UK-passport.net

powerful_Rogue

wantmemoney wrote: »

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64243193&postcount=292

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64272758&postcount=312


but rockface2004 was clearly referring to uk-passport.net
I think it's important if you start giving 'legal advice' to posters you at least refer to the correct website.

your written description of what's on the front page doesn't seem to match what is actually written........it doesn't appear too upfront and honest.
https://uk-passport.net/
the above that you have pointed out doesn't remotely inform a potential customer the 'service' 'only' supplies a form for £72.50 and no passport which has to be purchased separately.

Ok, lets see if we can sort this mess out.

rockface quoted me saying he couldn't see on the website where the warnings were that I posted. Thats because in the post he quoted I was talking to another member on here about passport direct. Maybe you should have a read back over the last few pages and you'll see that!

Secondly, where have I given legal advice? I think you'll find ive given my opinion, but not legal advice! If you want legal advice, goto a solicitor or lawyer - not MSE!

Ok, Looking at the website you have just quoted.

1) Link to the Immigration Passport Service in the header.

2) Scrolling down the site has the following warning and link to IPS "Our service is not connected to or affiliated with the Passport Office or any UK Government department. Our service fee is set out in our terms and conditions and is payable on completion of the form on this website, but you will not be required to pay the passport application fee until you receive and return the printed copy of your application from IPS. The information on this website may also be available without charge from other sources."

3) Comparison table showing that you can get a passport without the check and send service from IPS.

4) Link to the post office saying you can apply that way

5) Another warning at the very bottom. "IMPORTANT: For the avoidance of doubt, please note that Our service is not connected to or affiliated with the IPS or the UK Government and acts as an agent processing the application."

Near enough the same warnings as the other websites,

hpuse

These site may have got all its t&c's covered for the purpose of it.

If it is dodging refund saying a customer hasn't read it is not a good practice. That itself will sound fishy to anyone considering to buy their services in future, doesn't it ?

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

In the post you quoted I was referring to "Passport Direct"

However, for uk-passport.net

1) Link to HM Passport Office at the very top

2) The following warning "Our services are not in any way affiliated with any UK Government body including HM Passport Office. We provide a reviewing and submitting service for all UK passport applications charging a service processing fee. You can apply autonomously to HM Passport Office , avoiding costs for checking and processing, by logging on to their authorised website. Please read our Terms and Conditions before using our website and services."

3) A comparrison between uk-passport.net and HMPO - Which highlights you can apply for your passport free from HMPO and also provides you with a link to their website.

4) Another link to HM Passport Office with the following wording "Your application will not be checked. You will incur HM Passport Office fees."

5)A final repeat of the following warning - " Our services are not in any way affiliated with any UK Government body including HM Passport Office. We provide a reviewing and submitting service for all UK passport applications charging a service processing fee. You can apply autonomously to HM Passport Office , avoiding costs for checking and processing, by logging on to their authorised website. Please read our Terms and Conditions before using our website and services."

Dont tell me you didnt see any of these!

Chrysalis

Speaking as someone who knows the law.

Tell your card provider you will be taking legal action as to them not following uk banking laws to reverse the payment. The bank is simply someone who acts on your behalf, they have no legal responsibility to ensure either end of the sales contract is held.

I am not a fan of misselling, so I wont jump on the bandwagon "you should know better", the site is clearly taking advantage of people, but lets be clear, in terms of law, the card issuer has to reverse the payment if you request it, you may legally still owe the cash to this company but the bank shouldnt be passing that judgement.

As a reminder to people quoting t&c's, t&c's do not overide law.

powerful_Rogue

Chrysalis wrote: »

Speaking as someone who knows the law.

Tell your card provider you will be taking legal action as to them not following uk banking laws to reverse the payment. The bank is simply someone who acts on your behalf, they have no legal responsibility to ensure either end of the sales contract is held.

I am not a fan of misselling, so I wont jump on the bandwagon "you should know better", the site is clearly taking advantage of people, but lets be clear, in terms of law, the card issuer has to reverse the payment if you request it, you may legally still owe the cash to this company but the bank shouldnt be passing that judgement.

As a reminder to people quoting t&c's, t&c's do not overide law.

As you said you know the law, perhaps you could clear a few things up!

What legal action could someone take against the bank? Could you provide me with a link to the relevant legislation to have a look at please.

So I could order something online, then phone my bank up and say "Chargeback please" and they must do it? No questions asked?

In this case, which part of the t&c's do you think have overridden the law? And what law do you think they have over ridden?

Under the Chargeback scheme, if you dispute a transaction that's been made on your card, you can ask your bank to ask the trader’s bank to reverse the transaction and refund the money back into your account. This gives you extra protection if your card is used fraudulently.


Chargeback may also cover you if you have a consumer problem and can't get a refund from the trader, but you may have to prove there’s been a breach of contract first. For example, you may be able to get a refund if:

• goods you've ordered aren't delivered
• goods you've ordered arrive damaged
• goods aren't the ones you ordered or are not as described
• goods are faulty or are not of satisfactory quality
• you don't receive a service you've paid for.

Citizens Advice

Whats your view on the CAB saying you may have to prove theres been a breach of contract first - That seems to go against your advice.

George_Michael

Chrysalis wrote: »

Speaking as someone who knows the law.

Tell your card provider you will be taking legal action as to them not following uk banking laws to reverse the payment.

Chargebacks are not enshrined in UK law and are simply something that banks offer to their customers.
The following is what the UK financial ombudsman says about chargebacks.

Chargebacks are possible because of the contract between the card issuer (or
merchant acquirer) and the card scheme. They are not a right or
protection given directly to the card holder.

Where a chargeback request is made but then refused, the card issuer can take
the matter to the appeal process operated by the relevant card scheme. We cannot
consider complaints about decisions made by card schemes about chargeback
requests, because card schemes are not covered by the ombudsman
service.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/disputed-transactions.htm

Money-Saving-King

Chrysalis wrote: »

Speaking as someone who knows the law.

Tell your card provider you will be taking legal action as to them not following uk banking laws to reverse the payment. The bank is simply someone who acts on your behalf, they have no legal responsibility to ensure either end of the sales contract is held.

I hope you aren't in either the legal profession or someone who gives legal advice eg consumer direct if this is the sort of knowing the law you come up with.

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

These site may have got all its t&c's covered for the purpose of it.

If it is dodging refund saying a customer hasn't read it is not a good practice. That itself will sound fishy to anyone considering to buy their services in future, doesn't it ?

Let's hope it does sound fishy to anyone considering buying their services in future.

Maybe then, less people will feel they have been scammed, conned or ripped-off, there'll be fewer of these sorts of threads on MSE and hopefully these companies will realise that there's not so much easy money to be made from these types of websites.

What are the chances of that happening, do you think?

Will be pretty interested in reading Chrysalis's response to the chargeback points made by GM & PR when it's posted.

hpuse

Every individual is entitled to their own opinion and views about these dodgy but legal sites.

There was a poster here (and now appears to have vanished) who was trying to emphasis the same point of charge back as Chrysalis and importance of reporting these transactions back to the provider.

It is common sense - put consumer first. Without a consumer there is no business. Another fact is that businesses that cons or rip consumers with small print T&Cs doesn't live long.

In my view, these wesbites simply must not exist whether they are legally justified or not it is a different matter.

I am not an expert - but I think IPS is letting these third party websites to store/transmit personally sensitive information on their behalf without prior approval. These kind of personally sensitve data should only be served and stored and transmitted from a regulated and audited environment within IPS/Home Office.

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

Every individual is entitled to their own opinion and views about these dodgy but legal sites.

I don't think anyone has said anything to the contrary.

But there is a difference between 'legal' and 'morally' or 'ethically' right.

hpuse wrote: »

There was a poster here (and now appears to have vanished) who was trying to emphasis the same point of charge back as Chrysalis and importance of reporting these transactions back to the provider.

I believe that poster confessed that he was not a genuine poster, he was conducting some research.

Personally, he wrote such tosh that I would have preferred to see his posts remain.

As for reporting these transactions to the card provider, on what grounds do you think they should be reported?
I suggest you read George Michael's post #325 and tell us which of these apply to transactions with these websites:

Chargeback may also cover you if you have a consumer problem and can't get a refund from the trader, but you may have to prove there’s been a breach of contract first. For example, you may be able to get a refund if:

• goods you've ordered aren't delivered
• goods you've ordered arrive damaged
• goods aren't the ones you ordered or are not as described
• goods are faulty or are not of satisfactory quality
• you don't receive a service you've paid for.

hpuse wrote: »

It is common sense - put consumer first. Without a consumer there is no business.

I'm slightly confused.
Who should put the consumer first?
Like it or not (and I don't) , these websites are in it to make money, not to put the consumer first.

hpuse wrote: »

Another fact is that businesses that cons or rip consumers with small print T&Cs doesn't live long.

How many time do posters need to point out to you that it's not in the 'small print'?

Well, I'm not sure what your definition of 'live long' is, but unofficial EHIC websites were around at least 4 years ago.
During that time, they have been investigated by OFT - and most of them found to be operating legally because they have evolved and now don't hide things away in the small print - and in fact, more websites for all sorts of different goods/services have sprung up.

hpuse wrote: »

In my view, these wesbites simply must not exist whether they are legally justified or not it is a different matter.

Then do something proactive about it.
Report them to OFT with 'further evidence of suspected infringements' that this company is doing something illegal - if you believe that you have that evidence.

Better still, take wealdroam's advice below:

wealdroam wrote: »

If you think the law needs changing, then that is another thing, and you are best advised to lobby all the people that can help towards that happening.

Lobby your MP, write to the Office of Fair Trading, write to the Consumers Association, etc, etc.

hpuse wrote: »

I am not an expert - but I think IPS is letting these third party websites to store/transmit personally sensitive information on their behalf without prior approval.

Prior approval from whom?

hpuse wrote: »

These kind of personally sensitve data should only be served and stored and transmitted from a regulated and audited environment within IPS/Home Office.

It's all well and good making sweeping statements like the one above but who do you expect to do something about it?

3 June 2013 — News story
HM Passport Office warns customers against charges by rogue companies

Her Majesty's Passport Office is advising customers to avoid copycat websites and save themselves money by coming to the agency directly.

HM Passport Office (previously called 'IPS') are well aware of these copycat websites as they post the above warning on their website.

Ask yourself this:
Why aren't they doing something about these copycat websites?

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

Ask yourself this:
Why aren't they doing something about these copycat websites?

Same way, they, here I mean the consumer affected by these copycat websites also has to do something rather than blaming their fate and yet again get blamed here for not reading t&c's. This was the point the other vanished/ousted fella was trying to make here, and I completely agree with that.

Pollycat wrote: »

I'm slightly confused.
Who should put the consumer first?
Like it or not (and I don't) , these websites are in it to make money, not to put the consumer first.

Ask yourself this: without a consumer and his creditcard, how will they make money?

I assume reporting a transaction will trigger an investigation process from the providers end. This will get audited centrally and give a holistic view, i.e the number of people reporting and the number of transactions appearing from these websites.