UK-passport.net

powerful_Rogue

hpuse wrote: »

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.

Its not all to do with the t&c's though. It makes it perfectly clear on the home page of these sites what service you are purchasing. If people spent 20 seconds reading the home page, it would be perfectly clear they are about to purchase a check and send service. Nothing is being hidden away in the t&c's.

hpuse wrote: »

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.

The customer will have to provide the bank with a reason to provide a chargeback, and there are only limited reasons for a chargeback to be successful. Saying to the bank that you didnt read about what you have purchased I personally dont think will be seen as a valid reason.

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

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.

The they that I was referring to was HM Passport Office.
Ask yourself why HM Passport Office are doing no more than putting a warning on their website?

I agree that anyone caught out by any of these copycat websites should 'do something'.

However, I doubt they do.

I read on another thread about renewing driving licences that the person who'd paid more than they should have, was 'just going to put it down to experience' - and that was despite a number of posters suggesting they lobby all the appropriate bodies.

With an attitude like that, there's no wonder that these websites are flourishing and multiplying.

hpuse wrote: »

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

Until the law is changed - and that's unlikely to happen unless there are lots of people lobbying all sorts of official bodies - these websites will always exist (and quite possibly grow exponentially for the same goods/services they currently cover plus other ones that they can think of) so there will always be a consumer with his credit card ready to pay for something he really doesn't need to.

hpuse wrote: »

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.

I may be wrong but I think a credit card company will ask some questions before triggering an investigation.
If I'm right, the questions asked will elicit answers that prove that goods/services were delivered by the company they were ordered from.

hpuse

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

If people spent 20 seconds reading the home page, it would be perfectly clear they are about to purchase a check and send service. Nothing is being hidden away in the t&c's.

Point noted, but, anyone can make 100s of such conditional statements.

My point is, is it worth equating and justifying 20 seconds of negligence to £30 average loss of hard earned income per customer?

My personal view is that such businesses are always walking on a thin line. We, we as a consumer shouldn't be defending them...

shaun_from_Africa

hpuse wrote: »

My personal view is that such businesses are always walking on a thin line. We, we as a consumer shouldn't be defending them...

I don't think that anyone is defending them as such, simply pointing out that until the law is changed, what they are doing is legally okay even if it's morally or ethically wrong.

My point is, is it worth equating and justifying 20 seconds of negligence to £30 average loss of hard earned income per customer?

If I was spending £30 online, I would certainly spend as little as 20 seconds to check what I was actually buying.

powerful_Rogue

hpuse wrote: »

Point noted, but, anyone can make 100s of such conditional statements.

My point is, is it worth equating and justifying 20 seconds of negligence to £30 average loss of hard earned income per customer?

My personal view is that such businesses are always walking on a thin line. We, we as a consumer shouldn't be defending them...

I cant see the issue though. Why are people not looking and reading what they are purchasing? Why are people clicking blindly and handing over all their personal details and bank account details without checking who they are giving them too. Yes these sites are legit and legal, but are they doing the same elsewhere with sites that are not?

15 seconds to read what your buying. From the sites ive seen there are around 5 warnings that its only a check and send service on the front page.

Im fed up of this race to the bottom all the time. Its the "I didnt bother to read what I was buying and as such think the website should be banned"
NO! Take responsibility for your own actions. Look at what your buying in future.

WTFH

There are plenty of things which are legal but are not necessarily moral or ethical.
Take the idea of going into a shop to get advice and try an item, then walking out and buying it online to save £1. Is that morally or ethically right?
How about buying something, taking it home then deciding you don't want it any more so you want to return it for a refund. Nothing wrong with it, perfectly acceptable, but you want the supplier to pay to pick it up from you.
Or the lady who buys 2 dresses online from a store in two different sizes, then makes them pay to take back the one that doesn't fit.
Legally correct? Sure.
Morally or ethically, well, no. It's people using the law as a means to take money from a business.

(But I daren't say that on here, because many people on here believe that all businesses are evil and should be punished)

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

My personal view is that such businesses are always walking on a thin line. We, we as a consumer shouldn't be defending them...

I, as a consumer (although not a consumer of any of these websites that offer goods/services at a higher price than the official website) have never, ever defended these types of websites.

Hpuse
You need to understand the difference between pointing out that - according to the investigation carried out by OFT - most of these websites are operating legally and supporting or defending the websites and the people behind them.

Someone posted this on another similar thread:

There is a very big difference between stating that a company is operating within the law and actually supporting what those companies are doing.

So stop posting that people are supporting or defending these companies - because you're wrong.
We aren't.
We're just reiterating - because some posters can't seem to grasp the fact - that they are operating within the law (as it stands today).

hpuse

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

I cant see the issue though. Why are people not looking and reading what they are purchasing? Why are people clicking blindly and handing over all their personal details and bank account details without checking who they are giving them too. Yes these sites are legit and legal, but are they doing the same elsewhere with sites that are not?

15 seconds to read what your buying. From the sites ive seen there are around 5 warnings that its only a check and send service on the front page.

Im fed up of this race to the bottom all the time. Its the "I didnt bother to read what I was buying and as such think the website should be banned"
NO! Take responsibility for your own actions. Look at what your buying in future.

Interesting you say that, powerful_Rouge.
That makes me think too. Though it is off topic - least to say, I am thankful to my NHS doctor for not saying "NO!" as you do. He is still treating my cholesterol levels . For the records, I wouldn't have got it had I checked/read the food labels and took the right action since the age of 21.

Yes, not for seconds, minutes, days/months ...I didn't bother to read and ingored warning on food labels for years!. PLUS, I would have saved tax payers money too!. As you say, what is the responsibility for "my own course of actions". Ban NHS treatment and all like me should go to a private doctor and pay for their own treatment?

My point is, don't you think these noobs on the internet deserve a second chance for their 15/20 seconds of negligence of not reading the internet t&c's and labeling/warning system in place? .
Or is it still justifiable for any business to pocket such cash with stringent t&c's as long as the business is legit/legal?

Same way as you get fed up seeing race to the bottom all time, everyday I come across more people showing less compassion in life to others.....

Money-Saving-King

hpuse wrote: »

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

There's something you've missed. I take it you've written this because you think any company needs to put the consumer first to survive. Like I said you've missed something, only a company who's looking for repeat business need worry about that. I very much doubt these companies are relying solely on repeat business to survive.

hpuse

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

only a company who's looking for repeat business need worry about that. I very much doubt these companies are relying solely on repeat business to survive.

Yes you are absolutely right.
They very well know that they won't get a chance to 'service' their esteemed patrons only once in a life time.