# PayPal gift payments & marketplace



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

What if - from now on - anybody buying or selling via the marketplace could not - ever again - use a PayPal "gift" payment? Apparently, using "gift" for "goods" is fraud and anyone "caught" can be banned from using that section. Perhaps a disgruntled person could (has?) threaten legal action against the forum?
So imagine that from now on - every transaction would have to be "taxed" by PayPal - so added cost for every buyer, less money for sellers plus there's the risk of "chargeback abuse" (especially from anonymous new forum members who are not TTOC registered).
So it looks as though one individual can single handedly shut down the marketplace as we know it - no more trust, no more "forum price" - everything through PayPal or ebay. (Cash on collection wouldn't be affected, I believe).
A fund for the marketplace, setup recently to help where people are ripped-off, accepts PayPal gift for "donations" - but with gift payments, apparently no stickers are given (that would be fraud, apparently) I wonder, if all payments were now handled solely via PayPal goods - would there be any need for such a fund anymore? Surely PayPal would take care of the "protection"?

What would we think about this?

What alternative payment methods are there?

Whilst on the subject, regardless of how PayPal sees the rules of these payments - how do you feel about "payment protection fees"? *Should these fees be added to the sale price AFTERwards by the buyer? (Ie £100+£4fees), or should they be added to the price in advance? (Ie £104). *
(Apparently, the former breaks paypal t&cs - so to say "£x.xx plus fees is not allowed and could lead to a forum marketplace ban).

I've dealt with hundreds of customers over a couple of years and never had an issue over the payment method. But there's always one bad apple who ruins everything for everyone else isn't there!

**EDIT* this has now been implemented : viewtopic.php?t=910521


----------



## ReTTro fit (Nov 9, 2014)

Maybe direct bank transfer could be an option ??

On iPhone using Tapacrap


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

I can't see people willingly handing out those details to all and sundry, but we'll see.

Personally I'd be fascinated to see how this would affect the marketplace. If everyone just continued using "gift" the forum admin wouldn't be able to enforce it anyway. As long as nothing is mentioned in the listing and neither party goes "telling tales" to admin - how *can* it be enforced?


----------



## TomBorehamUK (Feb 2, 2014)

Hey I'm happy with it, I always use "PayPal Goods" over "PayPal gift" Especially on large purchases - no matter how much I'd like to trust someone over the internet it's nice to have the peace of mind of a little recourse.

But that's just me 8)



mullum said:


> A fund for the marketplace, setup recently to help where people are ripped-off, accepts PayPal gift for "donations" - but with gift payments, apparently no stickers are given (that would be fraud!)


Also, why would this be fraud?


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

TomBorehamUK said:


> Hey I'm happy with it, I always use "PayPal Goods" over "PayPal gift" Especially on large purchases - no matter how much I'd like to trust someone over the internet it's nice to have the peace of mind of a little recourse.
> 
> But that's just me 8)


Sorry to be pedantic, but you say "always" followed by "especially". So is that always or sometimes? Because if you're saying you use gift for "smaller purchases" - you're committing fraud "sometimes"! (Just saying, I'm not opposed myself)



TomBorehamUK said:


> mullum said:
> 
> 
> > A fund for the marketplace, setup recently to help where people are ripped-off, accepts PayPal gift for "donations" - but with gift payments, apparently no stickers are given (that would be fraud!)
> ...


Apparently accepting "gift" for "goods" is fraud according to paypals t&cs.

Whenever I buy I want to use "goods" - unless I trust the seller and they're prepared to give me the discount of the fees.
Whenever I sell I want THEM to use "gift" - mainly so that there's no option there for abuse of the payment protection at a later date. Let's face it - it's very easy to abuse (I won't go into it though!)
BUT, if no "alarm bells" start ringing (some people are just clearly more trouble than a sale is worth!) then I may allow them to ADD the fees. But this is where it gets sticky - the fees MUST be quoted IN ADVANCE (so I'm told).

Imagine this scenario : you list something on here for £100 (no payment method mentioned). The buyer agrees and immediately sends you a paypal "goods" payment for £100 - you receive £96 (roughly). BUT - you haven't requested or agreed to a *paypal* payment so you refund the money and ask for £104. You've broken their t&cs - because you ADDED the fees to the price.

*Question : if someone asked YOU to pay (OR offered to pay YOU) via "gift" (aka "friends and family") - would you report them to forum admin? Or to paypal? *


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I suspect this is really a non-issue. The TTF can't be seen to be promoting something that is technically a breach of your contract with Paypal (I doubt it could really be treated as fraud), but they aren't responsible for policing all the actions of the forums members.

By telling members not to use the 'gift' option for goods purchases (and let's face it, we all knew you weren't supposed to - it's no different to asking for a package from abroad to be marked as a gift or a sample to avoid paying duty on it) the TTF have done more than they really need to.

The TTF have no contract with PayPal, so as long as they don't encourage something that's illegal they're absolutely fine. The TTF has no responsibility to tell it's members to follow the terms of their contract with PayPal, any more than they have a responsibility to tell us not to murder each other or not to rob pensioners in the street (I checked and these are both, unfortunately, illegal).

The TTOC, on the other hand, do have a responsibility to ensure that they don't allow purchases from them that breach their PayPal contract.


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

Spandex said:


> ..... but *they aren't responsible for policing all the actions of the forums members*
> 
> They shouldn't be, but they have threatened someone with a ban for things like :
> "Not apologising" and ..
> ...


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Their responsibilities are separate from their actions. They aren't responsible for the behaviour of their members outside this forum, but they can chose to ban whoever they want for whatever reasons they want.



mullum said:


> It could be a "non issue" but that depends on how people behave.
> How would we feel about someone making a complaint to admin against someone for using the "G-word"? (Gift) Or threatening legal action against the forum itself - over this "non issue"?


Someone could complain to admin about a seller requesting a payment is made as a gift, and the forums legal obligation, at most, would be to advise them it's against Paypal's rules. If the forum chooses to go beyond that, it's up to them.

Assuming the forum doesn't actively encourage people to breach their contracts with Paypal I can't see how anyone could possibly threaten them with legal action. The forum hasn't committed fraud and they have no contract with Paypal to breach.


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

I understand the forums legal obligations - but my question was - "how would people feel about someone reporting them (to admin or paypal) as being "fraudulent" - for suggesting payment via "gift"?
Is this the kind of person we want on here?



Spandex said:


> Assuming the forum doesn't actively encourage people to breach their contracts with Paypal I can't see how anyone could possibly threaten them with legal action. The forum hasn't committed fraud and they have no contract with Paypal to breach.


Exactly, but a threat of legal action can send some people (including admin) into a bit of a state!


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Perhaps I'm missing something here. Paypal have always stated in their T's & C's that you can't use gift payments for purchasing goods, so there has always been the possibility that someone would report you to them for trying to do it. All that's changed here is that the TTF has decided to make it a Marketplace rule as well, giving your potential buyer one more person to report it to.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Oh, and to answer your other question, why *wouldn't *we want people who complained about someone breaking forum rules on here? Is it just because this particular rule potentially affects your profit margins?

Personally I think a buyer would be an idiot to voluntarily give up the protection that comes with making a standard (non-gift) payment through Paypal, so I can totally understand why the TTF has made this a marketplace rule (even though the random talk of 'fraud' has distracted from the more sensible reasons).


----------



## ReTTro fit (Nov 9, 2014)

Obviously the seller would need to put there prices up to compensate the fees 
But the buyer would always still have the option to send as a gift if they wanted it cheaper but did so at there risk

On iPhone using Tapacrap


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

Can we keep this non-personal please? I've not once said this is about me, nor has anyone else been named. Please stick to discussing the issue, and avoid casting aspersions on individuals.

Spandex - "breaking rules" is one thing. When the entire forum as been "breaking the rules" for many years - it affects everybody - not just me. Why are you making this about me? It's about the new rule, how it has come about and how it affects everyone. Of course there will be those who have never and never would use the gift option. But I believe they are in a minority.

To answer your question to me directly - this will not affect anybodies profits - it will affect PRICES and it could increase "payment protection" abuse.

It's not "random talk of fraud" - it's forum admins wording - not mine! Please read the link posted in the first thread.


----------



## ReTTro fit (Nov 9, 2014)

Sorry mullum, edited my post

On iPhone using Tapacrap


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

You're a gentleman ;-)


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

mullum said:


> Can we keep this non-personal please? I've not once said this is about me, nor has anyone else been named. Please stick to discussing the issue, and avoid casting aspersions on individuals.
> 
> Spandex - "breaking rules" is one thing. When the entire forum as been "breaking the rules" for many years - it affects everybody - not just me. Why are you making this about me? It's about the new rule, how it has come about and how it affects everyone. Of course there will be those who have never and never would use the gift option. But I believe they are in a minority.
> 
> It's not "random talk of fraud" - it's forum admins wording - not mine! Please read the link posted in the first thread.


I'm making it about you because I'm replying to *your *posts expressing *your *opinion. I'm also happy for you to make your replies 'about me'. It'll be like having one of those 'conversation' things I've read about. 

The 'entire forum' hasn't been breaking rules for years - individuals on this forum may have chosen to be in breach of contract with Paypal many times though, and have always done so with the risk that the other party might chose to report them to Paypal.

Ultimately the buyer is never disadvantaged by using standard Paypal payments, so the only people likely to have an issue with this are sellers. Even so, I suspect your average Joe selling the odd surplus used part on here will just take the commission into account and price accordingly, so really the only sellers who won't be happy are those who are selling as a 'business' (i.e. buying a stock of new products and selling at a profit) because they have to chose between increasing prices or decreasing profit margins, both of which might affect their figures.

This forum (and others like it) offer sellers a fantastic opportunity to advertise to a very focused market, cheaply (or even for free) and I don't think it's unfair of them to expect sellers to follow some fairly reasonable rules in return for that privilege.


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

No I don't think that's unfair either. Don't believe I've suggested as such? Did anybody suggest such a thing? Are you hearing voices?

A lot of what you've said is correct, but doesn't actually add anything to the discussion. It's like you're having one of those "conversation things" with yourself, stating the bloomin' obvious I'm afraid.

As for not making this personal - basically what you've said there is that you're going to say what you like regardless - then offer up a ridiculous reason for doing so. I know how these conversations go with you, so I'll leave it there. You win. I give up before I even start. Happy? Probably not, as I'm sure you prefer the argument itself over the win.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

mullum said:


> No I don't think that's unfair either. Don't believe I've suggested as such? Did anybody suggest such a thing? Are you hearing voices?
> 
> As for not making this personal - basically what you've said there is that you're going to say what you like regardless - then offer up a ridiculous reason for doing so. I know how these conversations go with you, so I'll leave it there. You win. I give up before I even start. Happy? Probably not, as I'm sure you prefer the argument itself over the win.


Sigh. There's a difference between 'personal' and 'offensive'. I have no intention of "saying what I like" and I don't think I've said anything so far that should give you that impression. But it's clear you have a horse in this race and it's also clear from your posts that you're not particularly happy about the new rule.

It would actually be much easier to talk about the subject if you just spoke about why you're against it (or even why you're for it, if I've completely misread your feelings on it), instead of trying to control the discussion.


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

Spandex said:


> I'm making it about you ...





Spandex said:


> There's a difference between 'personal' and 'offensive'.


Where/when does/did the word "offensive" come into this? You've lost me.
I'm not controlling anything but you want to manipulate the conversation into being about me - rather than being about the announcement.

I imagined people might discuss things like : how this will affect prices, how it might affect "chargeback vulnerability". Perhaps people might think the change reduces flexibility?
I didn't think anyone would go on and on about how rules are rules! Whether someone knew that "gift for goods" was fraud or not - I don't think they're going to dispute it. So why are you continuing to reinforce your point when nobody disputes it?

If you re-read my first post I think you'll rediscover the topics I was looking to discuss.


----------



## ReTTro fit (Nov 9, 2014)

Because reading every post he writes he like to argue 
Your biting mull, walk away and leave him to it mate

On iPhone using Tapacrap


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Ok, ok. Let's only discuss the points you want to. You do own this thread after all...

1. How will this affect prices? It will add somewhere between 0% and 3.4% to the price depending on who ultimately picks up the Paypal fee.

2. How might it affect chargeback vulnerability? It won't affect the vulnerability, but increases the number of people able to exploit it. However common sense dictates that the people who would in the past have been trusting enough to pay as a gift are unlikely to be the same people who would use chargeback unnecessarily.

3. Might the changes reduce flexibility? No idea what flexibility they could affect.

Hey, you might not like discussing it with me, but no one else seems to give a shit so beggars can't be choosers!


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

1wheelonly said:


> Because reading every post he writes he like to argue
> Your biting mull, walk away and leave him to it mate


You're reading every post I write? How sweet... :-*


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

Lol that's true! As are the points you make above 
Point 3. I think I just made that up 

In the marketplace "items for sale" - Search found 932 matches: "gift"

Just saying [smiley=book2.gif]


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

mullum said:


> In the marketplace "items for sale" - Search found 932 matches: "gift"
> 
> Just saying [smiley=book2.gif]


Are you "just saying" that you suspect most of these posts were made before the rules changed? If so, I agree.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

HMRC :wink:

Just saying :lol:


----------



## TomBorehamUK (Feb 2, 2014)

mullum said:


> TomBorehamUK said:
> 
> 
> > Hey I'm happy with it, I always use "PayPal Goods" over "PayPal gift" Especially on large purchases - no matter how much I'd like to trust someone over the internet it's nice to have the peace of mind of a little recourse.
> ...


Rereading what you said, you're agreeing with the forums view of not sending out stickers with payment via "PayPal gift" as that would be deemed fraud, I misinterpreted what you said as accusing them of fraud because of this. :roll:

To answer your question, no I wouldn't but I don't see the relevance there.


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

Sorry my post was half directed at you (thanks for answering) and half at the thread in general.

*This news just in!*

This rule, brought in a few days ago - is being enforced *RETROSPECTIVELY! *

Which means, if you *EVER* paid by or accepted payment by PayPal gift (for goods via this forum) - you've committed fraud!*Even if you did this prior to the rule coming into force!*

What action the forum will take against everybody is unclear. It may just be used as a technicality to force people to do admins bidding! :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

mullum said:


> Sorry my post was half directed at you (thanks for answering) and half at the thread in general.
> 
> *This news just in!*
> 
> ...


Has this been posted somewhere on here? I'd be curious to see how they'd implement that. They really need to stop calling it fraud too.


----------



## anthony_839 (Apr 9, 2013)

ive sold a thin on here any haven't had anyone message me regard to paypal gift or not... 
infact I didn't even put in my advert if the buyer chose to send it as a gift better for me if not oh well its 3% not going to kill me....

and tbh as a buyer or even seller you know your breaking some kind of rule by asking for payment as a gift as it says when you send the payment on paypal payment to a friend / family or payment for goods......

so what dose it matter that the forum are now saying you have to do it the correct way....

if the buyer is happy to send as gift and has been on here / forums for a while they will continue to do so..
new people / ppl not willing to will not

take it as you win some you lose some...


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

Apparently I've misunderstood and it's NOT a NEW rule, it's a clarification of existing rules (ahem). IIRC - previously this "rule" was only a "guideline" ie their "advice" was for everyone to use "goods" payments. It's now mandatory and going to be enforced. Where admin feel like it, of course :-D
Ok done and dusted. Not a big issue, like Spandex said.

But this has brought up another, related, issue. But that's a subject for a different thread.


----------

