10 ms·

I've had similar problems with Paypal accounts in the past too. Although it's an absolute joke I have found they only respond to formal legal threats. At one p

by ErrantX 17y ago

I've had similar problems with Paypal accounts in the past too. Although it's an absolute joke I have found they only respond to formal legal threats. At one point they limited my account, with a couple of grand in it, in the same way (nothing in, nothing out, wait 180 days). So I sent them a letter basically saying "release my money or your staring down the barrel of a legal gun" and listed a whole load of lost earnings, recompense etc. I "would be seeking". For the most part it was empty threats (I could probably have sued - but had no cash to do so) but someone actually rang me the day it arrived; never mentioned the letter but "a standard review of closed cases highlighted mine for reopening"... It's idiotic.

ajross 17y ago
It's actually not so terribly dumb. The point here is to prevent fraud. People who take the time to credibly threaten legal action are, I strongly suspect, much less likely to be engaged in fraud. Real criminals would just walk away from the cash (lest they attract more attention) and put up another site on another PayPal account. It's more than just squeaky wheel syndrome -- PayPal is using the context of your communication to determine who you are. Whether that's ethical or not is a separate question. But it seems logical to me.
- noodle 17y ago
  sure, but it also cripples small businesses who don't really know any better. not every small-time merchant will have the wits about them to present legal threats.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Dunno, a legal threat is the first thing that came to my mind. I don't see a situation where someone collects money from your customers and refuses to give it to you any different from someone walking into your home, smashing your piggy bank, and taking your money. The second case is obviously a crime, so it follows that the first is too. When you are a victim of a crime, negotiating with the criminal seems like a bad idea. Getting a lawyer (or the cops) involved seems like a good idea. So if I lost my "appeal" at PayPal, I would involve the real legal system, instead of their made up one. (OTOH, if the OP got all his money back, then he was not necessarily wronged. Banks can refuse to do business with companies they are unsure about.)
    - noodle 17y ago
      it is also the first thing that came to my mind, but i'd argue that we (as are, likely, most people on HN) in the minority, being more knowledgeable about the legal, technical and business aspects of the situation than the average small business owner.
    - ajross 17y ago
      Not to nit too much (because I think this is exactly the right thing to do) but threatening to sue someone isn't the same thing as accusing them of a crime. If someone is tried for larceny, the point is that they are punished by the state to deter future crimes. The goal is not to return the stolen property to the owner; that's what a civil suit is for. And indeed, in the business world this happens all the time. Companies delay and defer payments to each other all the time trying to maximize profits. The situation usually comes to equilibrium without court action (e.g. "pay me for the last shipment or you won't get the next"), but it's really common. "Payment up front" is a consumer thing. B2B transactions are a whole lot more complicated.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      > So if I lost my "appeal" at PayPal, I would involve the real legal system, instead of their made up one. That's not really worth it though. Im smart enough [sic] to write a letter that sounds sufficiently legal and blustery for them to take notice. But taking real action costs a bomb... I felt a bit silly doing it but it was one of those "oh ffs" moments - I couldn't face another month of getting nowhere :) If they had called my bluff I would have backed down and tried another tack; but it occurred to me at the time that it might work, and was at least worth trying as a shortcut.
    - prawn 17y ago
      What about a basic specialist company that represented people in these situations for a fee or percentage of the money being withheld? "Lawyer" sounds expensive and scary to many people, but if the pitch was very specific, people might go for it?
Hexstream 17y ago
"a standard review of closed cases highlighted mine for reopening" I think that's in fact true. As in, their standard review of closed cases includes a clause that they should indulge in the face of legal threats in most cases. But it does sound funny!

by ErrantX 17y ago

ajross 17y ago

It's actually not so terribly dumb. The point here is to prevent fraud. People who take the time to credibly threaten legal action are, I strongly suspect, much less likely to be engaged in fraud. Real criminals would just walk away from the cash (lest they attract more attention) and put up another site on another PayPal account. It's more than just squeaky wheel syndrome -- PayPal is using the context of your communication to determine who you are. Whether that's ethical or not is a separate question. But it seems logical to me.

noodle 17y ago
sure, but it also cripples small businesses who don't really know any better. not every small-time merchant will have the wits about them to present legal threats.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Dunno, a legal threat is the first thing that came to my mind. I don't see a situation where someone collects money from your customers and refuses to give it to you any different from someone walking into your home, smashing your piggy bank, and taking your money. The second case is obviously a crime, so it follows that the first is too. When you are a victim of a crime, negotiating with the criminal seems like a bad idea. Getting a lawyer (or the cops) involved seems like a good idea. So if I lost my "appeal" at PayPal, I would involve the real legal system, instead of their made up one. (OTOH, if the OP got all his money back, then he was not necessarily wronged. Banks can refuse to do business with companies they are unsure about.)
  - noodle 17y ago
    it is also the first thing that came to my mind, but i'd argue that we (as are, likely, most people on HN) in the minority, being more knowledgeable about the legal, technical and business aspects of the situation than the average small business owner.
  - ajross 17y ago
    Not to nit too much (because I think this is exactly the right thing to do) but threatening to sue someone isn't the same thing as accusing them of a crime. If someone is tried for larceny, the point is that they are punished by the state to deter future crimes. The goal is not to return the stolen property to the owner; that's what a civil suit is for. And indeed, in the business world this happens all the time. Companies delay and defer payments to each other all the time trying to maximize profits. The situation usually comes to equilibrium without court action (e.g. "pay me for the last shipment or you won't get the next"), but it's really common. "Payment up front" is a consumer thing. B2B transactions are a whole lot more complicated.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    > So if I lost my "appeal" at PayPal, I would involve the real legal system, instead of their made up one. That's not really worth it though. Im smart enough [sic] to write a letter that sounds sufficiently legal and blustery for them to take notice. But taking real action costs a bomb... I felt a bit silly doing it but it was one of those "oh ffs" moments - I couldn't face another month of getting nowhere :) If they had called my bluff I would have backed down and tried another tack; but it occurred to me at the time that it might work, and was at least worth trying as a shortcut.
  - prawn 17y ago
    What about a basic specialist company that represented people in these situations for a fee or percentage of the money being withheld? "Lawyer" sounds expensive and scary to many people, but if the pitch was very specific, people might go for it?

Hexstream 17y ago

"a standard review of closed cases highlighted mine for reopening" I think that's in fact true. As in, their standard review of closed cases includes a clause that they should indulge in the face of legal threats in most cases. But it does sound funny!