PayPal withholds $8k in funds raised for Gaza by NZ donors
Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech.
Thousands of dollars donated for Gaza families are being withheld by PayPal without explanation. Photo / Getty Images
By Midday Report of RNZ
Thousands of dollars donated by New Zealanders for families in Gaza is being withheld by PayPal with no reason given.
A New Zealand writer who goes by the name of Emily Writes, set up the fund 'Aotearoa to Gaza Mutual Aid' through Ko-Fi – a free crowdfunding platform that sends funds to PayPal.
In just 24 hours, the account had received over $8000 from about 900 individual donations.
Writes would then send the money on to Palestinians in need, but her request to withdraw money was denied and her account deactivated.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
'Brought to its knees': Why NZ can't shake the recession
By Susan Edmunds of RNZ New Zealanders were told to "survive til '25" for the economy to pick up - but now one major bank economist says it's probably going to be 2026 before any real improvement happens. Kiwibank's latest Annual Regional Note shows small improvements across the country, but weak scores overall. The national average score has lifted from three out of 10 to four. Southland and Otago top the table at five. Otago was boosted by a recovery in international tourism and improvement in employment. Northland, Taranaki and Gisborne went backwards. Taranaki had the biggest fall in employment of anywhere in the country, at 8 percent. Northland reported a double-digit drop in building consents. Retail sales remain below their average levels over the past decade in most regions, as weak household confidence weighs on consumption. Kiwibank said Wellington recorded the steepest annual decline at a -3.3 percent, while regions like Waikato, Northland and the Bay of Plenty experienced a slight improvement on last year. 'Wellington is just more pessimistic' Wellington's score improved from a two out of 10 to a three out of 10 while Auckland lifted from a three to four. "Wellington is just more pessimistic," Kiwibank chief economist Jarrod Kerr said. "It's gone through a lot in recent years. You can see it in their activity, you can see it in the housing market. You can see it in the economy, the city has been brought to its knees and it's been struggling to shake the pessimistic vibe." He said both Auckland and Wellington were well below average. "If you look across the regions, some of them have gone backwards and others are improving but it's not good. "When you look at the South Island things are better, people are definitely more optimistic in the South Island but even then the top scoring regions get a five out of 10." He said the report helped solidify the view that rate cuts to date had not been enough to turn around the economy. "We're really crawling out of this recession rather than regaining our footing and looking to grow from here. We're still struggling across the entire country." He said Kiwibank customers last year had talked about needing to hold on until this year. "We are halfway through the year and, yes, things are better but only by a little bit." Worse off than Australia New Zealand was worse off than Australia, he said. "Their economy is much stronger than ours but in their terms it's soft… where everything washes out is the labour market and, you know, the unemployment rate tells you a lot. Our unemployment rate is over 5 percent and theirs is pretty close to 4 percent." Part of the reason was the more aggressive interest rate hikes from the Reserve Bank, he said. "We were much more aggressive in our rate hikes than in Australia. We were much more aggressive on inflation than across the Tasman. "I think both the RBA and RBNZ made mistakes as I think every central bank did through the Covid period, we overstimulated in hindsight but at the time it was the right thing to do. And then we had to deal with the inflation problem." He said the Reserve Bank had kept the official cash rate at 5.5 percent for too long as it worked to tackle inflation. "We had a really bad recession last year, which the Reserve Bank openly orchestrated, they said 'look, we need a recession to get inflation back down'. The Australians didn't orchestrate a recession, they didn't slam the economy into the floor." Kerr said recovery was still coming but he had hoped it would have started more obviously by now. "We're hoping it takes off in the second half of this year as more and more people refix on to lower rates. Then it's more of a 2026 story now."
RNZ News
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
Is there any way to make a pre-nup 100 percent certain?
RNZ's money correspondent Susan Edmunds answers your questions. Photo: RNZ Send your questions to I've heard various people and sources say that there is no sure way to protect your assets from a partner after three years as a partner can claim unfairness or something similar. Is this true? Some people say a trust can sometimes be broken and pre-nups sometimes don't hold up. Is there any 100 percent certain way to protect your assets before going into a relationship over three years? Sorry, it's probably true that there's no 100 percent way to protect your assets. People often sign a contracting out agreement if they want their relationship property to be treated differently to the way that the law directs. But you're right that this is open to challenge, particularly if it can be argued that the arrangement is unfair. Bill Atkin, emeritus professor in Victoria University's faculty of law, said this was true of any contract and would depend on the circumstances. "The test for the court to set aside an agreement is where 'giving effect to the agreement would cause serious injustice'. There are other factors taken into account including the desire for certainty. It is not common for a contract to be set aside unless, for example, there has been some improper dealings in getting a party to sign. On the other hand, a contract entered into many years ago may turn out to be unreasonable in the light of what has happened in the meantime. To allow no leeway for setting contracts aside would be unfair." A contract must follow the formalities set out in the Property (Relationships) Act. Atkin said the main one that must be remembered was that both parties must have independent legal advice. "Failure to do this will of course meant that the contract is on the face of it invalid." Nicola Peart, University of Otago law professor, said a contracting out agreement was still a good way of protecting your assets, even if it was not ironclad. "Assuming the agreement was made with full information and independent legal advice, it can still be challenged if it was seriously unjust at the time or has become seriously unjust at a later point in time." And this is me talking - this is probably a good thing, overall. If you're living together as a couple and your circumstances change, it's reasonable that what was fair at the outset might no longer be. It's a good idea to get your own legal advice about your individual circumstances. We are currently settling an estate. The deceased had a credit card to a third-party lender, a Q Card, not a Q MasterCard. I cannot find any mention of estate obligations should the holder die, which I have seen with other credit cards. Does this mean the estate is not obligated to pay the bill? Michelle Pope, a principal trustee at Public Trust said generally, if a credit card account was held only in the name of the person who died, it would become a debt of the estate, to be paid from their assets. "However, if the account was in joint names, the responsibility for the debt usually passes to the surviving account holder. We're assuming the lender has already been contacted and the terms and conditions have been reviewed. If those terms don't specify what happens when someone dies, then the debt would usually be treated as one that needs to be settled." In 2007, I separated from my ex-husband and started a relationship with my new partner. He said to me that he had put his property and business into a trust so no other partners could get any of his property. I was OK with that because I felt going forward he would look after me if I became his wife and the mother of his children. Fast forward to 2016 I received $135,000 from my mum's inheritance and 2018/2019 $130,000 from dad. We had been renovating this beautiful 100-year-old house and property in which we used my inheritance to renovate it. I was happy as this was our family home and it was lovely, until 2020 when he started an affair and we separated. Do you have any suggestions on how I can get my inheritances recognized in our financial settlement case? Peart says there is a pathway ruling on general equitable principles, in particular the "constructive trust", which has been used to compensate former partners who have made substantial contributions to assets held in a trust where the court is satisfied that she had a reasonable expectation that she would share in the value of her contributions and it is reasonable for the trustees to yield an interest. She said, if you were married, section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act could be a way to get a settlement. This covers the court making orders relating to property. But she said the opportunity for a court to intervene in nuptial settlements and do something for a spouse who was not getting anything was not available to people who were de facto. "She may well be able to rely on general equitable principles, in particular the constructive trust, for an order that the trustees of the trust hold a share of the home on trust for her on the basis of contributions made to the property and a reasonable expectation that those contributions would result in some share of the property. "Aside from that, I wonder whether she was advised by whoever was handling her parents' estates about the risks of losing her entitlements if she used it to renovate the family home. In this case, the risk was even greater, because the family home was in trust. "This highlights the risks involved with commingling an inheritance with relationship property . As discussed last week, to be kept separate, an inheritance needs to be held apart from other property. "An inheritance is separate property under the PRA, but once it is intermingled with relationship property or invested in the family home, it becomes relationship property and is subject to the equal sharing regime," Peart said. "Lawyers advising on distribution of estates commonly give advice about that to the beneficiaries of the estate to make sure they realise the risks of not keeping the inheritance separate." Atkin said any property owned by a trust would not be divided under the act. "There are some exceptions, where the trust ownership may be factored in, for example where the trust is a sham or where one of the parties has so much control under the Act that they are treated as having an interest that can be divided. "Also, in some situations there may be compensation where relationship property, such as the home, has been transferred to a trust during the relationship. There are other points here but, in short, the relevant law where there is a trust is complex and not consistent. The Law Commission has accepted that the law needs to be reformed but the government has shown no signs so far of implementing the Law Commission's recommendations. "Now, what about the inheritance? There is no direct way under the Act of recognising the inheritance. Any claim would be against the trust. If the inheritance money had been packaged as a loan to the trust, then the trust would be in debt to the person who lent the money. However, most people in relationships are unlikely to think about doing this. Another possibility is that the heir can make a claim under laws that apply generally, not just to relationships. A genuine possibility is to claim what the law calls a constructive trust in relation to the formal trust. The latter would have to account for the contribution made by way of the inheritance but success here is by no means guaranteed and what the value of a constructive trust would be is subject to all the factors in the case. Legal advice would be needed and one would hope that a satisfactory negotiated settlement can be reached with the trustees. Trouble is that the ex may well be one of the trustees and may play hard to get."
NZ Herald
19 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Supermarkets plead guilty to pricing errors, Consumer NZ calls for penalties
A dodgy multibuy refers to a situation where the individual price and the multibuy price don't add up to a saving. A mince special where a tray of meat was $4 or people could buy three for $20. Photo / RNZ Consumer NZ pointed to a mince special where a tray of meat was $4 or people could buy three for $20. In another case, packaging seemed to be making a confusing difference. Two individual bags of Gingernuts were selling for $5 but the club price for a 500g twin-pack was $5.59. The Gingernuts that were selling for $5 but the club price for a twin-pack was $5.59. Photo / RNZ Sometimes the price on the shelf tag does not match what you pay at checkout. In this case, supplied by Consumer, the price tag on the shelf said $27, but the customer paid more than $35 at the checkout. A box of Coca Cola a customer paid more at checkout for than the shelf price tag. Photo / RNZ Sometimes it's just hard to work out what the price is. Consumer provided an example of double cream brie 'reduced' to $10.60 for a quick sale – or was it on sale for $9.80? Sometimes it seems as though there are multiple labels for the same item. Double cream brie with two prices. Photo / RNZ In this case, two signs had two different prices for a single avocado. 'One said $1.69. The other said $1.99,' Consumer NZ spokesperson Abby Damen said. A sign saying a single avocado is $1.99. Photo / RNZ 'The customer was charged $1.99. She returned two days later to ask what could be done about the pricing error. 'She was offered a refund of the price difference but after pointing out the supermarket's new refund policy, she was refunded $2 and also kept her avocado.' Chief executive at Consumer Jon Duffy said anyone charged more than the shelf price was entitled by law to a refund of the difference. He said both supermarket chains promised a full refund in that scenario, but consumers sometimes had to know what was available. A Foodstuffs spokesperson said with more than 14,000 products in a typical supermarket, and prices changing frequently due to supplier costs, promotions or new product lines, pricing was a complex job. 'But for our customers, it's simple. They rightly expect the price on the shelf to match what they pay at the checkout,' he said. 'We take pricing accuracy as seriously as health and safety, aiming for zero errors. 'Across our local, family-owned stores, we manage tens of thousands of price labels and process millions of transactions every week, and we've invested in better systems, daily checks and electronic shelf labels to help get it right. 'If we do get it wrong, our policy is that the customer gets a refund and keeps the product. We've also strengthened staff training and store processes to make sure pricing is clear and accurate.' Woolworths said it had more 3.5 million transactions in stores weekly 'and sometimes errors do occur'. 'When they do, we try to make things right, through our long-standing and market-leading refund policy. Under that policy, if a customer is charged more than the advertised price for a product, they get a full refund and can keep the product.' Duffy said Consumer had received 20 complaints about supermarket pricing since Tuesday. A normal rate would be two a day, he said. -RNZ
