From: Peter Parry on
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:38:50 +0000 (UTC), Moog <efcmoog(a)gmail.invalid>
wrote:


>The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over financial institutions with their
>head offices based in Luxembourg.

The ombudsman has full authority over Paypal for complaints brought by
UK consumers. Their authority is exactly the same as if PayPal were
UK based. Paypal accepted voluntary jurisdiction by the FSO on 2 July
2007 . By doing so they agreed to deal with complaints and comply
with FSO decisions in the same way as under compulsory jurisdiction.


From: Peter Parry on
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:42:24 +0000 (UTC), Moog <efcmoog(a)gmail.invalid>
wrote:

>
>Irrelevant. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction outside of the UK.

The FSO has a voluntary jurisdiction scheme for financial institutions
outside the UK which wish to comply with UK ADR procedures. PayPal
joined this scheme 2 years ago.

>What paypal are doing is simply stating they follow UK guidelines.

No, they have agreed to be bound by FSO decisions.

>They are not obliged to follow UK financial law at all.

Yes they are.

>They are not a UK financial body.

Most finance law these days comes from Brussels, and they are an EU
financial body. However, as previously mentioned, PayPal are bound by
FSO decisions.
From: Peter Parry on
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:10:32 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
<g6jns(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote

>> Because it is quite legal. Peter's opinion that their condition is an
>> unfair condition is questionable. They are offering a contractual
>> protection with certain conditions. Whether or not those conditions
>> are reasonable have not been tested in court nor have they been
>> subject to assessment by the likes of the OFT.
>
>The whole essence of the Unfair Trading legislation is to prevent dominant
>parties, such as PayPal, imposing conditions on consumers, that are
>fundamentally unfair.

Paypal are not imposing conditions upon consumers or contracts which
are unfair. They are offering an alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
process over and above any statutory requirement and in addition to
rights in the contract which exists between the buyer and seller. They
are not required to do anything but have made the commercial decision
that giving buyers more confidence in their transactions by offering
ADR will increase the popularity of eBay.

If they offered nothing at all that in itself would not be unfair so
it is difficult to see how offering something better than nothing
would suddenly become unfair to the consumer. It is no different from
offering a guarantee, there is no requirement to give one but if one
is given it can contain almost any condition you like.

> It is difficult to see how refusing to accept a proof
>of delivery that would be acceptable in court can be considered anything but
>unfair.

If you don't want to use their dispute resolution process you don't
have to. Your position would be no worse than any other purchaser in
any other venue. They make their conditions quite clear beforehand.

>It is very clear that it is done just for PayPal's administrative
>convenience.

Of course it is.
From: The Older Gentleman on
Peter Parry <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:

> I can't recall saying any of their T's&C's are illegal.

You didn't. He lied.


--
BMW K1100LT & K100RS Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: Peter Crosland on
"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:0k66c5tbascjb4s0darnoejjp7tdfitkku(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:10:32 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
> <g6jns(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote
>
>>> Because it is quite legal. Peter's opinion that their condition is an
>>> unfair condition is questionable. They are offering a contractual
>>> protection with certain conditions. Whether or not those conditions
>>> are reasonable have not been tested in court nor have they been
>>> subject to assessment by the likes of the OFT.
>>
>>The whole essence of the Unfair Trading legislation is to prevent dominant
>>parties, such as PayPal, imposing conditions on consumers, that are
>>fundamentally unfair.
>
> Paypal are not imposing conditions upon consumers or contracts which
> are unfair. They are offering an alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
> process over and above any statutory requirement and in addition to
> rights in the contract which exists between the buyer and seller. They
> are not required to do anything but have made the commercial decision
> that giving buyers more confidence in their transactions by offering
> ADR will increase the popularity of eBay.
>
> If they offered nothing at all that in itself would not be unfair so
> it is difficult to see how offering something better than nothing
> would suddenly become unfair to the consumer. It is no different from
> offering a guarantee, there is no requirement to give one but if one
> is given it can contain almost any condition you like.
>
>> It is difficult to see how refusing to accept a proof
>>of delivery that would be acceptable in court can be considered anything
>>but
>>unfair.
>
> If you don't want to use their dispute resolution process you don't
> have to. Your position would be no worse than any other purchaser in
> any other venue. They make their conditions quite clear beforehand.
>
>>It is very clear that it is done just for PayPal's administrative
>>convenience.
>
> Of course it is.

Paypal are not just offering an ADR service. They are offering a service
that gives, subject to certain condiditons, a guarantee that the buyer will
be protected against loss if the seller fails in some way to provide goods
that are satisfactory and then refuses to refund the seller. That contract
between PayPal and the buyer is subject to the provisions of the legislation
that prevenst unfair terms in consumer contracts.


Peter Crosland