closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 201 to 250 of 277

Thread: Not safe as a seller receiving Paypal....i lost both watch, money and confidence....

  1. #201
    Craftsman woodacre1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Preston
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by mr.chef View Post
    Both the buyer and the seller would have both ben covered by PayPal protection had the buyer filled the claim via PayPal. Paypal would have likely made a payout to both parties with neither loosing out. Due to the fact the buyer went to their credit card company instead the seller now misses out on this seller protection. I think the buyer owes it to the seller to file a police report(perhaps via action fraud), write to their credit card company clearly stating they never receive the watch and the "not as described" claim is false (they should also do the fo PayPal) and finally they should write a signed statement for the seller to use if needed. The seller has been left high and dry due to the way the buyer has pursued his refund. I do btw believe the buyer needs a refund but I also believe the seller shouldn't loose out.
    I think you are right there. But if this was me as a seller I’d refund the buyer and then start the process and I think that it would of been easier then. As the buyer would not of had to go to his CC company.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #202
    Master PreacherCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Deckard81 View Post
    This will be my last post here.
    I find it truly remarkable that some of you believe that I should bear some or all of the cost of the watch gone missing.

    I’ve paid for a watch for the price that was advertised and in the way the seller asked me to.
    I’ve never received the watch.
    End of story.
    I would expect a full refund from the seller.

    I’ve asked my CC company to refund me the money as I’ve never received the watch.
    They did. That’s it.

    If Royal Mail or Singapore post lost the parcel, it’s not my fault or responsibility.
    If someone in the UK stole the parcel, it’s not my fault or responsibility.
    If PayPal is not letting the seller keep his money it’s not my fault or responsibility.

    You are more than entitled to think that I’ve stolen the watch and/or that I’ve lied to my CC company, but I didn’t.

    Lastly, I’ve organised GTG for few people in the forum, I’ve donated to the fundraiser and to various charities on behalf of other members, sold items for the fundraiser, purchased items from SC and then donated them to other forum members as I knew they were looking for them, always sold everything I bought from SC at the same price it was bought originally. I believe I’ve always respected every forum rule, written and unwritten. I’ve trusted members for thousands of pounds in cash or watches worth thousand of pounds.

    I’ll slowly start selling everything I bought from here on SC and once I’m done you won’t hear from me again.

    Look after the profiteers, the trolls and the dealers.
    Honestly I can’t say I blame you Gab, though I shall be sorry to see you go.

    Some folks with remarkably interesting views on how best to do business here - and a good few I’ve mentally noted as “do not buy from”...

  3. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by woodacre1983 View Post
    You are the seller. You are the one with the onus to make sure the buyer receives their goods. They haven’t. And what has happened is not your fault but as a seller you need to accept they need their money back and realise that you need to be the one carrying out all the leg work to retrieve the parcel. I feel the buyer here has done plenty to try and help. I for one would deal with the buyer in the future no problem.

    I would not deal.

    His CC company made a chargeback on a 'not as described' basis. If I was the buyer I would have been on to them immediately to get them to make a correct claim of not received.

    If he was at all familiar with Paypal rules he would know that the seller would be covered for a 'not received' claim but would be denied on a 'not as described'.

    Was he influenced by the fact that the chances of a chargeback succeeding on a 'not received' claim would be very small? Organisations and insurance companies are not going to be paying out on things were there is actual evidence of a correct delivery to a person who has produce ID and signed for it, no way Jose, they would be swamped with claims if they did.

    We don't know what he told his CC company but he shouldn't just subsequently just shrug his shoulders and say 'I am not responsible for what they have said to Paypal'. Yes you are, they are acting as your agent, they have no skin in the game, it is not their money. I find it hard to comprehend why they would make a false claim to Paypal. Do they try and do this an all their 'not received' claims just because they know they are more likely to succeed. I find that hard to believe, it is not ethical, indeed it would be fraud.

    The buyer needs to contact both Paypal and his CC company to straighten the claim out. On corrected information the seller will get his protection but I am much less sure the buyer would still be able to hold on to the refund.



    Mitch

  4. #204
    Master PreacherCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
    The buyer needs to contact both Paypal and his CC company to straighten the claim out. On corrected information the seller will get his protection but I am much less sure the buyer would still be able to hold on to the refund.
    And you’d evidently be comfortable with that outcome - that a buyer is out of pocket because an item wasn’t delivered? OK.

  5. #205
    If this had been a normal BT payment as most of the sales on TZ are then the buyer would be refunded and that would be the end of it. The transaction was via PayPal and the seller paid fees to be protected by them in circumstances like this. The buyer has chosen to negate PayPal protection and allowed his credit card company to submit a false/fraudulent claim and this has caused the seller to loose out but £800+. This doesn’t sit right with me and I feel the buyer has the responsibility to put it right. I have no side in this fight and of things had been done correctly no one would have lost out

  6. #206
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    3,124
    The system has failed here and allowed a crook to steal. Royal Mail have not been rigorous enough. Communication between buyer and seller has failed due to understandable frustration on both sides.

    As a way forward I think the buyer could stress to cc, royal mail and paypal that this item was never received.

    Like others, I strongly suspect the cc company's incorrect claim was the path of least resistance to ensure their client was refunded but the harm done to the seller's rights seems to have been inconsiderately ignored.

    It would be right for them both to work together on this and cast aside the past if possible. Both were diddled by a wrong 'un.

  7. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by PreacherCain View Post
    And you’d evidently be comfortable with that outcome - that a buyer is out of pocket because an item wasn’t delivered? OK.

    Someone is losing money here. The seller, the buyer, or Paypal if they refund both. The seller is the one actually entitled to a refund under his contract terms with Paypal. The buyer takes his chances.

    The seller is the one losing here because the buyers agent acting on his behalf has said the item was delivered but 'not as described'. It's a false claim pure and simple, I am sure you can see that.

    Its not nice when a criminal action results in a loss to someone. Perhaps if you ever have a failed claim with an insurance company you can use this kumbaya argument with them 'is it fair that you are out of pocket?' I rather feel it wouldn't work though.



    Mitch

  8. #208
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    829
    Quote Originally Posted by Ares View Post
    Sorry, but this is not correct, and very unfair to the seller. The factual evidence is that that item was delivered. There is no dispute. The only evidence to the contrary is the buyer's word, and (no disrespect to the buyer) that is not better than the factual evidence.
    Actually, there isn't factual evidence the item was delivered to the buyer. We've seen a screen shot of a scribbled letter K and a word (the buyers last name, presumably on the package) in capitals. We don't know a card was presented, and we don't know what ID, if any was presented to support it.

    How can the buyer prove a negative? On here at least, only by his good word and reputation, and many people here have vouched for him. And in keeping with the majority here, I believe it belongs to the seller until the buyer has received the item.

    And at the end of the day, it's £700 quid. Painful to lose but not a life changing amount - certainly not worth the reputation of a member in good standing on here who has conducted many trades. The simple question here is, why would he bother?

    A mistake has happened, as many have said, is the most likely explanation, before we go around accusing people of lying and thievery. It happens. I believe every word both the seller and the buyer have said, but nonetheless the item, through no fault of either party, has gone missing. This just comes under the heading of life isn't fair.

  9. #209
    Master RustyBin5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Scotland central
    Posts
    5,432
    Has buyer contacted cc company and told them “thanks for the refund but your method was inaccurate as it was never opened to BE as described”? If they (the CC company) drop a note to Paypal clarifying this then at least the seller could then pursue things with PayPal.

  10. #210
    Quote Originally Posted by berin View Post
    Actually, there isn't factual evidence the item was delivered to the buyer. We've seen a screen shot of a scribbled letter K and a word (the buyers last name, presumably on the package) in capitals. We don't know a card was presented, and we don't know what ID, if any was presented to support it.

    How can the buyer prove a negative? On here at least, only by his good word and reputation, and many people here have vouched for him. And in keeping with the majority here, I believe it belongs to the seller until the buyer has received the item.
    Leaving aside the buyers reputation, if a signature isn't proof of delivery for signed services like RMSD what is?

  11. #211
    Master ~dadam02~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    2,551
    Blog Entries
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingstepper View Post
    Leaving aside the buyers reputation, if a signature isn't proof of delivery for signed services like RMSD what is?
    Which is why i do think the buyer does have more skin in this game in terms of trying to sort this out.

  12. #212
    Master IAmATeaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NW London
    Posts
    3,417
    Wouldn’t an item not as described be covered by the rule that it has to be returned? Could the seller maybe use that angle with PP to get them to reopen/recheck?

  13. #213
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    829
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingstepper View Post
    Leaving aside the buyers reputation, if a signature isn't proof of delivery for signed services like RMSD what is?
    He says it’s not his signature


    Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

  14. #214
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    826
    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBin5 View Post
    Has buyer contacted cc company and told them “thanks for the refund but your method was inaccurate as it was never opened to BE as described”? If they (the CC company) drop a note to Paypal clarifying this then at least the seller could then pursue things with PayPal.
    I really thnk the buyer should respond to this before he disappears from TZUK like he said he would.

  15. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by berin View Post
    He says it’s not his signature


    Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
    The buyer has admitted profiting from a credit card chargeback made under false pretences, so it is to be expected that doubts arise and remain.

  16. #216
    Quote Originally Posted by berin View Post
    He says it’s not his signature


    Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
    Unless it's checked against authentic signature when signing a signature is pretty useless. Any old scribble will do.

  17. #217
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    829
    Quote Originally Posted by vortgern View Post
    The buyer has admitted profiting from a credit card chargeback made under false pretences, so it is to be expected that doubts arise and remain.
    Well, he didn’t profit at all, did he, he just got his money back for goods which he never received. I believe what he said was that he had claimed from the credit card company, based on goods not received. He did this because the seller didn’t refund him, as most people would if they had taken money for something that didn’t arrive. His credit card company then claimed from PayPal, somebody somewhere checked the wrong box, and his trial by internet detectives who can’t be arsed to read the thread and couldn’t tell a fact from a piece of cheese is over!

    Guilty!

    You’re probably right, he should be forcibly removed from the forum and be banned from owning any more wrest watches!

    Meantime, back in the real world, think what you would do if you’d paid £700 for something that you’d never received


    Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

  18. #218
    Journeyman ChromeJob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Durham, NC US
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBin5 View Post
    Bit strong that sir. More likely is that Paypal pigeon holed the case under a category that suits them ie not as described. It does create opportunity for the OP to pursue PP for this error, assuming the buyer or his CC company never used that as the reason.
    Perhaps, but since a return wasn’t offered or even available, PayPal is potentially defrauding the seller here. Hence my advice that he retain legal representation to press the case effectively to PayPal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alansmithee View Post
    Are you on drugs?
    No, but I have a friend who worked at eBay and then PayPal and has told me tales of them siding with one party or the other for expediency despite evidence to the contrary. She finally parted ways with PayPal over conflicts in judgement. Hence my suggestion that the seller get legal representation, because I KNOW that PayPal will probably fold arms and say “that’s it, we’re done” to a lone customer trying to get the situation corrected. ESPECIALLY since the buyer has made clear he doesn’t’ want to help any further.

    Sorry, maybe I should’ve said “get a solicitor” to make it more understandable.

    And nothing in my post suggested or was intended to imply the seller should sue the buyer. I’m just making clear to the seller that no one on this forum (other than the buyer, who is apparently going to exit:stage left in a huff) can effectively help.

    Quote Originally Posted by peter2704 View Post
    buyer,CC,PP someone in that chain has decided its "not as described' to make it easier for themselves(logic would be if not as described then return item to seller then refund).find that point then you can proceed further. I suppose if your miles away and this is happening you will feel very isolated,cant imagine where to start if I were selling to singapore and this happened (walk a mile in someone else's shoes etc)
    Hence my advice. If the roles were reversed, I think the best you could do is press your case with the companies you have a contract with, i.e. PayPal or the carrier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joppers View Post
    Are you deliberately replying to this thread just to cause trouble ChromeJob?
    Nope. What trouble am I causing? We’re nothing more than interested bystanders in this. Of the engaged parties, one is asking for help/advice, the other is sitting on his hands and refusing to do anything. How could I be causing any mischief?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
    … His CC company made a chargeback on a 'not as described' basis. If I was the buyer I would have been on to them immediately to get them to make a correct claim of not received.

    If he was at all familiar with Paypal rules he would know that the seller would be covered for a 'not received' claim but would be denied on a 'not as described'.

    Was he influenced by the fact that the chances of a chargeback succeeding on a 'not received' claim would be very small? Organisations and insurance companies are not going to be paying out on things were there is actual evidence of a correct delivery to a person who has produce ID and signed for it, no way Jose, they would be swamped with claims if they did.

    We don't know what he told his CC company but he shouldn't just subsequently just shrug his shoulders and say 'I am not responsible for what they have said to Paypal'. Yes you are, they are acting as your agent, they have no skin in the game, it is not their money. I find it hard to comprehend why they would make a false claim to Paypal. Do they try and do this an all their 'not received' claims just because they know they are more likely to succeed. I find that hard to believe, it is not ethical, indeed it would be fraud.

    The buyer needs to contact both Paypal and his CC company to straighten the claim out. On corrected information the seller will get his protection but I am much less sure the buyer would still be able to hold on to the refund.
    Exactly. I don’t think our buyer intentionally defrauded anyone (perhaps a neighbor or a RM employee did), but standing pat with his CC refund and not correcting the clearly false claim is disturbing. (Leaving in a sulk isn’t any better. “Bah, you question my honor, sir?! I shall leave directly, slamming the door forcefully, and you shall be denied the pleasure of my company. Then you will be so sorry, indeed you will.”) If a claim to his creditor of “not received” despite the RM record required a police complaint record, then so be it, get that complaint filed. Do not accept the “we’re not interested” rebuke.

    It really shouldn’t be too much effort to clarify with his CC company. It might solve the issue by showing photos of the watch to local shops, pressing the case with the local police, maybe knocking on some neighbors’ doors, but that’s more time & effort, I appreciate that.

    The seller (OP) asked for opinions and suggestions. If anyone thinks it’s “causing trouble” to answer that request, your logic’s crooked.

  19. #219
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    sussex uk
    Posts
    80
    Personaly If I was the buyer I would want to be seeing the CCT footage at the Royal Mail callers office of the person signing for the parcel on the day date and time on the PDA.

  20. #220
    Master ryanb741's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,495
    I don't think buyer has left in a sulk, I think he's probably thought that there's a lot of petty insinuation from wannabe Columbos going on, that a blatant breach of GDPR regulations has occurred 're his personal data and that ultimately the Lion doesn't concern himself with the opinion of Sheep. At a guess.....

  21. #221
    Journeyman ChromeJob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Durham, NC US
    Posts
    244

    Not safe as a seller receiving Paypal....i lost both watch, money and confidence....

    Insults do not make a compelling argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by ChromeJob View Post
    … Exactly. I don’t think our buyer intentionally defrauded anyone (perhaps a neighbor or a RM employee did), but standing pat with his CC refund and not correcting the clearly false claim is disturbing.
    Last edited by ChromeJob; 7th December 2018 at 20:11.

  22. #222
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,725
    Why didn’t the seller refund the buyer immediately, when he was informed that the buyer hadn’t received the package.

  23. #223
    Master ryanb741's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,495
    Quote Originally Posted by EJL25 View Post
    Why didn’t the seller refund the buyer immediately, when he was informed that the buyer hadn’t received the package.
    This.

  24. #224
    Master ryanb741's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,495
    Quote Originally Posted by ChromeJob View Post
    Insults do not make a compelling argument.
    No, a compelling argument makes a compelling argument. Insinuations and borderline slander do not.

  25. #225
    Journeyman ChromeJob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Durham, NC US
    Posts
    244

    Not safe as a seller receiving Paypal....i lost both watch, money and confidence....

    Quote Originally Posted by EJL25 View Post
    Why didn’t the seller refund the buyer immediately, when he was informed that the buyer hadn’t received the package.
    Because RM provided signature proof (what there was) of delivery to the intended recipient.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryanb741 View Post
    No, a compelling argument makes a compelling argument. Insinuations and borderline slander do not.
    Show me the alleged slander, and I’ll show you a sea lawyer who’s had one too many (or just trolling to cause mischief).

  26. #226
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,725
    Quote Originally Posted by ChromeJob View Post
    Because RM provided signature proof (what there was) of delivery to the intended recipient.
    The buyer didn’t receive the package. It doesn’t matter how/why he didn’t get it.
    The seller hadn’t completed the deal.
    -> refund the buyer

  27. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanb741 View Post
    No, a compelling argument makes a compelling argument. Insinuations and borderline slander do not.
    Couldn't agree more but one compelling argument above all others in this sorry situation is that Paypal declined seller protection based on the case being processed as "item not as described". I've no idea what the buyer has done since this information has been made clear for all to see but, regardless of whether the seller should have insured the watch or refunded the buyer immediately on being told the watch hadn't been received, this is one matter that should be corrected and the correct process followed. This will at least allow the seller to be afforded the correct protection by Paypal as he is entitled to.
    If the buyer redresses the situation then he might be afforded more leniency by those speaking out against him on this thread. This isn't insinuation or slander or playing Columbo. It's just stating facts.
    Last edited by sevvy; 7th December 2018 at 20:37.

  28. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by EJL25 View Post
    The buyer didn’t receive the package. It doesn’t matter how/why he didn’t get it.
    The seller hadn’t completed the deal.
    -> refund the buyer
    This was a deal done through Paypal, where the seller paid them a fee for their services, which include both seller and buyer protection. Why is he also refunding direct when he has already paid?

    Yeah that's exactly what you would do, send a £1000 item tracked and signed for, then the recipient tells you he hasn't got it. Your courier tells you they delivered it to the correct address and someone there identified themselves and signed for it. But no, you refund him straight away, even though he is a stranger to you. You don't ask for any investigation, no action on his part to chase this up, his word is good enough for you.

    Say you actually did wait for Paypal to look into it, you then find an agent acting on his behalf has made a false statement to Paypal, a statement very advantageous to his chances of getting money from Paypal, but disastrous to you because this false statement has nullified your paid for seller protection.

    However, you are perfectly happy with this, no doubts at all, don't expect this stranger to try and rectify matters over this false statement?




    Mitch

  29. #229
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
    This was a deal done through Paypal, where the seller paid them a fee for their services, which include both seller and buyer protection. Why is he also refunding direct when he has already paid?

    Yeah that's exactly what you would do, send a £1000 item tracked and signed for, then the recipient tells you he hasn't got it. Your courier tells you they delivered it to the correct address and someone there identified themselves and signed for it. But no, you refund him straight away, even though he is a stranger to you. You don't ask for any investigation, no action on his part to chase this up, his word is good enough for you.

    Say you actually did wait for Paypal to look into it, you then find an agent acting on his behalf has made a false statement to Paypal, a statement very advantageous to his chances of getting money from Paypal, but disastrous to you because this false statement has nullified your paid for seller protection.

    However, you are perfectly happy with this, no doubts at all, don't expect this stranger to try and rectify matters over this false statement?


    Mitch
    Yes, I would’ve refunded him immediately. And I have.

    The buyer wouldn’t have contacted the CC company if the seller would’ve refunded the money.

    After the refund the seller would’ve contacted the PP and informed them that the package hasn’t arrived to the buyer.
    PP would probably contacted the buyer or asked for a statement from the buyer that he hasn’t received the package.
    PP would have probably refunded the seller.

    You’re welcome.

  30. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by EJL25 View Post
    Yes, I would’ve refunded him immediately. And I have.

    .
    If you go into business, I wouldn't advertise your return policy if I was you, you would be broke within a week.



    Mitch

  31. #231
    Craftsman woodacre1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Preston
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
    If you go into business, I wouldn't advertise your return policy if I was you, you would be broke within a week.



    Mitch
    In all honesty this isn’t a business it’s a forum of like minded enthusiasts and I believe in the main part a forum of very few scam artists. Refunding immediately would of been the best way forward after looking at the buyers reputation on here. Refund immediately and then work together using PayPal to get the seller the refund too.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  32. #232
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
    If you go into business, I wouldn't advertise your return policy if I was you, you would be broke within a week.

    Mitch
    Great comeback.
    You might not want to advertise your return policy here if you want to sell something.
    Oh, too late.

  33. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by EJL25 View Post
    Yes, I would’ve refunded him immediately. And I have.

    The buyer wouldn’t have contacted the CC company if the seller would’ve refunded the money.

    After the refund the seller would’ve contacted the PP and informed them that the package hasn’t arrived to the buyer.
    PP would probably contacted the buyer or asked for a statement from the buyer that he hasn’t received the package.
    PP would have probably refunded the seller.

    You’re welcome.
    I’m not sure PayPal would have refunded the seller in your scenario as their fee will have also been refunded. Of corse the buyer needs a refund and that is without question but the selller paid a fee to protect himself in a situation like this and now due to the buyers actions looses £700 odd. Hopefully the buyer has now contacted their card company and is assisting the seller so he doesn’t loose out as well.

  34. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by woodacre1983 View Post
    In all honesty this isn’t a business it’s a forum of like minded enthusiasts and I believe in the main part a forum of very few scam artists. Refunding immediately would of been the best way forward after looking at the buyers reputation on here. Refund immediately and then work together using PayPal to get the seller the refund too.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Agree with you under normal circumstances but there was the opportunity for neither the buyer nor seller loosing any money. It should have been both the buyer and seller working together against RM and PayPal to obtain refunds on both sides. I would hope if I was in this situation I couldn’t just wash my hands once I had been refunded. If it had been paid for by BT then of corse a instant refund should be made.

  35. #235
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,725
    Quote Originally Posted by mr.chef View Post
    I’m not sure PayPal would have refunded the seller in your scenario as their fee will have also been refunded. Of corse the buyer needs a refund and that is without question but the selller paid a fee to protect himself in a situation like this and now due to the buyers actions looses £700 odd. Hopefully the buyer has now contacted their card company and is assisting the seller so he doesn’t loose out as well.
    If the seller refunds the buyer because the package hasn’t been delivered to the buyer, he is not protected?

  36. #236
    Craftsman woodacre1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Preston
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by mr.chef View Post
    Agree with you under normal circumstances but there was the opportunity for neither the buyer nor seller loosing any money. It should have been both the buyer and seller working together against RM and PayPal to obtain refunds on both sides. I would hope if I was in this situation I couldn’t just wash my hands once I had been refunded. If it had been paid for by BT then of corse a instant refund should be made.
    Maybe a refund could of been given via BT initially as a sign of ‘goodwill’ so the buyer isn’t out of pocket


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  37. #237
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    933
    This thread has really spiralled out of control.
    If any of us ordered a watch and didn’t get it they would want their money back.
    It is easy to judge from the convenience of our sofa and offer creative solutions when it is not our watch that got lost.
    The fact is that the seller sent something without fully insuring it. It got lost and never got delivered. The risk lies with the seller....



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  38. #238
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,725
    Quote Originally Posted by woodacre1983 View Post
    Maybe a refund could of been given via BT initially as a sign of ‘goodwill’ so the buyer isn’t out of pocket


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    This is what I was thinking.

  39. #239
    Journeyman ChromeJob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Durham, NC US
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by EJL25 View Post
    Yes, I would’ve refunded him immediately. And I have.

    You’re welcome.
    Good for you. But I’ve seen situations where a buyer (from a business) claimed they never received the product, but the carrier showed the person’s signature, quite clearly. A friend who ran a volume mail order business got 5-10 chargeback inquiries every month from artful dodgers who tried to get a free product by claiming non-delivery. He had to spend time every month providing the delivery confirmation back to the CC companies to refute.

    It does happen, much more than we’d like to think.

    Now with everything digital it’s much easier. He had to do it all by fax. :(


    So in defense of a hypothetical seller on the other side of the world, if the carrier(s) provide proof of signature delivery to the intended addressee, it should be taken at face value. If the buyer then claims “I never got it,” but a Paypal buyer dispute comes in as “item not as described,” warning bells should go off. Would a reasonable person say, “Oh, sure you can have your money back in addition to the watch the carrier said they delivered to you?” If you think so, please send me your recreational drugs so I can reproduce your reasoning.

  40. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by EJL25 View Post
    This is what I was thinking.
    Agree this would have been the best situation.

  41. #241
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,725
    Quote Originally Posted by ChromeJob View Post
    Good for you. But I’ve seen situations where a buyer (from a business) claimed they never received the product, but the carrier showed the person’s signature, quite clearly. A friend who ran a volume mail order business got 5-10 chargeback inquiries every month from artful dodgers who tried to get a free product by claiming non-delivery. He had to spend time every month providing the delivery confirmation back to the CC companies to refute.

    It does happen, much more than we’d like to think.

    Now with everything digital it’s much easier. He had to do it all by fax. :(


    So in defense of a hypothetical seller on the other side of the world, if the carrier(s) provide proof of signature delivery to the intended addressee, it should be taken at face value. If the buyer then claims “I never got it,” but a Paypal buyer dispute comes in as “item not as described,” warning bells should go off. Would a reasonable person say, “Oh, sure you can have your money back in addition to the watch the carrier said they delivered to you?” If you think so, please send me your recreational drugs so I can reproduce your reasoning.
    This forum is not a business.
    The buyer is a member with great reputation.
    You might ignore those kind of things but I wouldn’t.

  42. #242
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Winchester
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Ar.parask View Post
    This thread has really spiralled out of control.
    If any of us ordered a watch and didn’t get it they would want their money back.
    It is easy to judge from the convenience of our sofa and offer creative solutions when it is not our watch that got lost.
    The fact is that the seller sent something without fully insuring it. It got lost and never got delivered. The risk lies with the seller....
    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I'd read the thread again properly

    Insurance would make zero difference as RM have a signature for delivery from someone claiming to be the buyer so as far as RM are concerned it is not lost.
    The seller actually had insurance through paypal protection but he cannot use that as the buyer / his credit card have incorrectly filed a claim for item not as described instead of item not delivered which also cuts across the point above.
    Sure I'd want my money back, but equally I would not do so predicated off claiming the item was not as described which is factually incorrect and causes issues for the equally innocent seller. None of us are saying the buyer initiated that, but if it was me and I found out my credit card company had mis-represented the situation, I would look to set the record straight.

    As things stand the seller could now claim he wants the item back given paypal has ruled it as an item not as described which raises further issues and potentially for the buyer who does not have the watch to return.

  43. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by EJL25 View Post
    Great comeback.
    You might not want to advertise your return policy here if you want to sell something.
    Oh, too late.

    If people want to work on a total trust basis between strangers, then use BT and rely on trust and the seller gets his full price.

    If Paypal is used, then the seller has to pay out of his own pocket for both his own and the buyers protection, the buyer is paying nothing.

    If something goes wrong, the seller is reliant on the buyer following this up with Paypal and being truthful.

    If he just refunded straight up, then what would stop the buyer saying 'oh I am too busy to be bothering with Paypal, the matter is finalised from my point of view', nullifying the sellers protection? What would stop the Buyer telling Paypal that the item was 'not as described', not that it was not received, nullifying the sellers paid for protection?

    Oh............. the buyer seems to be doing both of those two things here.


    Mitch

  44. #244
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
    If people want to work on a total trust basis between strangers, then use BT and rely on trust and the seller gets his full price.

    If Paypal is used, then the seller has to pay out of his own pocket for both his own and the buyers protection, the buyer is paying nothing.

    If something goes wrong, the seller is reliant on the buyer following this up with Paypal and being truthful.

    If he just refunded straight up, then what would stop the buyer saying 'oh I am too busy to be bothering with Paypal, the matter is finalised from my point of view', nullifying the sellers protection? What would stop the Buyer telling Paypal that the item was 'not as described', not that it was not received, nullifying the sellers paid for protection?

    Oh............. the buyer seems to be doing both of those two things here.


    Mitch
    First of all.
    That wouldn’t have happened if the seller would’ve refunded the buyer.

    Second.
    The buyer has done plenty, even the seller didn’t refund him straight away. Which he should’ve done. The buyer has contacted RM and the police. None of them seem to be interested.
    The seller is the one that should pressure the Singapore Post on the matter.

  45. #245
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sussex, UK
    Posts
    3,577
    I've been lucky, and had no problems. My basic assumption is that if the parcel has been signed-for, it's been delivered. To assume otherwise is to render the system largely useless. In this case, the claimant could be said to be making a false claim...the situation has nothing to do with 'not as described.' That's just not correct.
    There is so much potential for bad-faith in these transactions, everyone is at risk.
    Last edited by paskinner; 7th December 2018 at 22:42.

  46. #246
    Grand Master Chris_in_the_UK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    arroget'
    Posts
    33,956
    Quote Originally Posted by paskinner View Post
    There is so much potential for bad-faith in these transactions.
    Never used to be on here.
    When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........

  47. #247
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    WEST YORKS
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by lew07 View Post
    Personaly If I was the buyer I would want to be seeing the CCT footage at the Royal Mail callers office of the person signing for the parcel on the day date and time on the PDA.
    Agree, if this was done the matter would have been cleared up straight away.

  48. #248
    Master ~dadam02~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    2,551
    Blog Entries
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Ar.parask View Post
    The fact is that the seller sent something without fully insuring it. It got lost and never got delivered. The risk lies with the seller...
    Not true, even if the seller had insurance would the insurance company pay out if there was proof the item was delivered? Obviously not.

  49. #249
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael E View Post
    Agree, if this was done the matter would have been cleared up straight away.
    You really think that they would let a customer to see CCT footage?

  50. #250
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    WEST YORKS
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by EJL25 View Post
    You really think that they would let a customer to see CCT footage?
    If the buyer was stood in front of them they could probably confirm that it was not him who collected the package.

    I had a watch stolen not too long ago, The post office confirmed it was not the sender of the watch who was actually at the desk posting the watch, like the sender had said he had, it turned out to be a totally different person.
    So although I did not see the CCTV footage myself, the post office did confirm that it was a different person.
    The CCTV footage was also saved onto a memory stick by the post office for the police to view.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •