From: Advanced Kitty on
Peter Crosland wrote:
> "Advanced Kitty" <nokia.account(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:7ie5gcF317575U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> Spacker wrote:
>>> "Peter Crosland" <g6jns(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Fran" <usenet1304(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:h9q96l$52t$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mark" <i(a)dontgetlotsofspamanymore.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:7k91c590i56j5cse2b04f3663mf7renoft(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>> What would people consider as adequate precautions for allowing a
>>>>>> buyer to collect if they have paid via paypal? i.e. to prevent a
>>>>>> chargeback or claim that they have not received the goods. I
>>>>>> have no particular reason to mistrust this buyer, apart from
>>>>>> them taking longer than I expected to pay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't accept PayPal full stop. Cash is the ONLY safe method for
>>>>> collection. PayPal will not accept any kind of receipt or
>>>>> whatever, other than an online tracking method. So, you've
>>>>> absolutely nothing protecting you against them filing a
>>>>> chargeback or an INR. Refund the PayPal payment, and insist on cash.
>>>>
>>>> There can be risks associated with taking cash such as forgeries
>>>> and the possibility of an accomplice mugging the seller. As for
>>>> PayPal they would lose in court if a seller had a receipt proving
>>>> payment regardless of it not being an online one. PayPal's
>>>> insistence on it is simply not legally valid.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Crosland
>>>>
>>>
>>> So why are they allowed to do it?
>>
>> They can do whatever they want.
>>
>> It's down to the ripped vendor to get his money back on each
>> individual transaction.
>>
>> There is no legislation that would force Paypal to accept proof of
>> delivery other than a RD ticket.
>
> If a buyer chose to take PayPal to court then provided the proof was
> sufficient in the court 's view then they would find against PayPal.

You don't appear to understand.

Rulings in the civil courts have no bearing on Paypal being legally
prevented from recognising RD tickets only, UNDER THEIR OWN RULES, FFS.

Or do you need me to draw a picture ?

>
> Peter Crosland


From: Peter Crosland on
"Fran" <usenet1304(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:h9soo9$nnd$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Peter Crosland" <g6jns(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:OfCdndQEssqSflzXnZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk...
>> "Advanced Kitty" <nokia.account(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:7ie5gcF317575U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>> Spacker wrote:
>>>> "Peter Crosland" <g6jns(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Fran" <usenet1304(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:h9q96l$52t$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mark" <i(a)dontgetlotsofspamanymore.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:7k91c590i56j5cse2b04f3663mf7renoft(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>> What would people consider as adequate precautions for allowing a
>>>>>>> buyer to collect if they have paid via paypal? i.e. to prevent a
>>>>>>> chargeback or claim that they have not received the goods. I have
>>>>>>> no particular reason to mistrust this buyer, apart from them taking
>>>>>>> longer than I expected to pay.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't accept PayPal full stop. Cash is the ONLY safe method for
>>>>>> collection. PayPal will not accept any kind of receipt or whatever,
>>>>>> other than an online tracking method. So, you've absolutely nothing
>>>>>> protecting you against them filing a chargeback or an INR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Refund the PayPal payment, and insist on cash.
>>>>>
>>>>> There can be risks associated with taking cash such as forgeries and
>>>>> the possibility of an accomplice mugging the seller. As for PayPal
>>>>> they would lose in court if a seller had a receipt proving payment
>>>>> regardless of it not being an online one. PayPal's insistence on it
>>>>> is simply not legally valid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter Crosland
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So why are they allowed to do it?
>>>
>>> They can do whatever they want.
>>>
>>> It's down to the ripped vendor to get his money back on each individual
>>> transaction.
>>>
>>> There is no legislation that would force Paypal to accept proof of
>>> delivery other than a RD ticket.
>>
>> If a buyer chose to take PayPal to court then provided the proof was
>> sufficient in the court 's view then they would find against PayPal.
>>
>
> So why has no one yet done that?


Unless someone spotted the court list then it would go unnoticed. In fact a
more likely reason is that PayPal would pay up rather than risk it becoming
known which might open the floodgates. On a couple of occasions I have
reached an impasse with PayPal an sent them a formal letter before action
they have paid up in full without admitting liability. Admittedly the sums
were both small but it most cases unless the amount is large then simple
economics make paying up the best answer. This is a common policy with
companies.

Peter Crosland


From: Peter Crosland on
"Advanced Kitty" <nokia.account(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:7ieablF2vohmtU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> Peter Crosland wrote:
>> "Advanced Kitty" <nokia.account(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:7ie5gcF317575U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>> Spacker wrote:
>>>> "Peter Crosland" <g6jns(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Fran" <usenet1304(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:h9q96l$52t$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mark" <i(a)dontgetlotsofspamanymore.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:7k91c590i56j5cse2b04f3663mf7renoft(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>> What would people consider as adequate precautions for allowing a
>>>>>>> buyer to collect if they have paid via paypal? i.e. to prevent a
>>>>>>> chargeback or claim that they have not received the goods. I
>>>>>>> have no particular reason to mistrust this buyer, apart from
>>>>>>> them taking longer than I expected to pay.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't accept PayPal full stop. Cash is the ONLY safe method for
>>>>>> collection. PayPal will not accept any kind of receipt or
>>>>>> whatever, other than an online tracking method. So, you've
>>>>>> absolutely nothing protecting you against them filing a
>>>>>> chargeback or an INR. Refund the PayPal payment, and insist on cash.
>>>>>
>>>>> There can be risks associated with taking cash such as forgeries
>>>>> and the possibility of an accomplice mugging the seller. As for
>>>>> PayPal they would lose in court if a seller had a receipt proving
>>>>> payment regardless of it not being an online one. PayPal's
>>>>> insistence on it is simply not legally valid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter Crosland
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So why are they allowed to do it?
>>>
>>> They can do whatever they want.
>>>
>>> It's down to the ripped vendor to get his money back on each
>>> individual transaction.
>>>
>>> There is no legislation that would force Paypal to accept proof of
>>> delivery other than a RD ticket.
>>
>> If a buyer chose to take PayPal to court then provided the proof was
>> sufficient in the court 's view then they would find against PayPal.
>
> You don't appear to understand.
>
> Rulings in the civil courts have no bearing on Paypal being legally
> prevented from recognising RD tickets only, UNDER THEIR OWN RULES, FFS.
>
> Or do you need me to draw a picture ?

I think it is youn tah needs apicture drawing rather than me.

PayPal's rules are irrelevant if they are regarded as contravening the The
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and it is very clear
that only accepting proof that is available online is manifestly unfair.

Peter Crosland


From: Advanced Kitty on
Peter Crosland wrote:
> "Advanced Kitty" <nokia.account(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:7ieablF2vohmtU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> Peter Crosland wrote:
>>> "Advanced Kitty" <nokia.account(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7ie5gcF317575U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>>> Spacker wrote:
>>>>> "Peter Crosland" <g6jns(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Fran" <usenet1304(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:h9q96l$52t$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Mark" <i(a)dontgetlotsofspamanymore.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:7k91c590i56j5cse2b04f3663mf7renoft(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> What would people consider as adequate precautions for
>>>>>>>> allowing a buyer to collect if they have paid via paypal? i.e. to
>>>>>>>> prevent a chargeback or claim that they have not
>>>>>>>> received the goods. I have no particular reason to mistrust
>>>>>>>> this buyer, apart from them taking longer than I expected to
>>>>>>>> pay.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't accept PayPal full stop. Cash is the ONLY safe method for
>>>>>>> collection. PayPal will not accept any kind of receipt or
>>>>>>> whatever, other than an online tracking method. So, you've
>>>>>>> absolutely nothing protecting you against them filing a
>>>>>>> chargeback or an INR. Refund the PayPal payment, and insist on
>>>>>>> cash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There can be risks associated with taking cash such as forgeries
>>>>>> and the possibility of an accomplice mugging the seller. As for
>>>>>> PayPal they would lose in court if a seller had a receipt proving
>>>>>> payment regardless of it not being an online one. PayPal's
>>>>>> insistence on it is simply not legally valid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Crosland
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So why are they allowed to do it?
>>>>
>>>> They can do whatever they want.
>>>>
>>>> It's down to the ripped vendor to get his money back on each
>>>> individual transaction.
>>>>
>>>> There is no legislation that would force Paypal to accept proof of
>>>> delivery other than a RD ticket.
>>>
>>> If a buyer chose to take PayPal to court then provided the proof was
>>> sufficient in the court 's view then they would find against PayPal.
>>
>> You don't appear to understand.
>>
>> Rulings in the civil courts have no bearing on Paypal being legally
>> prevented from recognising RD tickets only, UNDER THEIR OWN RULES,
>> FFS. Or do you need me to draw a picture ?
>
> I think it is youn tah needs apicture drawing rather than me.
>
> PayPal's rules are irrelevant if they are regarded as contravening
> the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and it is
> very clear that only accepting proof that is available online is
> manifestly unfair.

I don't disagree that it's unfair, manifestly or otherwise.
But as I keep fuckingwell trying to tell you, there is no current
legislation that forbids Paypal from continuing to operate under its own
rules and refusing to accept proof other than an RD ticket.
It's a long way from getting a civil court award against Paypal for
reimbursement to getting legislation enacted that forces the preceding.


>
> Peter Crosland


From: Peter Crosland on
"Advanced Kitty" <nokia.account(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:7iecojF2vopi4U1(a)mid.individual.net...
> Peter Crosland wrote:
>> "Advanced Kitty" <nokia.account(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:7ieablF2vohmtU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>> Peter Crosland wrote:
>>>> "Advanced Kitty" <nokia.account(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:7ie5gcF317575U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>>>> Spacker wrote:
>>>>>> "Peter Crosland" <g6jns(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Fran" <usenet1304(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:h9q96l$52t$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Mark" <i(a)dontgetlotsofspamanymore.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:7k91c590i56j5cse2b04f3663mf7renoft(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> What would people consider as adequate precautions for
>>>>>>>>> allowing a buyer to collect if they have paid via paypal? i.e. to
>>>>>>>>> prevent a chargeback or claim that they have not
>>>>>>>>> received the goods. I have no particular reason to mistrust
>>>>>>>>> this buyer, apart from them taking longer than I expected to
>>>>>>>>> pay.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't accept PayPal full stop. Cash is the ONLY safe method for
>>>>>>>> collection. PayPal will not accept any kind of receipt or
>>>>>>>> whatever, other than an online tracking method. So, you've
>>>>>>>> absolutely nothing protecting you against them filing a
>>>>>>>> chargeback or an INR. Refund the PayPal payment, and insist on
>>>>>>>> cash.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There can be risks associated with taking cash such as forgeries
>>>>>>> and the possibility of an accomplice mugging the seller. As for
>>>>>>> PayPal they would lose in court if a seller had a receipt proving
>>>>>>> payment regardless of it not being an online one. PayPal's
>>>>>>> insistence on it is simply not legally valid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter Crosland
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So why are they allowed to do it?
>>>>>
>>>>> They can do whatever they want.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's down to the ripped vendor to get his money back on each
>>>>> individual transaction.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no legislation that would force Paypal to accept proof of
>>>>> delivery other than a RD ticket.
>>>>
>>>> If a buyer chose to take PayPal to court then provided the proof was
>>>> sufficient in the court 's view then they would find against PayPal.
>>>
>>> You don't appear to understand.
>>>
>>> Rulings in the civil courts have no bearing on Paypal being legally
>>> prevented from recognising RD tickets only, UNDER THEIR OWN RULES,
>>> FFS. Or do you need me to draw a picture ?
>>
>> I think it is youn tah needs apicture drawing rather than me.
>>
>> PayPal's rules are irrelevant if they are regarded as contravening
>> the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and it is
>> very clear that only accepting proof that is available online is
>> manifestly unfair.
>
> I don't disagree that it's unfair, manifestly or otherwise.
> But as I keep f******well trying to tell you, there is no current
> legislation that forbids Paypal from continuing to operate under its own
> rules and refusing to accept proof other than an RD ticket.
> It's a long way from getting a civil court award against Paypal for
> reimbursement to getting legislation enacted that forces the preceding.

Are you unable to present an argument without using offensive language? It
certainly does not improve your credibility. I have already quoted the
legislation that means that the PayPal rule is legally invalidated by.
Furthermore it is an offence to include such terms in a consumer contract
under the Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The fact that PayPal have not
been prosecuted does not alter the fact that it is illegal.

Peter Crosland