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.
Bugs and bad letter templates all have the same cause: human error.
Computers don't make mistakes.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
I don't believe that is entirely true. You can decline an inheritance if the estate in Germany is indebted.
No, there's a much more plausible fourth explanation: Paypal is run by dicks.
You must do so in a timely manner, in writing, notarized by a lawyer. It's assumed by default that you accept it if you don't do this.
Yes, but, in this case it's inheriting _debt_ by default unless you explicitly opt out.
I'm wondering how it could be that dying could be interpreted as breach of contract.... does anyone here know exactly what it said?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Dying as being a breach of contract would be a TOTAL Terry Gilliam plot!
Your subject line is yet another great example of the importance of commas.
"a bug, a bad letter template, or human error. "
Or you just have crap policies where you fail to delineate other avenues of outcomes that occur but you do not consider legitimate. This leads to absurd conclusions any normal review or check would recognize as unacceptable.
PayPal is set up this way -deliberately-. They want you to give up. They don't want to be contacted. THey make many being pricks.
Get unsolicited email from PayPal, to an address you own and has never had anything to do with them? You have no easy recourse to get it removed. There is no unsubscribe since PayPal assumes they ahve the right address. They admit it's from an unmonitored email address you cannot rely to. They assume they are in the right or that you have an account or agreement with them. You cannot respond in kind in like medium (email) to get it resolved.
And if you call them, look out. They assume you are the phisher. Yeah, I'm spending 25mintues on hold telling you to contact the account holder they are using my email address, and in them eantime either temproarily blacklist the outgoing emails until thye at least verify the account. Yeah, that's a real good phish move, morons. Interesting how they won't email you to verify right then and there like a poor man's authentication sicn ethey maybe believe it's a MITM, but they'll authenticate with a plain email with an open link to verify an email account.
I'm almost tempted to try to see if I verify my address with the account that I didn't open to see if I can get a password reset. Then go in and turn off the email settings, assuming you can do that. Of course, if I did that, I'd probably be in trouble for hacking, while PP keeps sending me emails to sign up for their new credit card, or I've been preapproved for xyz.
PayPal. Oe wonly pretned to be a bank. WHat do you expect, real service?
"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."
You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't even quit the game.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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
Debts are paid out of the estate before the rest is distributed to beneficiaries. If there is no money in the estate or no assets that can be liquidated then the debt dies. No one inherits debts under common law unless they were in joint names.
For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
Only if it's a joint account. Otherwise it's paid out of the estate and then only if you live in a community property state do the couple's shared assets become up for grabs for a debt collector.
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.
Example number 1299006 of why you should not take legal advice from /.
https://www.consumerfinance.go...
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
> Example number 1299006 of why you should not take legal advice from /.
It's almost like we're more like 50 petty fiefdoms than a single unified country or some such.
The answer to a lot of stuff is "it depends". My state has some nice debtor protections but still has community property debt.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
In Japan mortgage loans comes with a life (actually death) insurance, so if I die before my loan is paid back, my wife gets the house, without paying a penny back. And no, she has no plans of killing me. The house isn't that great.
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
Even worse are the carpetbaggers who thrive on misery. When a loved one dies, be as prepared as you can for this sort of thing -- letters commiserating with you at this terrible occasion, and offering to buy your house immediately for cash. Half of these letters will be addressed to the deceased.
In general (at least around here), the carpetbaggers are not breaking any laws, and the most you can do is write to them or call them, and ask "Does your mother know what you do for a living?" Not that that does any good with those illegitimate sons of crack whores, but it might temporarily make you feel better.
The big companies are sometimes somewhat trainable, and I comment Mr. Durdle for attempting to train Paypal. I myself have attempted to train a few companies, such as Netflix. After trying multiple times to get their customer service people to do the right thing, I finally sent an email to their general counsel:
From: Netflix <info@mailer.netflix.com>
To: xxxx@zzzz.com
Subject: xxxx, come back today to more TV shows & movies.
More TV Shows & Movies to Love
A lot has changed since you left. Come back to Netflix and enjoy newly added TV shows & movies. There's something for everyone to enjoy and we're always adding more, including Netflix original series and movies.
(ad copy, buttons, etc.)
From: yyyy <yyyy@zzzz.com>
To: David Hyman <dhyman@netflix.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: xxxx, come back today to more TV shows & movies.
Dear Mr. Hyman:
It would be great if xxxx would come back. She could watch all the netflix she wanted and I wouldn't mind.
But she's not coming back.
(link to obituary)
I canceled her account two months ago; somehow I managed to explain the situation to one of your people. But that's not good enough; now, in order to get your system to stop sending her email, I either need to provide information I don't have (a credit card number from a bank account which I closed), or I need to get a code so I can log into her netflix account.
This is apparently done in the name of PCI compliance. Like SOX, or ISO-9000, those things done in the name of PCI compliance often don't actually help and may actually harm. E.g. I want to give her privacy, and absolutely do not want to log into her netflix account.
I have fulfilled my responsibilities here; it is up to your company to insure that you stop sending advertising to my dead wife.
It would also be great if you could empower your people enough so that issues like this could be taken care of with a single phone call, but that no longer seems to be the American way.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Best regards,
yyyy
You are over simplifying. The law does not apply to all cancelled debts. It _mostly_ applies to debt that is a result of borrowing. i.e. you borrow $10,000 from a bank.. You never pay it back and eventually the bank writes it off (cancels it). You have effectively been paid $10,000. Thus it's income (sort of).
Now, you rack up $10,000 in long distance phone charges and AT&T cancels the debt. You do not owe the IRS a dime. You were never given money. Although, you certainly don't get to write off the $10K bill from AT&T since you never paid it, and this may push you up to a higher tax bracket...
That is, this law mostly applies to debt that involves the exchange of monies, from what I can tell. As with all things IRS, it's not crystal clear and you have to be a lawyer / CPA to be damn sure... But, your statement is demonstratively false, according to the IRS's own convoluted documentation.
If you are serious, you are a fucking retard. I don't care how much you dislike Trump, to equate him with a philosophy that killed tens of millions of people is insulting to both groups.
Trump may be a giant asshole, but he's not rounding up Jews and gassing them.
I don't know which is worse.. The fact you imply Trump is as evil as Nazis or the fact that you make Nazis out to be less evil than they really were, by reducing them to the level of Trump.
You can always refuse an inheritance, the trick is , you have to refuse it *wholesale*. Meaning you can't pick and chose. Furthermore if the debt was cosigned by *both* spouse then in some cases the other signatory still continue to hold the debt.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
First of all, Nazis did more than round up Jews and gas them, so there are plenty of ways to be like Nazis without actually murdering Jews.
Second, is your objection that he hasn't gotten around to persecuting Jews, or that he hasn't implemented mass murder yet? Because Hitler didn't campaign on a platform of death camps. His platform was about getting rid of illegal immigrants and making Germany great again. There were even Jewish organizations that supported Hitler because they also didn't want to be infested with illegal immigrants -- at least until such organizations became illegal.
Hitler took away Jews' citizenships so he could deport them without trial. Trump just set up a denaturalization task force to take away citizenships and wants to deport people without trial.
The problem with mass deportation is that it proved impossible, so eventually mass murder was chosen as the final solution. At this stage in Nazi history, though, Hitler was still a Zionist.
Even if Trump does not currently display the level of evil that Hitler did in 1944, you can clearly see from his disdain for the likes of Trudeau and Merkel and his admiration of dictators like Putin and Kim that he really wishes to be that evil.
The slogan "Make America Great Again" was even the name of a pro-Nazi organization that wanted America to not go to war with Germany!
After the rally in Charlottesville, where one side had people marching with Nazi flags and the other side had somebody murdered, Trump did nothing to denounce those marching with Nazi flags. Instead he said there were "good people on both sides". Meanwhile Mexicans are rapists and Muslims are terrorists.
Anyway, the reason for the comparison is that the book of Trump seems to be a copy of the book of Hitler. The settings are different, the characters have different names, and some details are changed (e.g. Hitler fought for his country in the war; Trump had "bone spurs") -- but by this chapter so far, the plot is basically the same. And since we know how the other book ends, we'd like the book we're reading now to diverge.
dom