The Advertising Protection Agency

PhylPho

Avalo wrote: »

I notice that there has been little change to their website and that as yet they don't appear to have complied with this part of the ruling (Taken fro the ASA website)


2. Upheld

However, we also noted that the charging information appeared at the bottom of a large block of text and that the website in general contained a great deal of information and several pages of lengthy and detailed text . . .

The technique of using unnecessarily extensive sections of text for the purpose of obfuscation, not information, was a favourite of eBay criminal scammers some years ago.

Prospective buyers would see the item 'headline' on a listings page and then be confronted with line after line of dense text, much of which would be repetitious. They didn't need to be confronted with all that information and so, quite naturally, tended to skip through it. In doing so, they then missed a little bit of text reading: 'This auction is for the box only' or 'You will receive a photo of the item'.

Thus did a considerable number of buyers get scammed into paying good money for what they thought was a new smartphone or games console only to receive an empty box or a jpg image sent by email.

This fraud was stopped because of constant eBay user forum warnings about always using Ctrl / f whenever a listing featured unusually verbose text: Ctrl / f quickly found the word 'box' or 'photograph', 'image', 'picture', 'pic' buried in that text.

A variation on that same trick was run by a UK website charging for free EC Health Cards, in this instance, by splitting the first section of its home page (all about why you should have the card) from the second section (what you'd have to pay the company.)

The splitting was achieved by inserting a third of a page of blank text, the effect of which would be to make the reader think that when they'd finished reading section 1, then they'd read everything. They would then simply click on the link in that section 1 text and go to a page where they could fill in their application and, in the process, agree to pay an 'administration fee'. Many did.

The essence of both these frauds -- because they were just that -- was the deliberate manipulation of communication for commercial advantage.

What's surprising about The Advertising Protection Agency is the fact that though its very name suggests the existence of authoritative expertise in detecting and managing communications fraud, in practice it appears to have little if any expertise at all. If it did, then it wouldn't communicate with text that is not merely excessive but frequently so inarticulate as to appear to have but a coincidental resemblance to the English language.

A consumer can really form only one of two opinions about the way the website has been constructed:

1) The Advertising Protection Agency is a pretty amateurish affair given that its own website inadvertently falls straight into the trap of deploying excessive amounts of text that obscure rather than clarify key facts -- in this instance, pricing information; or:

2) the way the Advertising Protection Agency's website pages have been constructed is not inadvertent.

glider2012

I received an email today threatening action over a bogus bill I refused to pay in August last year! I am not suprised that people like these take no notice of the ASA, but as the original bill included VAT but did not show a VAT registration number, perhaps its time HMRC had a look at them?

PhylPho

glider2012 wrote: »

I received an email today threatening action over a bogus bill I refused to pay in August last year! I am not suprised that people like these take no notice of the ASA, but as the original bill included VAT but did not show a VAT registration number, perhaps its time HMRC had a look at them?

HMRC has been cracking down left, right and centre on VAT fraud and in particular on cases where businesses have been charging VAT but with a phony VAT registration number -- or charging VAT without any registration at all.

Penalties nowadays are meant to be exemplary -- that is, "as a lesson to others" -- instead of the wrist slap and fine of earlier days. If HMRC takes action against a VAT fraudster, then the outcome is almost guaranteed to be a prison sentence.

Reporting *suspected* VAT fraud has never been easier; HMRC operates a telephone hotline, and it takes but a matter of moments to supply the name and address of the business which is charging VAT and which is suspected might not be doing so legitimately.

The hotline number is 0800 595 000.

The caller is NOT required to provide personal identification to HMRC; HMRC's interest is in what the caller has to say, and why.

HMRC will ask the caller if they have documentary evidence in support of their suspicion, this evidence typically being an invoice from the business which includes a VAT charge but which doesn't give a VAT Registration Number. If the document does provide a VAT number but the caller suspects it's a phony, then of course HMRC wants that information as well.

If you believe credible grounds exist for suspecting that The Advertising Protection Agency is charging you VAT when it is not entitled to do so, then simply go to this link:

http://search2.hmrc.gov.uk/kbroker/hmrc/contactus/search.ladv?raction=view&fl0=__dsid%3A&sm=0&ha=34&as=1&sf=&sp_scope=hmrc&sc=hmrc&nh=10&sr=0&cs=ISO-8859-1&tx1=&tx0=49638

It will take you directly to HMRC Customs, Excise and VAT fraud reporting.

Weiserbud

Ha ha ha ha!

TAPA have sent me a letter today threatening me with court action! Bring it on!

katejo

Weiserbud wrote: »

Ha ha ha ha!

TAPA have sent me a letter today threatening me with court action! Bring it on!

Did you initially contact TAPA as a firm plagued by charities demanding money or are you an individual who just wanted to block nuisance calls? I was threatened with court in the very first phone call but thet eventually gave up ringing me.

Weiserbud

Hi yep I ignored them too & yep they threatend me with court straight away.......

I'm not worried though it would not stand up in court especially after the ASA result!

They are persistant though :-)

katejo

Weiserbud wrote: »

Hi yep I ignored them too & yep they threatend me with court straight away.......

I'm not worried though it would not stand up in court especially after the ASA result!

They are persistant though :-)

More persistent with some people than with others

Weiserbud

Well I'm not letting it bother me what can they do? I'm not being intimidated by them

chulzers

My husband had a job working for these guys. The owner is nothing but a conman who threatened his staff. I know exactly the companys real address (not the london based one on the website) if anyone wants it.

katejo

chulzers wrote: »

My husband had a job working for these guys. The owner is nothing but a conman who threatened his staff. I know exactly the companys real address (not the london based one on the website) if anyone wants it.

Is it actually in Cheshire, as we were given to believe by Trading Standards while dealing with them, or somewhere else?