UK-passport.net

pmduk

Pollycat wrote: »

That clearly says - and not at the bottom of the page but halfway down and in a different font colour - that this company is not affiliated to the Passport Office.

Ah, but you took the time to read the page, many people don't and then cry scam as a result.

Pollycat

DGriffiths wrote: »

Hi,

I have just made this mistake. I sent an email immediately, and they won't refund me. What did you say in your email?

They say this in their 'Terms':

Cancellation/Refund Policy
You may cancel your application for our service at any time up until we have processed your application and completed our service.
If you cancel before we have processed your application, we will issue a full refund. If the application has been processed we will refund the full payment less a £8.00 administration fee
If you wish to exercise your right to cancel, please contact us in writing (email is best), supplying your name, address and the Order ID number that was emailed to you immediately after payment. Our contact details can be found HERE.

So what reason have they given for refusing you a refund?

DGriffiths wrote: »

So far, I have contacted the payment dispute team at Natwest, who were sympathetic, but say that they can't do anything unless I don't receive the service.

Have you followed the refund process on their website?

DGriffiths wrote: »

I have heard that the official passport agency is also very condemnatory about what they do. I am contacting a number of other official bodies, to see what they think about this.

A number of other posters have also wondered why IPS haven't got involved.
Maybe these types of companies are not breaking the law as they now seem to make it clear (and it IS clear) on their websites that you are paying for a 'value-add' service.
Just a thought, really, as I can't understand why - if they are breaking the law - they are not being closed down.

DGriffiths wrote: »

I would be very surprised if the response I get is 'you should have checked the small print, sucker!', but we'll see. I'd like to think I live in a society where people who make honest mistakes like these are defended against people whose only way of making a living is to take advantage of that side of human nature.

It's not in the small print! :wall:
I would be very surprised if you got a response that said, 'You're right. You've been a victim of a crime. We'll close these websites down immediately and take steps to ensure that they can't re-open them ever again.' :cool:

It's not an honest mistake, it's being sloppy and careless with your personal and financial details by not reading something that is clearly stated.

dgriffiths2

Pollycat wrote: »

They say this in their 'Terms':


So what reason have they given for refusing you a refund?



Have you followed the refund process on their website?



A number of other posters have also wondered why IPS haven't got involved.
Maybe these types of companies are not breaking the law as they now seem to make it clear (and it IS clear) on their websites that you are paying for a 'value-add' service.
Just a thought, really, as I can't understand why - if they are breaking the law - they are not being closed down.


It's not in the small print! :wall:
I would be very surprised if you got a response that said, 'You're right. You've been a victim of a crime. We'll close these websites down immediately and take steps to ensure that they can't re-open them ever again.' :cool:

It's not an honest mistake, it's being sloppy and careless with your personal and financial details by not reading something that is clearly stated.

They said they had processed the order. I emailed them at about 9pm on the evening I made the application. They emailed me back at 9.15am the next morning to say they had processed my order, and therefore was not eligible for a refund. I couldn't have got the message across to them sooner, could I?

We could discuss the meaning of an honest mistake, but it's not really the point. What I want to hear is someone to tell me that they can see a reason why someone in their right mind with full knowledge of the facts would use this service. If no one can, I would feel confirmed in my belief that this company have the conscious intention of taking advantage of other people's errors of judgement, and that they serve no other purpose. They have no intention of providing a service that any sensible person would want, and they justify their existence purely by technicalities, such as providing information that they know a proportion of the population won't read. They have, moreover, only moved to the stage of providing this information as a result of court rulings against them. They wouldn't provide them if they could get away with it.

mo786uk

the fact that a disclaimer is provided does not make it legal - you very much have to consider how it was presented as a whole

so going to a homepage which makes it blatantly clear might be fine but going in through a link which doesnt might not - not when they know people will go in through the link that they have paid for.

Pollycat

dgriffiths2 wrote: »

They said they had processed the order. I emailed them at about 9pm on the evening I made the application. They emailed me back at 9.15am the next morning to say they had processed my order, and therefore was not eligible for a refund. I couldn't have got the message across to them sooner, could I?

As they had processed your application, you should be eligible for a refund of the full payment less £8 admin fee - in accordance with their T&Cs.

What did they say when you told them that?

You did quote their T&Cs at them, didn't you?

dgriffiths2 wrote: »

We could discuss the meaning of an honest mistake, but it's not really the point. What I want to hear is someone to tell me that they can see a reason why someone in their right mind with full knowledge of the facts would use this service. If no one can, I would feel confirmed in my belief that this company have the conscious intention of taking advantage of other people's errors of judgement, and that they serve no other purpose. They have no intention of providing a service that any sensible person would want, and they justify their existence purely by technicalities, such as providing information that they know a proportion of the population won't read.

I can't really comment on the above as I wouldn't have been taken in with this website anyway as I'm in the proportion of the population who would read the information provided.

dgriffiths2 wrote: »

They have, moreover, only moved to the stage of providing this information as a result of court rulings against them. They wouldn't provide them if they could get away with it.

Do you have a link to the court ruling you mention?

wantmemoney

Pollycat wrote:

wrote:

Originally Posted by dgriffiths2 View Post
They have, moreover, only moved to the stage of providing this information as a result of court rulings against them. They wouldn't provide them if they could get away with it.

http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/For-Business/Consultations-and-Invitations-to-Tender/Previous-consultations/~/media/Files/PhonepayPlus/Consultation%20PDFs/CD_ICSS_24_April_2013.pdf

Information Connection and/or Signposting Services (ICSS) are PRS which are promoted prominently on search engines such as Google, Bing and Yahoo, or sometimes on classified ads websites such as Gumtree. PhonepayPlus defines them as follows:

As a result of complaints about ICSS, arising from both consumers and the organisations with whom ICSS imply association and which had resulted in a number of adjudications by PhonepayPlus Tribunals, PhonepayPlus issued a consultation in July 2012 which set out proposals for a prior permission regime for ICSS.


The complaints were also made to the ASA, OFT and CAB. The 'industry' was told to clean up it's act or face further regulation.

@Pollycat
it's usually the tactic of the scammer and confidence trickster that defend the fraud and blame the victim.

Pollycat

wantmemoney wrote: »

http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/For-Business/Consultations-and-Invitations-to-Tender/Previous-consultations/~/media/Files/PhonepayPlus/Consultation%20PDFs/CD_ICSS_24_April_2013.pdf

Information Connection and/or Signposting Services (ICSS) are PRS which are promoted prominently on search engines such as Google, Bing and Yahoo, or sometimes on classified ads websites such as Gumtree. PhonepayPlus defines them as follows:

As a result of complaints about ICSS, arising from both consumers and the organisations with whom ICSS imply association and which had resulted in a number of adjudications by PhonepayPlus Tribunals, PhonepayPlus issued a consultation in July 2012 which set out proposals for a prior permission regime for ICSS.


The complaints were also made to the ASA, OFT and CAB. The 'industry' was told to clean up it's act or face further regulation.

I've not read the whole 96 page document, although from what I can see it's not a court ruling but a public consultation document.

wantmemoney wrote: »

@Pollycat
it's usually the tactic of the scammer and confidence trickster that defend the fraud and blame the victim.

@wantmemoney

I'm not a scammer or confidence trickster, nor am I employed by any of these websites.

I find it's usually the tactic of those people who've not read what a lot of websites state clearly who defend their actions and yell they've been scammed, conned, ripped-off etc - instead of acknowledging they've actually been careless and are therefore to blame.

BuzzyMunch

Nobody in their right mind would intentionally use the services of these people. They are exploiting people's trust. I thought I was quite clued up when it comes to money and its just a shame nothing can be done about it. I'm further puzzled how people who haven't been tricked want to contribute and almost tell people it serves you right for being careless ? Do they enjoy reading others misfortune ? Have they got nothing better to do ?

dgriffiths2

Pollycat wrote: »

As they had processed your application, you should be eligible for a refund of the full payment less £8 admin fee - in accordance with their T&Cs.

What did they say when you told them that?

You did quote their T&Cs at them, didn't you?



I can't really comment on the above as I wouldn't have been taken in with this website anyway as I'm in the proportion of the population who would read the information provided.


Do you have a link to the court ruling you mention?

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same conmen now. I've just had a look at the T&Cs and they don't mention the £8 cancellation charge. I am not allowed to post links as I am a new poster. The site I am looking at is called passport .uk .com

This site is set up by an organisation called WHO4. It was an earlier manifestation of this organisation, A2B, that was fined over the inaccurate information on their site. If you want to see where I got this information, google "passport renewal scam" and look at the mirror blog article which comes up about four entries down. As I say, they won't let me post links.

Does anyone know if WHO4 is related to ICSS?

What do you make of the fact that they charge the same for "administration" they do as the charge for the passport itself? Do you not think that is part of an intention to mislead people into thinking that they are paying for the passport in the administration fee?

Pollycat

dgriffiths2 wrote: »

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same conmen now. I've just had a look at the T&Cs and they don't mention the £8 cancellation charge. I am not allowed to post links as I am a new poster. The site I am looking at is called passport .uk .com

This site is set up by an organisation called WHO4. It was an earlier manifestation of this organisation, A2B, that was fined over the inaccurate information on their site. If you want to see where I got this information, google "passport renewal scam" and look at the mirror blog article which comes up about four entries down. As I say, they won't let me post links.

Does anyone know if WHO4 is related to ICSS?

No, we're not talking about the same company.
This thread was originally discussing this company:
https://uk-passport.net/

Here's the website you used;
http://www.passport.uk.com/renewal.php?gclid=CMvzmo39ybgCFY7LtAodAlMA1w

Here's the link to 'Penman & Sommerlad Investigate' (for the Mirror)
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2013/02/passportukcom-charges-for-advi.html

The fine was in 2007 and was about phone lines, not the website (as I read it).

In fact the article says:

Stephen Oliver, a director of Who4, said it had been cleared by "Google and British Trading Standards".

I'm not defending these websites but I think - and I've said this before in this thread - that they must (now) be operating within the law (regardless of whether we think it's a pretty despicable way of taking money from unsuspecting people) otherwise Trading standards would be closing them down (exactly as they closed down some EHIC websites back in 2010) but they don't appear to be doing so.

dgriffiths2 wrote: »

What do you make of the fact that they charge the same for "administration" they do as the charge for the passport itself? Do you not think that is part of an intention to mislead people into thinking that they are paying for the passport in the administration fee?

I honestly can't tell you if I think it's an intention to mislead by the administration fee because this is shown right at the top of the page that a Google search takes you to:

A similar checking service can be obtained from a Post Office at a reduced fee or you can apply without a checking service where there will be no checking fee payable. We are not affiliated with Post Office, IPS or any government body.

and for me, that says it all.

I think the more this is discussed on various Watchdog/consumer rights programs, websites such as this and in newspapers, the more people will be extra vigilant before agreeing to use a service for a fee.

As I've said, it's not just passports - it's EHIC, ESTA, driving tests that I'm aware of. Who knows what they'll pick up on next.