down in the % at price range, so for $20 lets say you see 18.00 of it. . the 10 cent a gallon fee for credit ( or the company card they only accept) is the the paypal fee so your knocked a few more for that. now we are down to lets say $17. Now your down 3.00 off your total amount and they wont allow you to do it otherwise. If you do they cut you off starve your business as punishment for not double dipping. Basic rules state you can take your business else where. But where can you go and have the same reasonable attention to your ads? And with you trying to get partial of the double dipping fee back in the way of lets say a 50 cent handling fee that is listed as a handling fee you get punished for that.
So now not only do they say no you MUST go through us , we MUST double dip but you MUST not charge anything extra for handling on top of shipping.
Since when can a company control how you handle your business. Let free enterprise and nature of the transaction play out. If customers really find that 50 cents unacceptable they will do 1 of 2 things.
1/) Not bid
or 2.) Bid but account for the 50 cent difference.
Ebay has no right to the terms of the sale, its the sellers terms IF the buyer doesnt like it they can shop elsewhere on the bay. IF Ebay can tell everyone how to sell their items why do sellers even bother writing costs for shipping. Ebay should mandate that too. Saying you can only charge for shipping. Take it completely out of the hands of the seller. or better yet ( youll love this ) mandate ALL shipping to be COD. How about that. That way the buyer pays the shipping company at the time of pick up . Takes the seller out of it for over charging and getting any of the double dipping fees back. How about that. I can see Ebay doing this sooner than later. COD everything and take the shipping fees out of the hands of the sellers all together. and if they dont like it they can go to yahoo auctions ( oh thats right they dont do that anymore do they).