UK-passport.net

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

Service is misrepresented (trading standards), advertisement is misleading (ASA) and most importantly, the owners WHO4 were convicted and fined in the past for similar rip-off incidents.

However, in this forum you will find high self-esteem posters gladly pasting their T&C's again and again.....

You are doing nothing to further your cause with these (occasionally unintelligible) rants.

If you believe that the law HAS been broken then, by all means, gather your evidence and send it off to the appropriate agency.

hpuse

Valli wrote: »

I am NOT supporting these 'clone' sites at all.

But if someone realises, from the section of the terms I have copied, that these websites make it very very difficult for people to cancel once they have 'instructed' the site to carry out the work and decided NOT to sign up they will have been helped, won't they?

If they make it very difficult for people to cancel then it is considered as unfair trading
.
There is enough evidence from the authorities that their service is misrepresented and advertising is misleading.
A two minute negligence from a consumer for not reading T&C's shouldn't cost the earth when it comes to cancellation rights.

In my view, if you are really interested in helping someone get their money - I think you are better off advising them to contact their bank. Just thoughts.

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

.
There is enough evidence from the authorities that their service is misrepresented and advertising is misleading.

And yet the 'authorities' have decided to continue to allow these clone sites to trade.

wealdroam

Hpuse, did you notice I answered your question?

I always try to answer your questions, but you seem unwilling to respond to mine.

I have asked you three questions this evening (that doesn't include the one at the start of this post) and you have totally ignored every single one.

Talk about 'unfair trading'.

hpuse

wealdroam wrote: »

In fact, who exactly are you addressing your comments to?

Ans: I was addressing the comments to post#514.:D

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

A two minute negligence from a consumer for not reading T&C's shouldn't cost the earth when it comes to cancellation rights.

No; it shouldn't.

But if people cannot be bothered reading terms and conditions BEFORE entering their personal financial/banking information into random websites then they are naive.

Why should the bank have to refund?

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

Ans: I was addressing the comments to the poster of post#514.:D

Corrected for you!
Being me.

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

If they make it very difficult for people to cancel then it is considered as unfair trading
.

Cancellation rights have already been discussed I believe.

Considered by whom?

powerful_Rogue

hpuse wrote: »

If they make it very difficult for people to cancel then it is considered as unfair trading
.

Can you back this statement up with evidence please.

wantmemoney

There is still at lot of misleading information being posted on these threads by the same group of posters who appear to have an agenda to leave a picture defending these rip-off sites by claiming the websites are legal so the customers are to blame.

They are making misleading blanket statements that the official Government bodies are claiming these websites are 'legal'.

When in 2010/11 the OFT said these websites were legal, they were referring to the point that it was not illegal for a private company or individual to charge for a service that was being offered by others for free.

The OFT and other Government bodies are not saying or inferring that it is legal to sell these 'services' using misleading adverts(websites)

since 201/11 a number of these copycat rip-off sites have been found guilty(illegal) by the ASA for using misleading advertising.