Consumer complaint received 2026-06-11 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: Paypal Holdings, Inc
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
I purchased an item advertised as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from a XXXX XXXX seller ( XXXX XXXX ) on XX/XX/year>, paying {$500.00} via XXXX in two transactions {$200.00} ( case XXXX ) and {$300.00} ( case XXXX ) at the sellers request to split the payment. Both transactions were marked as goods/services and eligible for XXXX Purchase Protection . The two case numbers represent a single dispute over a single purchase ; they share the same seller, same item, same delivery date, same evidence package, and same filing date. The item was delivered structurally damaged in load-bearing components of the lift mechanism ( cracked particleboard at dowel joints, blown-out dowel holes, splintered veneer, bent hinge ). In post-payment XXXX submitted as evidence to XXXX, the seller admitted in writing that he never installed or operated the item ( No, I sold it once I realized there was no way to attach it to the wall. I have asbestos tiles that cant be drilled into ), that he had no video of the mechanism in operation ( I do not ), and that the product was floor-anchored rather than the wall-mounted XXXX XXXX advertised ( Its drilled into the floor/ Using the blue screws ). In XXXX XXXX, the seller admitted it had just been sitting in my apt for months and when I finally assembled it all yesterday I realized it wouldnt work establishing the seller knew the item was non-functional before sale. I paid {$450.00} on XX/XX/year> to XXXX of XXXX XXXX NJ to dispose of the item because it was not safely usable. I filed both XXXX Purchase Protection disputes on XX/XX/year>. My complaint to the CFPB is primarily about XXXX procedural handling of these disputes, not the substantive merits of the underlying transaction. ( 1 ) On XX/XX/year>, I escalated via XXXX in-app chat with agent XXXX. XXXX stated in writing : Ive filed a case and forward your information to the team handling this. Since the case was filed on XXXX, rest assured that they will give you an update within 10 business days from when it was initially filed. Ten business days from XX/XX/year> is approximately XX/XX/year> today. No substantive update has been provided in that window. XXXX further committed to share the additional context and highlighted PDFs I provided with the account specialist team. None of the seller admissions XXXX committed to relaying were addressed in any subsequent XXXX communication. ( 2 ) On XX/XX/year>, XXXX denied case XXXX XXXX {$300.00} ) with a single sentence : if an item is materially similar to the sellers description, we do not consider it to be significantly not as described. The denial did not engage with the sellers documented admissions on file. ( 3 ) The XX/XX/XXXX denial letter instructed me to email XXXX to receive the documentation used in the investigation. I did so on XX/XX/XXXX. Venmo responded on XX/XX/XXXX by restating the denial reason they did not provide any documentation. I followed up requesting the actual documentation per the denial letters instructions. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX responded : This claim does not qualify for a refund... This case is now closed... we have closed this case and can not accept or respond to any additional appeals. Still no documentation was provided. I then submitted a formal four-point written appeal applying XXXX own materially similar to description standard to the sellers documented admissions. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX responded with the identical word-for-word template they had used the previous day. Three communications from XXXX in response to ( a ) a documentation request, ( b ) a follow-up documentation request, and ( c ) a formal multi-point written appeal used identical template text. None engaged with the substance of the communications. ( 4 ) On XX/XX/year>, XXXX issued a determination on case XXXX ( {$200.00} ) the matching case finding me eligible for a refund subject to return shipment of the item, at my own cost, in the same condition as when received, to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. That remedy is impossible to satisfy on the documented facts : the item was disposed of on XX/XX/XXXX ( three days BEFORE this letter was issued, four days BEFORE XXXX had requested preservation, and one day BEFORE XXXX XXXX XXXX on either case ) ; the disposal cost ( {$450.00} ) exceeds the {$200.00} refund individually ; the seller has admitted in writing he can not accommodate the item at the specified return address ; and the item can not be returned in the same condition as when received because the structural damage is the substance of the dispute. ( 5 ) The XX/XX/XXXX determination on the {$200.00} case directly contradicts the XX/XX/XXXX denial of the {$300.00} case. The two cases involve the same seller, same item, same delivery date, same evidence package, and same filing date. The only difference is the payment amount, split at the sellers request. Internal consistency requires that the determination on both halves be the same. The XX/XX/XXXX denial reason ( materially similar to the sellers description ) can not be reconciled with the XX/XX/XXXX finding that the same item, same evidence, supported a refund. The inconsistency itself constitutes evidence that the XX/XX/XXXX denial was not the product of substantive review. ( 6 ) On XX/XX/year>, I engaged XXXX support chat with agent XXXX and uploaded my full documentation packet to case XXXX XXXX XXXXpoint response letter, the XXXX disposal receipt dated XX/XX/XXXX, the sellers XX/XX/XXXX written refusal of returns, and damage photographs. XXXX confirmed in writing : I have uploaded the information and added detailed case-notes provided by me to the case file. XXXX further confirmed he would file an appeal on the matching {$300.00} case ( XXXX ), uploaded supporting XXXX PDFs to that case file himself, and committed to a XXXX business day email response timeline on both cases. XXXX closed the chat before providing an appeal reference number, agent ID, or chat reference number, despite my explicit written requests for these confirmations. ( 7 ) On XX/XX/year> three days after the XXXX chat XXXX automated system sent me a new email requesting a tracking number that confirms you returned the merchandise to the merchant on case XXXX , with a shortened 5-day response window. The XX/XX/XXXX email made no reference to : the XXXX-point response letter XXXX confirmed he uploaded on XX/XX/XXXX ( which explains in writing why a tracking number can not exist ), the disposal receipt XXXX confirmed he uploaded on XX/XX/XXXX, the sellers documented refusal of returns XXXX confirmed he uploaded on XX/XX/XXXX, or the case-notes XXXX confirmed he added on XX/XX/XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXX email is the third documented round of XXXX automated system requesting documentation already provided and ignoring substantive responses on the {$200.00} case alone ( the first being the XX/XX/XXXX letter that triggered the XX/XX/XXXX chat, the second being the chat itself ). Across both cases I have documented XXXX rounds of XXXX automated system either denying with boilerplate or requesting documentation that had already been provided, with two named human agents ( XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ) committing in writing to escalations and updates that did not result in any substantive change to the cases handling. I am requesting that the CFPB review : ( a ) XXXX failure to provide investigation documentation when explicitly requested per the instructions in their own denial letter, ( b ) XXXX failure to substantively review a formal written appeal that applied XXXX own stated standard to documented evidence, ( c ) XXXX apparent use of automated responses to dispose of consumer dispute communications without human review, ( d ) XXXX unilateral declaration that the case is closed and that no further appeals will be accepted despite their own User Agreement expressly providing for appeals based on new information or error in the decision-making process, ( e ) the imposition of a return-shipment remedy on the {$200.00} case that is impossible to satisfy on the documented facts and was issued four days after the buyers good-faith disposal of an unsafe item XXXX had not asked her to preserve, ( f ) the internal inconsistency between XXXX XX/XX/XXXX denial on the {$300.00} half of this single dispute and XX/XX/XXXX approval on the {$200.00} half on identical evidence, and ( g ) the XX/XX/XXXX automated request for tracking-number documentation that ignores the XX/XX/XXXX chat upload entirely, demonstrating that the prior submission was not reviewed before the new request was generated. I am specifically requesting that the CFPB facilitate ( i ) reopening of case XXXX for human review by a PayPal/XXXX Disputes Specialist consistent with the determination made on the matching case XXXX, and ( ii ) issuance of the approved refund on case XXXX without the return-shipment condition, based on the documented impossibility of satisfying that condition on these facts. I have also filed chargebacks with my card issuers ( XXXX for the XXXX transactions ; XXXX XXXX for the related {$400.00} XXXX delivery fee ) and have received provisional credits on the XXXX dispute. I am pursuing all channels in parallel and will reconcile any overlap to ensure no double recovery.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation