I found out recently that if you use your credit card to buy goods on-line, you have even more protection.
Mind you, we have never had any problems (touch wood) using Pay-Pal over the past few years.
One thing however, did put a spanner in the works? I had to get our Pay-Pal account "verified" which meant we could not both carry on sharing the same account?
So we had to put the Pay-Pal account in my wife's name, which means I cant pay for birthday/anniversary presents for my wife any more, without her knowing?
Smudger, do not you and your wife have separate email addresses? I cannot see why PayPal would not recognise individual accounts. What about homes where there are adult offspring, spinsters or even lodgers in shared accommodation?
Smudger if you have a joint account, you will have two different debit cards, therefore you would register each card, and your PayPal passwords would differentiate each account. Two separate bank accounts would work in the same way. If you had problems with this, contact PayPal, explaining what you are trying to do, they are very helpful. Not that I think you would; do not put any bank account details in any
Originally Posted by smudger
Quote.." If you had problems with this, contact PayPal, explaining what you are trying to do,"
I did contact them explaining what we wanted to do, but that confused them, and made things a lot worse?
So in the end, we just did what what they wanted, otherwise we would have lost our account completely
I have been thinking about this, and I am not sure it is not some sort of fraud. Taking money under false pretences, in that they have no stock,* yet advertise. I feel that money should not be taken, and that the seller should immediately advise zero stock level, and ask if you wish for one to placed on order on your behalf.
*I think it is reasonable to take it on trust that if someone is advertising a product, they should have that item in stock. If they knowingly take money for an item they do not own, it has to be fraud. (A la flogging Tower Bridge or the Eiffel Tower to a tourist.)
I have noticed a lot of online sellers now have 'traffic light' stock indicators next to items.
My thoughts are along the same lines as yours, Rolebama. When they introduced the UK on distance selling regulations it would have been a simple matter to have included a clause that money must not be taken unless/until the items ordered are in stock. It seems to me that, whenever UK official bodies produce regulations, these are wrapped up in extended legal jargon and important factors are missed out. Tripping over their own feet, so to speak.
I regularly buy from Amazon and have never had a problem. They only take money when goods are in the process of being dispatched, and are easily contacted by telephone.
I once ordered a number of books, and one book was unavailable, so they dipatched (and charged for) only the ones available.
The projected date for dispatching the final book happened to clash with our holidays, and cancellation and reordering at a later date could not have been more simple or straightforward.
On the basis of their large turnover of stock, if Amazon can do it, the rest can also.
I seem to remember, if a company takes money for goods that are not in stock they have to hold in a separate bank account. If my memory is correct this date back to the days of Sinclair kits, they were running the company by collecting cash first, mail order, and then purchasing the parts to make-up the kits. This suggests; taking money if the goods are out of stock may be legal providing the moneys are held in a separate bank account, to prevent the company using the moneys until the goods are dispatched. This situation can go on for 30 days after which the purchaser can ask and receive a refund.
Originally Posted by Rolebama
Oh I am surprised Smudger. We have two separate PayPal accounts using two debit cards but they are on the same bank account.
Originally Posted by smudger
This is true. Looking at my bank account on line, the amount shown available is lower than the account balance by the amount taken and suspended.
Originally Posted by wagolynn
But this does mean that this sum is then immediately unavailable for the owner of the account to spend it elswhere. This can be annoying if cancellation of the purchase is not straightforward and instantaneous. I keep a special low balance account for on line purchases so, for me, that can mean shuffling still more cash between accounts if I want to go to an alternative website supplier for my requirements.
This puts the customer at a disadvantage, and it appears to me that many websites operate on a 'rapid extraction but protracted return' of cash policy. The advantage for the sellers, of course, is to encourage the customer to await an out-of-stock item, rather than go through a cancellation procedure.
In my book, that is not fair trading.
Agreed Snowball, I think the intention is to lock you in.