Paypal still won't release funds after 180 hold without ID

[rsot]

Originally Posted by wired

Executive Escalations office..

ppelce@paypal.co.uk

dont hold your breathe but the FO will require their response in writing before they offer to send them a letter on your behalf

Has it worked for you? In terms of experience

[Callidus]

Originally Posted by rsot

Has it worked for you? In terms of experience

The good thing with using that email is you do get a response...whether that response is helpful is another matter.

[wired]

Originally Posted by Callidus

The good thing with using that email is you do get a response...whether that response is helpful is another matter.

I have had fifty percent success with it....so take four accounts, two sorted, two not sorted, so its worth a pop...but as Callidus says, it can make matters worse, and youll end up in the pit of ID trauma...I have sacrificed a couple of accounts to train myself in various approaches and which ones work best.

[Ebayance]

Originally Posted by wired

Executive Escalations office..

ppelce@paypal.co.uk

dont hold your breathe but the FO will require their response in writing before they offer to send them a letter on your behalf

Thanks for this email address. But I was asking about the first letter/email you are supposed to send after you have waited for 180 days. It seems to be the consensus if you aren't going to send ID or have failed ID you should wait 180 days after the last transaction and then write to them. Is that right? So which is the address to write to in those circumstances?

[wired]

Originally Posted by Ebayance

Thanks for this email address. But I was asking about the first letter/email you are supposed to send after you have waited for 180 days. It seems to be the consensus if you aren't going to send ID or have failed ID you should wait 180 days after the last transaction and then write to them. Is that right? So which is the address to write to in those circumstances?

Same address.

[isitworththestress]

I wonder if this would give you some ideas on arguments

Consumer rights & protection: get money back - MSE

Things like:

Can a company ever say my rights don't apply?
Your statutory consumer rights always apply. A trader can offer different rights if it wants, but only as long as they are on top of your statutory rights.
Yet some companies do try to say your statutory rights are not valid because there's a term in your contact that says so; for example them stating “We do not provide refunds”, “We are not responsible if you are injured” or “We are not liable for property left unattended”. These are called exclusion clauses.
If there are exclusions, your contract should also include the words “this does not affect your statutory rights”, to show that written terms are not as important as consumer laws.
Companies try to get away with these terms in their contracts relying on lack of knowledge and consumer apathy to put consumers off making a claim. But thanks to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, exclusion clauses are often invalid and you can still complain.


The point is before you write a word read a lot of stuff like this and then throw in a few terms into your message for good measure, as if you have been getting advice from someone that knows.

PayPal Europe Ltd, Hotham House, 1 Heron Square, Richmond upon Thames, Surrey, TW9 1EJ

PayPal Managing Director, David Graham Clarke, 3 Woodside Road, New Malton, Surrey, KT3 3AH

They come from this site so no idea how recent they are:

PayPal & eBay Addresses, Phone Numbers and email

[wired]

Originally Posted by isitworththestress

I wonder if this would give you some ideas on arguments

Consumer rights & protection: get money back - MSE

Things like:

Can a company ever say my rights don't apply?
Your statutory consumer rights always apply. A trader can offer different rights if it wants, but only as long as they are on top of your statutory rights.
Yet some companies do try to say your statutory rights are not valid because there's a term in your contact that says so; for example them stating “We do not provide refunds”, “We are not responsible if you are injured” or “We are not liable for property left unattended”. These are called exclusion clauses.
If there are exclusions, your contract should also include the words “this does not affect your statutory rights”, to show that written terms are not as important as consumer laws.
Companies try to get away with these terms in their contracts relying on lack of knowledge and consumer apathy to put consumers off making a claim. But thanks to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, exclusion clauses are often invalid and you can still complain.


The point is before you write a word read a lot of stuff like this and then throw in a few terms into your message for good measure, as if you have been getting advice from someone that knows.

PayPal Europe Ltd, Hotham House, 1 Heron Square, Richmond upon Thames, Surrey, TW9 1EJ

PayPal Managing Director, David Graham Clarke, 3 Woodside Road, New Malton, Surrey, KT3 3AH

They come from this site so no idea how recent they are:

PayPal & eBay Addresses, Phone Numbers and email

Some good info in there...I used some of those terms in my emails to them.

But I think the problem here is the ID is not accepted and they have actually stated that they will not be releasing funds due to the ID, so they must of been very poor quality documents. That never happened to me...they said problem with ID but still got released after 30 -180 days.

Therefore, can the consumer rights apply if you joined a service under a puesdo name? I would be very interested in what a good lawyer would have to say about that...because PP isnt a bank and not part of a goverment body, it is perfectly fine to join under a puesdo name surely, despite what their TC's say, bringing us back to the consumer rights?

[isitworththestress]

A lot of people join online websites with false details. there are still people out there that do not trust online companies.
And as you have not broke any laws and there is no dispute that it is the same person that accessed the website and entrusted them with the money, as they are disputing that that person is not who they have been told not that you do not have access to that account. So I do not know but seems like there is a case.

[rsot]

Originally Posted by isitworththestress

A lot of people join online websites with false details. there are still people out there that do not trust online companies.
And as you have not broke any laws and there is no dispute that it is the same person that accessed the website and entrusted them with the money, as they are disputing that that person is not who they have been told not that you do not have access to that account. So I do not know but seems like there is a case.

Don't side with them

[GreenBean]

This is not within the scope of here to give advice.

Take legal advice to protect yourself.

[wired]

Originally Posted by isitworththestress

A lot of people join online websites with false details. there are still people out there that do not trust online companies.
And as you have not broke any laws and there is no dispute that it is the same person that accessed the website and entrusted them with the money, as they are disputing that that person is not who they have been told not that you do not have access to that account. So I do not know but seems like there is a case.

I think there is a case, however with the cost of legal representation being so high, you would have to have some serious dollars in the account to go down a legal proceedings route.

However, the PayPal problem is growing, so I really think we might start seeing some reports of people going down that route. I know when I had 7k locked away when I was a newbie and knew no better, I would of pursued it if they hadnt released it with a bit of my own research of the consumer acts etc..even just talking to brief and getting the low down on the true legalities of a situation like this, and getting them to send send a letter is worth £500 all day everyday.

Report back OP and let us know what avenue your proceeding down and the outcome, good luck to you

[oompaloompa]

it is not so much about whether there is a case or not, but I personally would be worried about the real-world legalities of going down a legal route or even with the Financial ombudsman, if it was completely faux info for the sign up, I know you actually can do it in UK as there is no concept of a legal name and dba is ok..but the address is a minefield, and hopefully the address is not someone elses? it depends on the combination you used, if it is one of your own addresses, then that is alot more solid.

...plus you submitted id? how do you explain that to real-worlders?! if you had submitted no id, it would be alot more solid, as you could say, look it is dba and I can prove it is my dealings and bank and it is because I did not want to give my private details out, it is dba name and a box address that I own - that would be passable.....


if it was me, I would have to leave it, as I know being stealth means not being able to prove who I am and that is the risk you take, no amount locked is worth the knock-on consequences........

[Ebayance]

Originally Posted by isitworththestress

I wonder if this would give you some ideas on arguments

Consumer rights & protection: get money back - MSE

Things like:

Can a company ever say my rights don't apply?
Your statutory consumer rights always apply. A trader can offer different rights if it wants, but only as long as they are on top of your statutory rights.
Yet some companies do try to say your statutory rights are not valid because there's a term in your contact that says so; for example them stating “We do not provide refunds”, “We are not responsible if you are injured” or “We are not liable for property left unattended”. These are called exclusion clauses.
If there are exclusions, your contract should also include the words “this does not affect your statutory rights”, to show that written terms are not as important as consumer laws.
Companies try to get away with these terms in their contracts relying on lack of knowledge and consumer apathy to put consumers off making a claim. But thanks to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, exclusion clauses are often invalid and you can still complain.


The point is before you write a word read a lot of stuff like this and then throw in a few terms into your message for good measure, as if you have been getting advice from someone that knows.

PayPal Europe Ltd, Hotham House, 1 Heron Square, Richmond upon Thames, Surrey, TW9 1EJ

PayPal Managing Director, David Graham Clarke, 3 Woodside Road, New Malton, Surrey, KT3 3AH

They come from this site so no idea how recent they are:

PayPal & eBay Addresses, Phone Numbers and email

So are people writing to the email address or to the London offices?

[Ebayance]

Originally Posted by rsot

Don't side with them

Don't side with who?

[Ebayance]

Originally Posted by oompaloompa

it is not so much about whether there is a case or not, but I personally would be worried about the real-world legalities of going down a legal route or even with the Financial ombudsman, if it was completely faux info for the sign up, I know you actually can do it in UK as there is no concept of a legal name and dba is ok..but the address is a minefield, and hopefully the address is not someone elses? it depends on the combination you used, if it is one of your own addresses, then that is alot more solid.

...plus you submitted id? how do you explain that to real-worlders?! if you had submitted no id, it would be alot more solid, as you could say, look it is dba and I can prove it is my dealings and bank and it is because I did not want to give my private details out, it is dba name and a box address that I own - that would be passable.....


if it was me, I would have to leave it, as I know being stealth means not being able to prove who I am and that is the risk you take, no amount locked is worth the knock-on consequences........

What is dba?
The most important account for me was the one with suspect ID. It was released after I phoned them and I have no further questions there. But they linked all my accounts in one go after I sent ID. at the start of Nov/Dec cull so I think it was just bad luck with the timing. I phoned about another and they came up with this 'it's ours till you send ID' line. Not an option to send in ID clearly.

[Callidus]

DBA = Doing Business As similar to the UK 'Trading as (T/A)'

[wired]

Originally Posted by oompaloompa

it is not so much about whether there is a case or not, but I personally would be worried about the real-world legalities of going down a legal route or even with the Financial ombudsman, if it was completely faux info for the sign up, I know you actually can do it in UK as there is no concept of a legal name and dba is ok..but the address is a minefield, and hopefully the address is not someone elses? it depends on the combination you used, if it is one of your own addresses, then that is alot more solid.

...plus you submitted id? how do you explain that to real-worlders?! if you had submitted no id, it would be alot more solid, as you could say, look it is dba and I can prove it is my dealings and bank and it is because I did not want to give my private details out, it is dba name and a box address that I own - that would be passable.....


if it was me, I would have to leave it, as I know being stealth means not being able to prove who I am and that is the risk you take, no amount locked is worth the knock-on consequences........

This is my point. What are the legalities? hence why I said talking to brief might be really enlightening, but all we are doing is speculating from different angles...as for the FO, there are no knock ons, well there certainly wasnt in two of my cases they helped sort out.

I guess if a brief confirms there is no individual liability it will only really matter if you are avoiding tax etc because that could send you down the rabbit hole...(rightly so mind, I hate tax evaders)

[wired]

Originally Posted by Ebayance

So are people writing to the email address or to the London offices?

As before, you email executive escalations office.

[isitworththestress]

My point is not to take them to court none of us have that kind of money, as we are discussing what he has to put in his letter and to me if they sound that they are being advised and using terms that point to it then it often makes a company think of the time they are willing to spend on an argument that they know is bending legalities and also wondering who is going to be reading their responce.

[Ebayance]

I have had final response from escalations. Basically they are saying "No ID no funds released period."

[Klemantina]

How come there are still people out there reporting released funds after failing ID verification?
If you fail once, can you try your luck with more docs or your locked money forever gone and no fancy letters from the attorney can help??

[wired]

Originally Posted by Ebayance

I have had final response from escalations. Basically they are saying "No ID no funds released period."

Of course, pretty standard.

Why are you not sending a different ID in? Im confused.