WABBY ENTERPRISES LLC through Paypal.com
Complaint 7498 Details

Ms. Betsy Winkelman, managing member of WABBY Enterprises LLC, purchased an opal & diamond ring from me, Classic_Chloe on OnlineAuction.com (OLA) on July 18, 2011.

I mailed the ring to her right away (July 19, 2011) via USPS insured Priority Mail. Less than a week later, Ms.W filed a dispute/claim against my Paypal account because she says she did not receive the package.

I sent copies of the USPS Mail receipt, the insurance receipt and a USPS delivery confirmation form to Paypal as evidence that I did send the ring out when I said I would, that I insured the ring, and that the Postal Service had delivered the package on July 21, 2011.

In spite of this, Paypal's dispute resolution supervisor, Susan (no last name, but she gave me her Paypal employee #40106), decided to award Ms.W the $462 in question as a refund for the ring.

Why? There is a Paypal loophole. Hidden in Paypal's technical jargon is one small statement in the Paypal User Agreement, section 11.4, which reads: "Signature Confirmation" is online documentation that can be viewed at the shipping company's website and indicates that the item was signed for on delivery."
Note: this statement is located at the very end of a long list of items under the PROTECTION FOR SELLERS legal agreement.

In essence, Ms. W received the ring on July 21, 2011, per the USPS; but as she did not sign for the insured package, Paypal will not accept the USPS's (United States Postal Service) delivery confirmation as proof of delivery. By filing a dispute/claim against my Paypal account, Ms. W was able to: keep the $462 ring that was sent to her, AND receive money from Paypal for that amount!

My Paypal account has been debited for that amount, so I have to technically pay Ms.W for a ring that she says she did not receive.

Paypal states they protect sellers. Not true. If this corporation did, they would have made an exception in my case and accepted the USPS proof of delivery that I was given and provided to them.

In my opinion, Susan (Paypal employee #40106), the Paypal supervisor, who made this decision did not adequately investigate my situation: (I asked her to call the OLA administrators/customer support folks, who have supported me in this situation by banning Ms.W from the OLA site; I asked her to consider the negative customer feedback that had been left for Ms.W on OLA; I asked her to please read the communication that Ms.W sent to me prior to making the sale and after the sale; I told her that I believed that Ms. W intended to commit fraud against me, Paypal, OLA and the USPS by doing this--saying she didn't receive her item, even though I have over 1500 positive feedback comments from satisfied customers on ebay and OLA that prove I am an honest seller.

Instead, Paypal has accepted the word of someone who has a feedback rating of 29 comments, 6 of which are extremely negative. See for yourself: http://www.onlineauction.com/index.php?page=feedback:view_feedback&user_id=68264


Susan at Paypal told me that I should file an insurance claim at the USPS to gain reimbursement for the package, as did two other Paypal dispute resolution specialists (Diane and Natalie). I feel ethically compromised here. I believe that Ms.W did receive the package, and that she was aware of the loophole mentioned above (Ms.W claimed to me in her communication that she had been scammed by Paypal, and that she would not let it happen again, thus indicating to me that she was aware of this loophole prior to making her purchase from me.

I believe that Paypal's recommendation to me that I file an insurance claim with the USPS for the amount is aiding and abetting Ms.W in her criminal attempt to steal.

Since I have morals, and feel that I would be the one committing federal fraud by filing a claim with the USPS to reimburse me for the package, which I truly believe WAS delivered to Ms.W on July 21, 2011, I have been put in an untenable situation.

My OLA reputation has been compromised; my 11 years of being a loyal verified Paypal account holder counts for nothing; my family's financial well-being has been shattered (we are not wealthy, we need that $462.--to me that is a lot of money)!