Taking PayPal to court (help please)

[LanceUk]

In many international contracts, the subject to jusrisdiction clause will be England and Wales or Delaware US even though neither party is located there nor has a registered address there.. This is because these are seen as jurisdictions that follow the rule of law and allow a degree of certainty...

I haven't read the Ts & Cs of PayPal, but from the above, it appears the only [edit] PayPal [/edit] UK entity registered at Whittaker House is PayPal Giving Fund UK (from Companies House).. Given this is not about PayPal Giving Fund, unless the Ts & Cs provide that correspondence is to be addressed to Whittaker House then I would suggest the Luxembourg is the correct address, especially if the Ts & Cs state that correspondence is to be addressed there. Note, PayPal (Europe) Limited is registered at 5 New Street Square, London. That may be a better address as Taylor Wessing is based there and I am guessing it is simply the registered address of PayPal (i.e. they have no actrual presence in there and Taylor Wessing I am guessing are there UK/European lawyers). But you aren't contracting to them, anyway, so it does not matter. But if you are wedded to Whittaker house, send them a copy and send the Lux address the actual notice.

But I would not advocate that approach.. By the time this all about comes to a hearing, they will have probably reached their time period where they are happy all is OK and give you your money.. and you will be out of pocket and wasted a lot of time...

I don't know the applicable law as all PayPal are doing is providing a payment service to what appears to be a consumer and therefore will be bound by the various consumer laws here, which are pretty stringent. But getting them enforced is a different thing.

Since they have agreed to be subject to the laws of England and Wales, I imagine they may well be registered and regulated by the FCA. You may be better finding out and if so, refer a complaint to the FS Ombudsman. If they have been found to unreasonably withhold your money, you will be entitled to it back plus compensation and it will be a cheaper route than the cmall claims court.

Of course, you could try your luck by calling into LBCs Consumer Law Hour (on Sunday eves from memory).. If you get air time (which it probably will because I haven't heard of a case on the show, and it happens a bit I would think), then it usually brings the necessary results...

A side bit.. I used to work at Whittaker House, before eBay moved in.. Great building, great location, great pubs.

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

If the OP is within the 180 day withholding period, surely there is nothing to go to court for?

If they do not pay after that, it is a different matter!

 

[Mr D]

If the OP is within the 180 day withholding period, surely there is nothing to go to court for?

If they do not pay after that, it is a different matter!

He apparently does not want to wait.

Come to think of it, are the courts finished with the backlog of work they had a couple of months ago?

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

He apparently does not want to wait.

Well, for the moment, he is wasting his time, I guess!

 

[UKSBD]

OP

It looks like you have sent papers to the wrong address and because of this they have been rejected

For those here who are too stupid to use Google, this is the address the OP knew already and is their registered address for matters legal -

PayPal
Whittaker House
2 Whittaker Avenue
Richmond
TW9 1EH

According to their terms, legal correspondence has to be sent to their Luxembourg address.

 

[obscure]

Their terms and conditions don't trump law,

Sorry but you entered into a contract (those Terms and Conditions you didn't read) that allows them to suspend or terminate your account at their discretion and also to withhold funds for up to X days (in case of fraud or money laundering).

Nothing they have done breaks any law. If they withhold for longer than X days THEN you would have a case. Currently you have no basis for a claim and will lose.

 

[billybob99]

It'll take 180+ days for this to get thru the courts, by which time if everything is kosher they would have released the money anyway.

Complete waste of time.

 

[LanceUk]

Sorry but you entered into a contract (those Terms and Conditions you didn't read) that allows them to suspend or terminate your account at their discretion and also to withhold funds for up to X days (in case of fraud or money laundering).

Nothing they have done breaks any law. If they withhold for longer than X days THEN you would have a case. Currently you have no basis for a claim and will lose.

This is not technically true that just because it is a term, it has to be complied with, especially for consumer contracts, but also for some commercial contracts. First there is the Unfair Contract Terms Act, there is the Consumer Rights Act, and there is the common law, all of which constrain the types of terms that are enforceable and have often struck such terms where they are manifestly unreasonable or disproportionate. I would say, unless it was a suspicion of terrorist financing, where the OP as the recipient is under investigation, 180 days to check it is not going to a sanctioned account or some other money laundering activity could be argued to be excessive (this is assuming this is the first time money has been paid into the OP's PayPal account).

Of course, pursuing it can take 180 days, after which they will give you the money and it is little skin off their nose to withhold...

 

[Mr D]

This is not technically true that just because it is a term, it has to be complied with, especially for consumer contracts, but also for some commercial contracts. First there is the Unfair Contract Terms Act, there is the Consumer Rights Act, and there is the common law, all of which constrain the types of terms that are enforceable and have often struck such terms where they are manifestly unreasonable or disproportionate. I would say, unless it was a suspicion of terrorist financing, where the OP as the recipient is under investigation, 180 days to check it is not going to a sanctioned account or some other money laundering activity could be argued to be excessive (this is assuming this is the first time money has been paid into the OP's PayPal account).

Of course, pursuing it can take 180 days, after which they will give you the money and it is little skin off their nose to withhold...

Perhaps no one has taken paypal to court and won regarding that 180 days so its still in effect due to not being struck down.
If it wasn't a term you agreed with then why agree to the contract?

 

[LanceUk]

I am not saying itisn't in effect.. I am saying just because a term is in a contract doesn't mean it will be enforced should it go to court.. It may well be.. the law recognises that in many cases, businesses - particularly larger ones have an unfair advantage over consumers (and in today's techno world, that is even more the case).

Why would you agree as a consumer? You may not, but you may have no option if you want to achieve the outcome. I believe eBay require you to have a PayPal account and take payment by PayPal, at least the first time you sell. Unfortunately, LOOT doesn't have the same reach as it used to, to provide decent competition.

Also, how many consumers performing everyday type things like selling something read all the Ts&Cs, often which are in legalese, for PayPal, their credit card, their bank, or even the terms ont he back of a used care contract of sale? And how many of them would be qualified to work out what their real rights and obligations are under the contract given they are usually in legalese? When was the last time you read the Ts & Cs when you took a train ride or parked your car at a NCP car park?

 

[jimbof]

I would say, unless it was a suspicion of terrorist financing, where the OP as the recipient is under investigation, 180 days to check it is not going to a sanctioned account or some other money laundering activity could be argued to be excessive (this is assuming this is the first time money has been paid into the OP's PayPal account).

The 180 days is nothing to do with the recipient being under investigation, that was a much shorter timeframe. It is because they've decided to close his account, and are using the fact that he had a postive balance at the time of closing to give them back-to-back coverage on the Paypal buyer protection on the item sold, which allows buyers to dispute up to 180 days after.

Those are all intrinsic features of the Paypal system. I'm not saying it is particularly fair, but it will be the agreement signed up for. If you google "paypal 180 days" you'll find a squillion posts on the matter.

 

[Mr D]

I am not saying itisn't in effect.. I am saying just because a term is in a contract doesn't mean it will be enforced should it go to court.. It may well be.. the law recognises that in many cases, businesses - particularly larger ones have an unfair advantage over consumers (and in today's techno world, that is even more the case).

Why would you agree as a consumer? You may not, but you may have no option if you want to achieve the outcome. I believe eBay require you to have a PayPal account and take payment by PayPal, at least the first time you sell. Unfortunately, LOOT doesn't have the same reach as it used to, to provide decent competition.

Also, how many consumers performing everyday type things like selling something read all the Ts&Cs, often which are in legalese, for PayPal, their credit card, their bank, or even the terms ont he back of a used care contract of sale? And how many of them would be qualified to work out what their real rights and obligations are under the contract given they are usually in legalese? When was the last time you read the Ts & Cs when you took a train ride or parked your car at a NCP car park?

If they do not read what they agree is that the fault of the company?

Do we want to be treated like children, protected from all the evil in the world like companies, food, advertising, films, sex, games etc? Crying to the politicians that the big bad company followed the law and how they made us feel bad...
Or like adults able to make our own decisions and responsible for what we do?

 

[LanceUk]

If they do not read what they agree is that the fault of the company?

No.. But is it your faultthat the company pputs in unenforceable clauses in the contract and expect you to abide by them?

Do we want to be treated like children, protected from all the evil in the world like companies, food, advertising, films, sex, games etc? Crying to the politicians that the big bad company followed the law and how they made us feel bad...
Or like adults able to make our own decisions and responsible for what we do?

I think you missed a very important point which the law finally recognised after many hundreds of years which resulted in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, (UCTA) and of course, the various consumer rights acts (Sale of Goods Act, Sale fo Goods and Services Regulations and latterly the Consumer Rights Act). That is, in commerce, there is usually one party that has excessive control over the relationship to the point the other party cannot achieve what they want without it.. Think HP for cars in the 70's, etc. All finance companies were almost in collusion on their terms (it is one of the reasons UCTA came about.. .Today if you want to sell something, it really is eBay (or maybe Facebook - I really don't use it).. Either take their terms or find some other much more arduous way... And one of their terms is use must use PayPal if you are not a regular seller. Hardly a fair relationship.. The law recognises it and keeps it in check.. Also, unless you have done contract law, I would suggest that in lots of Ts&Cs, there are terms that if read as in plain English would not give you the legal meaning of the term and you may not be signing up to what you think you are signing up.

But to take an analogy.. let's get rid of all regulation and allow a "free" market, known in economics as a "fully competitive market". We are all adults and can enter into any contract freely or reject it... No need for banking regulation, housing regulation, investment regulation, employee protection regulation, safety regulation, minimum product standards regulation, anti-competition law, etc etc.. Let's leave a totally free/fully competitive market and see what happens...

As I said, do you read the Ts &Dc every time you use a [different] car park? You no longer have to because some of the seminal cases defining requirements in contract law around Ts&Cs involve car parks.

This thread isn't about the virtues of contract and consumer law... so sorry for the thread drift.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

If they do not read what they agree is that the fault of the company?

Do we want to be treated like children, protected from all the evil in the world like companies, food, advertising, films, sex, games etc? Crying to the politicians that the big bad company followed the law and how they made us feel bad...
Or like adults able to make our own decisions and responsible for what we do?

Yes we should be treated as children by these massive companies who write T&C's in such a way the average person does not fully understand them and all for a simple transaction

They are blatantly unfair as there seems to be no easy way for the two sides to communicate easily and quickly to solve any potential problems, you should not have a disputes system that just tells you "That's the way it is, we are not talking to you to solve the problem, go to jail for 180 days"

 

[Mr D]

No.. But is it your faultthat the company pputs in unenforceable clauses in the contract and expect you to abide by them?



I think you missed a very important point which the law finally recognised after many hundreds of years which resulted in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, (UCTA) and of course, the various consumer rights acts (Sale of Goods Act, Sale fo Goods and Services Regulations and latterly the Consumer Rights Act). That is, in commerce, there is usually one party that has excessive control over the relationship to the point the other party cannot achieve what they want without it.. Think HP for cars in the 70's, etc. All finance companies were almost in collusion on their terms (it is one of the reasons UCTA came about.. .Today if you want to sell something, it really is eBay (or maybe Facebook - I really don't use it).. Either take their terms or find some other much more arduous way... And one of their terms is use must use PayPal if you are not a regular seller. Hardly a fair relationship.. The law recognises it and keeps it in check.. Also, unless you have done contract law, I would suggest that in lots of Ts&Cs, there are terms that if read as in plain English would not give you the legal meaning of the term and you may not be signing up to what you think you are signing up.

But to take an analogy.. let's get rid of all regulation and allow a "free" market, known in economics as a "fully competitive market". We are all adults and can enter into any contract freely or reject it... No need for banking regulation, housing regulation, investment regulation, employee protection regulation, safety regulation, minimum product standards regulation, anti-competition law, etc etc.. Let's leave a totally free/fully competitive market and see what happens...

As I said, do you read the Ts &Dc every time you use a [different] car park? You no longer have to because some of the seminal cases defining requirements in contract law around Ts&Cs involve car parks.

This thread isn't about the virtues of contract and consumer law... so sorry for the thread drift.

Yes I do read the full terms and conditions before agreeing. Have saved my business many thousands of pounds over the years by doing so, have saved myself a lot of aggro too.

And agree that laws were brought in to protect people. Protect those incapable of deciding for themselves and must have protection from all those nasty businesses... And all those nice businesses too.
Does not make the terms illegal. You agree something then want to be treated as though you did not agree simply because too lazy to read what you agreed?????

 

[LanceUk]

For business, it is different and the protections are no where near to the level that they are for consumers.. So let me get this straight.. before you take your car park ticket, you read the Ts&Cs of each different car park in full? Hmmm.. I somehow don't believe that...

There is power asymmetry in any consumer-business relationship, more often than not to the business than the consumer. Also, how can a consumer who has not been educated in law, does not have the resources a company has, maybe where English is their second language, etc, be expected to compete with companies in understanding all the legalese.

I would agree, in bvusiness, one should read all Ts&Cs of all transactions, but even that is always not practical (e.g., have you read all of Amazon's Ts and Cs if you purchase from them for business? Have you read all the licence agreement of software you have purchased, or downloaded, etc?)

 

[Mr D]

For business, it is different and the protections are no where near to the level that they are for consumers.. So let me get this straight.. before you take your car park ticket, you read the Ts&Cs of each different car park in full? Hmmm.. I somehow don't believe that...

There is power asymmetry in any consumer-business relationship, more often than not to the business than the consumer. Also, how can a consumer who has not been educated in law, does not have the resources a company has, maybe where English is their second language, etc, be expected to compete with companies in understanding all the legalese.

I would agree, in bvusiness, one should read all Ts&Cs of all transactions, but even that is always not practical (e.g., have you read all of Amazon's Ts and Cs if you purchase from them for business? Have you read all the licence agreement of software you have purchased, or downloaded, etc?)

I generally only use one car park.
Most of the time when travelling distance I use the train, parking the thing is the driver's responsibility.

Yes I do read Amazon terms and conditions, I do read software terms and conditions - question is why do you not?
You agree to something that you are unaware of? Foolish.
Then I suppose you complain after the fact when money is taken, funds are held, goods are not as you imagined they would be, the destination looks different....
Because you did not bother reading.

Yes I know for some people it's a hard skill they do not want to use after graduating primary school. But still useful in adult life.

 

[LanceUk]

OK - you generally use one car park.. Did you read the full Ts &Cs before taking your ticket/parking there the first time.. or ever? And have you read the full Ts &Cs of your train company (usually posted at the station) before puchasing your ticket?

FWIW, I have read the Amazon Ts &Cs for my business (I only buy off them) as when I purchase through my business, I am not covered by consumer law. But to be honest, no I don't read the detauiled Ts & Cs from a consumer perspective as they are bound by consumer law..

I think you are forgetting in B2C relationships, it is usually the B that has the power and information/knowledge advantage - by quite some way - over the C. In fact, the C may read the Ts&Cs and be willing to take the risk because there is simply no alternative. This does not give the B the right to take advantage of the situation and have terms in there that are manifestly unfair. Also, often these terms are drafted in technical legal jargon, which C can have no real hope to understand at all, let alone the time period C wants to execute the transaction with. In the case of the OP, he wanted to sell whatever it was via eBay. eBay requires him to use PayPal.. PayPal has a clause which says it can hold the money for 180 days... If OP wants to reach the largest market, which PayPal doesn't even provide for him, he has to use eBay.. and through eBay's terms, has to use PayPal. What choice does he really have?

1/2 a year seems an abnormally long period of time for a payment company to hold onto money (PayPal is a financial services company) for no good reason.. especially if they can do it arbitrarily. Now shroud that term in a bunch of legalese and the OP may not have even understood what the term was.. Should he stop trrying to conduct his transaction? If this was the case, the economy would probably collapse because about 80% of people wouldn't understand what they are signing up for..

Let's ask another question - say it was legal for a lawyer, doctor, or financial advisor to put in a term/condition where the client indemnifies them from any claim of negligence in their advice. You can bet your bottom dollar every lawyer and financial advisor would have that clause in there...Now I don't know about you, but if I need a lawyer or a doctor in a hurry, and its after hours and there aren't too many around or that I can even choose, am I not going to take their service with the term?

We are going to disagree, but I think your basing your argument on a) everyone has equal power and information in a business relationship and there are substitutes readily available and easily discovered; b) everyone understands the technical complexities of contracts (remember, Ts&Cs evolve over time for companies as they learn the hard way what works and doesn't - or are drafted by lawyers who have), and c) no-one has tried on unjust enrichment (or delay/cancelling converying a benefit). The courts have had a lot of experience of this which is why they often look to function over form to get fairness (OK - they don't always get it right).

A penalty clause in a contract under English/Welsh law is unenforceable; a liquidated damage is, but it has to be based on actual loss, or restitution, etc.. it can't be seen to be punishing.

 

[Mr D]

OK - you generally use one car park.. Did you read the full Ts &Cs before taking your ticket/parking there the first time.. or ever? And have you read the full Ts &Cs of your train company (usually posted at the station) before puchasing your ticket?

FWIW, I have read the Amazon Ts &Cs for my business (I only buy off them) as when I purchase through my business, I am not covered by consumer law. But to be honest, no I don't read the detauiled Ts & Cs from a consumer perspective as they are bound by consumer law..

I think you are forgetting in B2C relationships, it is usually the B that has the power and information/knowledge advantage - by quite some way - over the C. In fact, the C may read the Ts&Cs and be willing to take the risk because there is simply no alternative. This does not give the B the right to take advantage of the situation and have terms in there that are manifestly unfair. Also, often these terms are drafted in technical legal jargon, which C can have no real hope to understand at all, let alone the time period C wants to execute the transaction with. In the case of the OP, he wanted to sell whatever it was via eBay. eBay requires him to use PayPal.. PayPal has a clause which says it can hold the money for 180 days... If OP wants to reach the largest market, which PayPal doesn't even provide for him, he has to use eBay.. and through eBay's terms, has to use PayPal. What choice does he really have?

1/2 a year seems an abnormally long period of time for a payment company to hold onto money (PayPal is a financial services company) for no good reason.. especially if they can do it arbitrarily. Now shroud that term in a bunch of legalese and the OP may not have even understood what the term was.. Should he stop trrying to conduct his transaction? If this was the case, the economy would probably collapse because about 80% of people wouldn't understand what they are signing up for..

Let's ask another question - say it was legal for a lawyer, doctor, or financial advisor to put in a term/condition where the client indemnifies them from any claim of negligence in their advice. You can bet your bottom dollar every lawyer and financial advisor would have that clause in there...Now I don't know about you, but if I need a lawyer or a doctor in a hurry, and its after hours and there aren't too many around or that I can even choose, am I not going to take their service with the term?

We are going to disagree, but I think your basing your argument on a) everyone has equal power and information in a business relationship and there are substitutes readily available and easily discovered; b) everyone understands the technical complexities of contracts (remember, Ts&Cs evolve over time for companies as they learn the hard way what works and doesn't - or are drafted by lawyers who have), and c) no-one has tried on unjust enrichment (or delay/cancelling converying a benefit). The courts have had a lot of experience of this which is why they often look to function over form to get fairness (OK - they don't always get it right).

A penalty clause in a contract under English/Welsh law is unenforceable; a liquidated damage is, but it has to be based on actual loss, or restitution, etc.. it can't be seen to be punishing.

Of course I read the T&C there first time I took the car there. Its what, 10 seconds? Maybe 15 on a bad day?
And yes I have read the terms and conditions of rail travel before using the train. Got compensation several times too - and twice a taxi ride across country saving considerable travel time. All through figuring out what they can and cannot do.


You are of course aware that where consumer law doesn't cover you but you do agree to amazon T&C then it could be a while to get stuff done? Even relying on consumer law can take time to get stuff done - a business can be acting illegally as far as you are concerned but until you hold them to account you don't get what you want.

In this situation we are talking about paypal and their holding of money. Which is in their T&C and does not look like they are acting illegally.
I know they are not the only company who do this. Perhaps those companies doing it have checked with their legal department before publishing the terms the customer accepts.

Though then crying that you didn't read what you click to accept is .... childish.
Waa waa long words and me not good at reading - cry some. If there isn't an alternate service then they'd better learn to read these documents.

The reason people do not have so much power is because they are unaware they have it. They rely on the goodwill of those after their money.

 

[LanceUk]

Maybe I haven't expressed myself properly..

The law does not protect people from being idiots or being lazy.. nor would I advocate that. But the law seeks to ensure that when people enter into a transaction, it is done in a fair way and one party doesn't unfairly use their power in a relationship to burden the other party with obligations or losses as a result. The 180 day clause may be valid where it is reasonable... where it is not, I doubt the court in a consumer contract would hold it enforceable because of the power that PayPal has over the consumer, in this case assigned (in the English and not legal sense) to it by eBay.

As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, taking PayPal to court is not something I would recommend as by the time it gets to court, the 180 days will be over and PayPal will have handed the money over by then... This is one of the problems with English/Welsh law.. very strong consumer protection, very weak enforcement of those rights in a reasonably timeley and cheap manner.

Wow.. If you could read all of this in 10 seconds, you are superperson: https://www.ncp.co.uk/help-centre/website-terms-and-conditions/car-park-terms-and-conditions/.

These are normally posted somewhere in the car park as well or a sign that says you agree to be bound by these conditions.

Whether we like it or not, for most transactions people enter into, they don't read the fine print until something goes wrong.. That is their risk.. however, if there is a T&C that is in there that is manifestly unreasonable or unjust, a company should not be able to unjustly profit from it...

We have hijaked the thread beyond finding the address. something we are unlikely to agree on, so I will leave it there and respect your opinion, too.

 

[fisicx]

Back to where we started.

The OP send the letter to the wrong address. If they followed the instructions on the PayPal website they would have a better chance of getting a result.

 

[Mr D]

Maybe I haven't expressed myself properly..

The law does not protect people from being idiots or being lazy.. nor would I advocate that. But the law seeks to ensure that when people enter into a transaction, it is done in a fair way and one party doesn't unfairly use their power in a relationship to burden the other party with obligations or losses as a result. The 180 day clause may be valid where it is reasonable... where it is not, I doubt the court in a consumer contract would hold it enforceable because of the power that PayPal has over the consumer, in this case assigned (in the English and not legal sense) to it by eBay.

As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, taking PayPal to court is not something I would recommend as by the time it gets to court, the 180 days will be over and PayPal will have handed the money over by then... This is one of the problems with English/Welsh law.. very strong consumer protection, very weak enforcement of those rights in a reasonably timeley and cheap manner.

Wow.. If you could read all of this in 10 seconds, you are superperson: https://www.ncp.co.uk/help-centre/website-terms-and-conditions/car-park-terms-and-conditions/.

These are normally posted somewhere in the car park as well or a sign that says you agree to be bound by these conditions.

Whether we like it or not, for most transactions people enter into, they don't read the fine print until something goes wrong.. That is their risk.. however, if there is a T&C that is in there that is manifestly unreasonable or unjust, a company should not be able to unjustly profit from it...

We have hijaked the thread beyond finding the address. something we are unlikely to agree on, so I will leave it there and respect your opinion, too.

Sorry, why would I read the NCP terms and conditions? Pretty sure the nearest NCP car park is one I have never been in.

 

[hopitt]

So if the general consensus is I'm "wasting my time" how do I withdraw my claim. At the moment it's in a "transferred" state which I'm assuming is to stop any judgements being made while paypals defence documents regarding the wrong address being received by all parties.

 

[hopitt]

I have my court date on the 23rd. Hearing via telephone.

All PayPal are attempting to do is contest jurisidiction, but regardless of the address I sent the papers too, they're an entity in the UK which is where I reside. I have a legal right to face and confront my adversaries in a court of law.

Surely if serving papers to their European address would mean I wouldn't be able to see them in court?

Any advice defending against their jurisidiction defence?

 

[MOIC]

1. Don't answer the phone.

2. Answer the phone, have your defence ready and expect to lose the case.

 

[hopitt]

1. Don't answer the phone.

2. Answer the phone, have your defence ready and expect to lose the case.

Why would I lose the case? What would be the particulars?

Would it be worth making a new claim and serving the papers to their EU address?

 

[MOIC]

Wait for the 180 days and for them to release your funds.

 

[fisicx]

Why would I lose the case? What would be the particulars?

Because they have better lawyers than you

Would it be worth making a new claim and serving the papers to their EU address?

Yes. Because that's what they tell you do to on their website.

 

[hopitt]

Because they have better lawyers than you

Yes. Because that's what they tell you do to on their website.

Surely in cases like this it makes no difference how good of a lawyer you are law is law. They don't actually have a legal right to hold my funds when they can't and haven't proved or given any actual reason behind why they are doing it.

Also the vibe on this site is very weird. Presents its self as a forum in which you can ask a more experienced community on legal advice and yet the entire thread all I've received is comments from people as such as yourself that type in a way that seems as if you're looking down on someone for trying to get help and advice.

 

[hopitt]

Wait for the 180 days and for them to release your funds.

They said they'd do monthly reviews of my account every 30 days yet I've not received any information for the last 90 days my accounts been "limited".

Worth bringing up at the hearing?

 

[MOIC]

Nope.

You have no case.

The more you push it, the longer you'll wait for your money.

Accept 'defeat' and move on . . . . . . . never using PayPal again.

 

[Newchodge]

They don't actually have a legal right to hold my funds when they can't and haven't proved or given any actual reason behind why they are doing it.

What is your legal reasoning for this statement?

 

[NickGrogan]

They said they'd do monthly reviews of my account every 30 days yet I've not received any information for the last 90 days my accounts been "limited".

Worth bringing up at the hearing?

They said that they'd do reviews, they didn't say that they'd tell you what the reviews were.

When you lose, PayPal will probably be awarded costs. Have you budgeted several thousand for this?

 

[NickGrogan]

Surely in cases like this it makes no difference how good of a lawyer you are law is law.

Imagining for a second this is true, what specific law have PayPal broken?

 

[hopitt]

They said that they'd do reviews, they didn't say that they'd tell you what the reviews were.

When you lose, PayPal will probably be awarded costs. Have you budgeted several thousand for this?

PayPal won't and can't be awarded anything. Their counter claim/defence has no amount in that they're seeking.

It's also a small claims court, the worst that could happen is I have to pay for the hearing which would be roughly £100.

 

[hopitt]

Imagining for a second this is true, what specific law have PayPal broken?

They're unlawfully withholding access to my funds. Someone writing something in the terms and conditions of a website doesn't make what they're doing lawful.

 

[fisicx]

They're unlawfully withholding access to my funds. Someone writing something in the terms and conditions of a website doesn't make what they're doing lawful.

No they aren't. Their T&C have been tested many times in court.

You agreed to these terms. Nobody forced you to use PayPal.

If you lose you will have to Pay all their costs. Lawyers on no doubt thousands of pounds per day.

And you will lose.

 

[NickGrogan]

PayPal won't and can't be awarded anything. Their counter claim/defence has no amount in that they're seeking.

It's also a small claims court, the worst that could happen is I have to pay for the hearing which would be roughly £100.

Not always

"As a caveat to the general rules on costs, it must be stated that if a party brings an unreasonable small claim that obviously fails, or defends a claim by acting unreasonably and subsequently loses, the court has discretion to make a punitive order for that party to pay the other side's costs."

https://www.fosters-solicitors.co.uk/news/litigation/the-small-claims-track-who-pays/651

 

[NickGrogan]

They're unlawfully withholding access to my funds. Someone writing something in the terms and conditions of a website doesn't make what they're doing lawful.

Actually when they are the terms and conditions for the service and you have specifically agreed to them, then it does.

Unless the terms were clearly unlawful, which PayPal's are not.

 

[hopitt]

Not always

"As a caveat to the general rules on costs, it must be stated that if a party brings an unreasonable small claim that obviously fails, or defends a claim by acting unreasonably and subsequently loses, the court has discretion to make a punitive order for that party to pay the other side's costs."

It isn't an unreasonable claim, it's a filling error regarding the address and that can be argued that it isn't easy to find their trading address and I have logs of me asking PayPal on multiple occasions where I serve court papers too, to which they didn't not answer and gave me automated responses.