We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Steps to take if you have been ripped-off by a copy-cat government website
Comments
-
Picture: State of a dodgy copycat website trader when he sees chargeback charges applied on his bank statement:rotfl:0 -
And If there is one "misleading element" in my OP, I challenged people here to prove me wrong .... hahaha, those challenges resulted in abuse, name calling etc etc..
Okay, here's a challenge.
Can you, or will you please provide verifiable proof of your claim that both credit card companies and credit networks consider that section 75 of the CCA is not of much use for handling online card disputes.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64469532&postcount=281
I have asked you to back up this claim on many occasions, but all you do is to ignore it hoping that it goes away.
What is the point in asking people to challenge what you write if you then ignore those challenges?0 -
George_Michael wrote: »Okay, here's a challenge.
Can you, or will you please provide verifiable proof of your claim that both credit card companies and credit networks consider that section 75 of the CCA is not of much use for handling online card disputes.
Three things you should understand, and its difference
a) a dispute
b) misrepresentation (resulting in trade)
c) Fraud (attempt of deception)
A dispute does not always result in a charge back.
Misrepresentation is grounds for charge back.
Fraud definitely is a charge back.
Whilst these companies are officially not doing fraud yet, it is a very thin line between misrepresentation and fraud. Hence bank will side and protect the consumers best interest and apply chargebacks since there is 'official' ASA rulings on misrepresentation and compliance. That means the trader will lose money.0 -
Whilst that may (or may not) be true, can you please try and explain just how that goes any way towards answering George's question?Three things you should understand, and its difference
a) a dispute
b) misrepresentation (resulting in trade)
c) Fraud (attempt of deception)
A dispute does not always result in a charge back.
Misrepresentation is grounds for charge back.
Fraud definitely is a charge back.
Whilst these companies are officially not doing fraud yet, it is a very thin line between misrepresentation and fraud. Hence bank will side and protect the consumers best interest and apply chargebacks since there is 'official' ASA rulings on misrepresentation and compliance. That means the trader will lose money.
A reminder... George asked:George_Michael wrote: »Okay, here's a challenge.
Can you, or will you please provide verifiable proof of your claim that both credit card companies and credit networks consider that section 75 of the CCA is not of much use for handling online card disputes.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64469532&postcount=281
I have asked you to back up this claim on many occasions, but all you do is to ignore it hoping that it goes away.
What is the point in asking people to challenge what you write if you then ignore those challenges?0 -
A dispute does not always result in a charge back.
This must be a first - you've actually written something that is correct :eek:.Whilst these companies are officially not doing fraud yet, it is a very thin line between misrepresentation and fraud. Hence bank will side and protect the consumers best interest and apply chargebacks since there is 'official' ASA rulings on misrepresentation and compliance. That means the trader will lose money.
Oops and then you go and spoil it by writing the same rubbish that you've repeatedly been told is not correct.
There may have been misrepresentaiton stated in ASA rulings - but the sites concerned have been updated to remove that misrepresenation - so that is no longer a valid reason to raise a dispute with your bank.
You have repeatedly failed to give a valid justification that a customer can give to their bank for raising a dispute - isn't it time tha you corrected your OP to remove that incorrect advice (and while you are at it you could edit the other errors as well).0 -
Three things you should understand, and its difference
a) a dispute
b) misrepresentation (resulting in trade)
c) Fraud (attempt of deception)
A dispute does not always result in a charge back.
Misrepresentation is grounds for charge back.
Fraud definitely is a charge back..
And one thing that you should understand.
A chargeback is not a S75 claim. They are 2 entirely different things, and I was asking you to provide verifiable proof of your claim that credit card companies and credit networks think that Section 75 is not really useful for online card disputes.
I provided links to the OFT, the Financial Ombudsman and credit card issuers who all stated otherwise, yet all you have provided is waffle.
Why is this I wonder.
As I stated earlier. Why bother to ask people to challenge what you write if you simply ignore the questions being asked.
I will ask again in an easy to understand way.
Can you please provide verifiable proof of your claim that credit card companies and credit networks consider that section 75 of the CCA is not really useful for settling online credit card disputes.
I don't want to hear about chargebacks, simply an answer to the question above.0 -
George_Michael wrote: »
Can you please provide verifiable proof of your claim that credit card companies and credit networks consider that section 75 of the CCA is not really useful for settling online credit card disputes.
I don't want to hear about chargebacks, simply an answer to the question above.
Atleast understand this, S75 of CCA is applicable to all credit agreements irrespective of credit card company or sales channel involved.
S75 was written and amended upon a time, when there was no internet based trade.
Now to answer your question:
Each credit card company have their own authority and processes when it comes to settling dispute matters. Irrespective of the nature or trading channel, their first priority will be be establish the dispute raised by the customer is valid or not. In this instance, the trading standards and ASA has clear rulings that "some" of these website are in breach of advertising standards "trading online" hence their services are misrepresented.
Hence they will use informative evidence and rationale to process and that would ratify charge back outside of S75.
If you want a "verifiable proof", unfortunately disputes and fraud related information are not held in public domain, hence you wont be able to get this information by Freedom of information act.
If you still have a dying need to prove me wrong, I would advice you to do the following:
a) sign up for a service,
b) swiftly cancel it and request for a refund stating that you have strong reasons to believe that their service is misrepresented and cancelling terms and conditions are unfair and against trading standards.
(and then wait for sometime to prove
either no reply or refund or a personal without contactable information or a company house regd virtual address without a landline contact number - they are all 'signs' leading to fraud)
c) speak to the bank and write to them providing all informative, objective and varifiable evidences along with ASA ruling and non-compliance that shows they are misrepresenting their service
d) see the charge back appearing, which will be like self-believe-test for yourself. :rotfl:
Anything else I can help you with?0 -
So no verifiable proof then. Just as I expected.
I gave links to various organisations all detailing how S75 claims worked and the financial ombudsman website gives plenty of examples where successful claims were made following Internet purchases, so your attempt to evade giving an answer by claiming that this info is covered by the FOI act is rubbish. (Just like much of the other stuff you have posted)either no reply or refund or a personal without contactable information or a company house regd virtual address without a landline contact number - they are all 'signs' leading to fraud)
Most of the companies being discussed do have Companies house registration, and surely you know that there is no legal requirement to provide a telephone number, landline or otherwise.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards