Consumer complaint received 2019-02-09
Company: Paypal Holdings, Inc
State: CA
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service
Sub-product: Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Fraud or scam

Complaint:
This is a continuation of initial complaint ID : XXXX. Although the company has responded, I do not consider this issue resolved. Please reference initial complaint for context as the following is a direct continuation and reply to company 's response : This is in response to Paypals previous message. In light of the response there still remains several facts that demonstrate the series of actions/lack of actions taken by Paypal was not done so in good faith, and although all actions were within User Agreement guidelines, said actions demonstrate inequitable treatment with lack of due diligence.

1. I was not given the option to contest the charge with Paypal within the prescribed 30 days limit. Recorded messages around the time of the occurrence of the negative balance prove I attempted to open a dispute with Paypal but was constantly being directed to XXXX  instead.

2. Recorded calls with XXXX   also prove that I asked XXXX  to open a dispute, but they claimed it was a Paypal issue and I would, therefore, have to open a dispute with them. In fact, this recorded message was a conference call between myself, a Paypal associate, and an XXXX associate ( whom the Paypal associate brought into the call at my request due to the circular pattern of denial of responsibility I kept receiving ). Both associates asked each other to open a dispute, and neither was willing to open a dispute because both were convinced the responsibility rested on the other.

3. Therefore, no opportunity was given to me to begin a dispute 4. Had a been able to open the dispute, I would have uploaded a document from XXXX XXXX XXXX who investigated the fraudulent individual who swindled me of an XXXX  through XXXX  and determined that I was due a return of my money. True, XXXX XXXX XXXX  did indeed take this money back from Paypal as it was all done through Paypal, however, due to the fact that I was found the victim in this situation, Paypal did not pursue the perpetrator and instead debited my funds which brought me to a negative. To me, this is a sign of negligence as it was perhaps simply easier to debit me since the protocols and infrastructure were set in place to do so easily, while investigating a fraudulent buyer may have cost too much time and effort. Though I have no proof of this, the fact remains, I, the victim, was punished by Paypal, while the defrauder, was likely never even contacted by Paypal.

5. A repeat call was made to attempt to explain the situation. I was given a link to upload a copy of said XXXX XXXX XXXX documentation proving I was found to be the victim. I uploaded the said document. No response from that thread thereafter.

This pattern of actions demonstrates without doubt professional negligence on the part of Paypal. True, XXXX is a separate entity, and a separate complaint may be filed regarding XXXX  for the same reason, but it is my opinion, based on this experience, that one will again blame the other and vice versa with no party ever taking initiative.

State and Federal business regulations and codes of conduct supersede User Agreements. This phrase, User Agreement, is being used as the primary mode of defense in Paypals response, but it is lacking as it clearly falls short of State and Federal standards.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation