Hello!
To use the forum, login or register above.
(If you are already logged in above, please click here)
Cancelled order
I just cancelled an order at the request of the customer. I recall seeing a message on the the cancellation page that the refund through Paypal had to be processed separately. But when I look in Paypal it appears the refund was already made? (and refunded a bit too much).
So I'm a bit confused is that normally how cancellations work?
So I'm a bit confused is that normally how cancellations work?
Powered by Vanilla
Comments
Paypal keeps a $0.30 fee even when a payment is completely refunded so if it is cancelled at the buyer's request I refund $0.30 less than the full amount.
No big deal it's only a few cents. But it is a pet peeve of mine because I have no choice whether to accept a payment, but incur a penalty when I cancel it. And I think Paypal does this in a very sneaky way.
> Passing that fee on to the customer would be illegal in the European Union - is it legal in the US?
I haven't looked into that. Is it legal in the EU for Paypal to charge the seller for a transaction they didn't ask for and was rejected completely? I doubt it, but Paypal's strategy seems to have been "collect the money now, pay the class action lawsuit later".
You both have a point...
You're both somehow right...
But also somehow wrong...
Let me explain further, and just as a sidenote, went by my bookkeeper about 2 hours ago, addressed such a problem (as I read the early posts this morning) and in all honesty, he didn't have any answer either (must say, I'm his only client dealing with online orders).
From a 'technical' point of view Hoddie is right when it comes down to the EU regulations: if a buyer requests to cancel, a seller cancels and refunds the entire amount.
Not sure whether such exists in the USA (might be worthed exploring).
My personal view, being a no-nonsense seller, is the same, just refund the entire order and be done with it, those 30ct (or 35ct in EU) won't make much of a difference based on overall sales...
BUT, and offcourse there is a 'but'...
From a mathematical point of view, being a professional seller, and having asked the question at my bookkeeper (who doesn't have an answer like I said): what do we do with such?
Technicly, when Paypal does not refund a seller these 30ct (or ct 0.35), the seller is in 'depth' (hope it's the right spelling of the word). No longer an order, but 0.30 (or 0.35) 'less' on the Paypal balance. Not a problem for 'non pro' sellers, but how do 'pro sellers' justify this in their bookkeeping? They make a credit bill? To who? There is no longer a order... To paypal? They'll probably laugh at that.
But the bookkeeping ain't right anymore, 0.30 (0.35) just 'vanished' into thin air... On bookkeeping 'control' it cannot be 'justified' (unless a credit bill was made, but then hey ho, my bookkeeper needs to deal with a 0.30-0.35 credit bill, and he's costing me more then that per bill, so the cost would simply 'increase' on an order that no longer exists).
But then on the other hand, if I would 'keep' 0.30(0.35), then I also do not have a bill to show for in my transactions. Not much of a problem, as my 'balance' would be right... but my 'order' wouldn't be entirely canceled either, it would still say 'total amount'= 0.30 (0.35), another problem bookkeeping wise *sigh*
Now, that said, Hoddie says: It's not PayPal's fault that the order was cancelled - they did their bit in processing your payment at your instruction.
True, but it is also not the sellers fault the buyer orders, then requests to cancel and is penalised over such, I need to agree with the OP on that, as a seller, you have no control who orders from you and you certainly don't have on control on a 'request to cancel' (which luckely don't happen all that often)
BUT (ah, another one), let's take this thing further on...
Based on Paul's reasoning, a seller should refund an entire order according to EU law's.
Great, shouldn't PP then do the exact same thing then????
After all, as a seller we pay the 'commission fee' for 'processing' the payment of an order...
Bottomline is: seller pays for a 'service', a service that is somehow 'billed'.
But if the order, 'generating' this service, is 'canceled', then technicly the 'payment processing' request by the seller is ALSO canceled, no??
Now if we put things together, then PP is actually ALSO violating EU laws, as they do not 'restitute' the entire amount, while as a seller' (of a service) they should, because the 'requestor' requested 'their' order to be canceled (the order consisted of asking PP to process the payment).
Example:
If I enter a payment at my bank, and a day later I ask the payment to be canceled, then I won't be charged for such, it's twice a 'work' that's need to be done (and just to be clear, that's automated 'data' that needs no human involvement), bummer for my bank, but IT IS free of charge.
So why the heck does PP, and I fully agree with Gratti's wording (And I think Paypal does this in a very sneaky way.) allows itself do run it like that ??
Maybe EU sellers (as we're talking an EU regulation here, as we don't know regulations for other countries) should join up and file a complaint with the EU asking for this 'injustice' to be stopped :-)
Cheers, Eric
> No big deal it's only a few cents. But it is a pet peeve of mine because I have no choice whether to accept a payment, but incur a penalty when I cancel it. And I think Paypal does this in a very sneaky way.
My very personal observation (apart from the long essay I just wrote): Yes, IT IS your choice to accept the payment being processed by Paypal, you opened an account with them and created links between your store and PP... You also submitted yourself to their ToS and accepted it...
If you don't like that, you can, at any point in time, 'unregister' from PP and be 'done' with it.
So from my (like I said: very personal point of view), you're 'pet peeve' is entirely, how should I put it nicely... ridiculous (without wanting to be rude in any way).
It does not mean I don't 'get' what you mean, and I do have similar feelings/thoughts about it (my other message proves that), but I also always respect the 'contract' I subscribed to...
If I don't like a contract, I 'unsubscribe'
The seller didn't supply the goods, hence no loss was made, but PayPal have performed their service - twice actually - and the fee reflects that.
Unless Belgium is vastly different to the UK, the 0.35/0.30 fee would simply be bundled with all other payment processing charges. It can be difficult to account for such fees because there's no invoice as such, but should the authorities perform an audit, they won't be interested in a few € worth of such fees, and even if they were interested in such a forensic detail, you could refer them to your PayPal account.
Tyson.
It is not 'right' from their part if they are submitted to the same 'rules' as any other seller in the EU: a cancel request should implicate a full refund (regardless whether the order is physical or service based).
And you're right about the fact a seller didn't supply the goods, but the seller did perform certain services: they canceled (= costs time) and had to 'process' the re-upload (costs time), without being paid for it... Isn't that exactly what what Paypal would (should) be doing?
> My very personal observation (apart from the long essay I just wrote): Yes, IT IS your choice to accept the payment being processed by Paypal, you opened an account with them and created links between your store and PP... You also submitted yourself to their ToS and accepted it...
> If you don't like that, you can, at any point in time, 'unregister' from PP and be 'done' with it.
> So from my (like I said: very personal point of view), you're 'pet peeve' is entirely, how should I put it nicely... ridiculous (without wanting to be rude in any way).
> It does not mean I don't 'get' what you mean, and I do have similar feelings/thoughts about it (my other message proves that), but I also always respect the 'contract' I subscribed to...
> If I don't like a contract, I 'unsubscribe'
Yes I agree that Paypal is within their rights to do this according to the contract I agreed to, but it don't think it is ridiculous to expect them to treat their customers fairly.
This isn't just a problem with the link between BrickOwl and Paypal. Anyone could go into Paypal, type in the wrong email address and send me money by mistake and it would cost me 0.30 to correct it. The only way to protect myself would be to close my paypal account (and my business of course).
It would be quite simple for Paypal to fix this by allowing sellers to accept or deny a transaction that comes in. But they have no financial incentive to do so. Pity there isn't more competition for online payment processing.
>Pity there isn't more competition for online payment processing.
You're not up-to-date
https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/31/ebay-replace-paypal-main-payment/
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/01/why-ebay-abandoned-paypal-for-a-smaller-european-competitor.html
Just give it some time...
;-)
I personally hope PayPal crash and burn. Ebay changed when they rammed PayPal down everyone's throat, and I know a couple of people who lost £100s just because PayPal decided there was something iffy about their accounts (there wasn't, but the agreement allowed PayPal to basically close the accounts and keep the cash - this has now changed).
> PayPal did incur costs in processing your payments. The card companies charge 'per transaction' fees.
a) How big can a cost be to process a payment? It's just bits and bytes after all.
b) That is in the understanding the buyer paid from a card. What if the buyer paid from balance? No way to see, no cost whatsoever for Paypal as it just moves from one account to another, but still the same fee...
And that's why Paypal, credit cards, banks, etc are afraid of 'virtual' money... It means the end of their 'power' over money. Sure, digital money is taking big hits right now (after a clear unrealistic boom), but it's not dead either, just a matter of 'leveling' and getting ready for real use (I hope): transfer money (in stead of playing poker as investment with it) ;-)