Slashdot Mirror
PayPal Told Customer Her Death Breached Its Rules (bbc.com)
dryriver shares a report from the BBC: PayPal wrote to a woman who had died of cancer saying her death had breached its rules and that it might take legal action as a consequence. The firm has since acknowledged that the letter was "insensitive," apologized to her widower, and begun an inquiry into how it came to be sent.
Lindsay Durdle died on May 31 aged 37. She had been first diagnosed with breast cancer about a year-and-a-half earlier. The disease had later spread to her lungs and brain. PayPal was informed of Mrs Durdle's death three weeks ago by her husband Howard Durdle. He provided the online payments service with copies of her death certificate, her will and his ID, as requested. He has now received a letter addressed in her name, sent to his home in Bucklebury, West Berkshire. It was headlined: "Important: You should read this notice carefully." It said that Mrs Durdle owed the company about 3,200 pounds (~$4,200) and went on to say: "You are in breach of condition 15.4(c) of your agreement with PayPal Credit as we have received notice that you are deceased... this breach is not capable of remedy." According to a PayPal staff member, there were three possible explanations for how the letter was sent: a bug, a bad letter template, or human error. PayPal is continuing to work with Mr Durdle and has written off the debt in the meantime.
Lindsay Durdle died on May 31 aged 37. She had been first diagnosed with breast cancer about a year-and-a-half earlier. The disease had later spread to her lungs and brain. PayPal was informed of Mrs Durdle's death three weeks ago by her husband Howard Durdle. He provided the online payments service with copies of her death certificate, her will and his ID, as requested. He has now received a letter addressed in her name, sent to his home in Bucklebury, West Berkshire. It was headlined: "Important: You should read this notice carefully." It said that Mrs Durdle owed the company about 3,200 pounds (~$4,200) and went on to say: "You are in breach of condition 15.4(c) of your agreement with PayPal Credit as we have received notice that you are deceased... this breach is not capable of remedy." According to a PayPal staff member, there were three possible explanations for how the letter was sent: a bug, a bad letter template, or human error. PayPal is continuing to work with Mr Durdle and has written off the debt in the meantime.
Computers have it out for us. They always do exactly what we tell them and not exactly what we want them to do.
I don't believe that is entirely true. You can decline an inheritance if the estate in Germany is indebted.
the wording might be insensitive but notifying her husband about it isn't that unusual, is it?
Nope, this is just an attempt to collect a debt by PayPal. Poorly worded and untimely given his wife's death was already legally established by the copy of the death certificate he provided, but just SOP for debt collection. Common, even when the person in debt is dead. I got lots of demands for payment when my mother died. I wasn't liable for any of the debt, yet the letters came and got shreded.
I do think that PayPal was stupid to try this, mainly because of the risk of a bad PR outcome. Receipt of a death certificate should suspend the account and all debt collection activities for any unsecured debt associated with the deceased.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I would like to know what this is too. Looking up the terms and conditions, there is a 15.4, but no subclause (c): :P
15.4 In the event you do not agree to the terms of a release amount, you may close your account unless otherwise prohibited under this Agreement. However, if your account is closed for any reason, we have the right to hold the amount retained in your PayPal account for up to 180 days.
Can anyone else find more?
catchpa: mystery
That was literally the opening plot of Brazil. Guy gets murdered during a swat-style raid looking for a guy whose name was one typo different, and as a result his family has to pay for his termination costs, despite it being the government's fault.
That movie is an excellent watch by the way, although it is hard to tell what part of it is taking part in 'reality' and what part of it is in his mind, whether crazed, or after he is broken.