UK-passport.net

hpuse

MJMH wrote: »

I was scammed by Passport UK. With the help of legal friends I sent them the letter that follows and received a full refund. Feel free to try using it yourself...

Passport UK
Dept: IQ Channels
111 Buckingham Palace Road
London
SW1W 0SR

Dear sir/madam,

Letter before Claim

For ease of reference I have numbered the paragraphs in the balance of this letter under the various headings below.

Summary of claim

1. On the [date] you charged £99 to my credit card after I inputted its details into your website. I did so in the belief that you were part of, or otherwise an agent of, Her Majesty’s Passport Office such that the £99 would cover the cost of renewing my UK passport. In short, I believed that I was contracting with HMPO for the renewal of my passport. My belief was based upon and fostered by your website. The payment reference from your website was [reference].

2. In the event you did not renew my passport but provided me with various ancillary services (such as arranging an appointment with HMPO!), which I did not understand that I was paying for and I did not intend to contract for. This was wholly unclear to me until I attended HMPO’s office on [date] and was required to pay a further fee, much to my surprise and dismay.

3. The contract between us is accordingly void for mistake, and I am entitled to the immediate return of the £99 which has been charged to my credit card.

4. Further, and in any case, our contract was induced by various misrepresentations contained on your website. Accordingly, I am also entitled to rescind the contract and claim any losses which I have suffered as a result of my entry into the contract from you.

5. I therefore request that you refund the £99 charged within the next 14 days.

Detail of the claim against you

Your website / the basis of our contract

6. I was taken to your website by searching for “renew uk passport” on Google. Your website was at the top of the search results returned. It offered me the opportunity, in a number of places to “APPLY NOW”.

7. The “APPLY NOW” buttons were positioned next to various options including “Renewal”, and are the first and main things brought to a reader’s (including my) attention.

8. The use of the words “APPLY NOW” indicated to me, as it would to any reasonable person, that if they clicked on that button I would be applying directly for their passport. It did not make clear that by clicking on that button and following the process through, a third party (yourselves) would be making the application. The impression created was that I would be making the application.

9. The next most prominent area of the front page declares that your website is “the UK Passport application assistance service” (my emphasis). Again, this indicates to a reasonable person that this is the method of applying for a passport online.

10. The first paragraph of that section states that: “Our service provides you with a virtual passport application service via HM Passport Office”, thereby underlining the impression that you are at the least an agent of HM Passport Office.

11. Having now gone back through your website with a fine tooth comb, I accept that you mention in various places that you are not in fact affiliated with HMPO. These statements are in no way as prominent as the words used to foster the impression that you are. For example, they often appear in small print and no particular attempt is made to bring them to the reader’s attention. As such, they do not counteract the impression created by the other much more prominent words.

12. Further, as you will be aware, under Regulation 7(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, it is a requirement that any seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language. Regulation 7(2) provides that any ambiguity is to be construed in favour of the consumer. This makes it yet more unlikely that any small print on your website will be taken by a court to counteract the clear impression created by the buttons and words at the top of your website.
Mistake

13. Accordingly, I believed that I was contracting with HMPO. I did not agree to contract with your company. A unilateral mistake as to the identity of a contracting party can render a contract void if it was fundamental and it induced the contract: see the case of Cundy v Lindsay. In this case the mistake was clearly fundamental and induced the contract as it affected the service which you could provide. The contract is therefore void.

14. As a result of your above-described website, I was also mistaken as to the service which you offered. This too is a mistake which goes to the root of the contract; it is fundamental, and induced the contract. The contract is void on this ground also.

Misrepresentation

15. The use of the words “APPLY NOW” at the head of your website also amounts to a misrepresentation in that it represented that by clicking on that button I would be completing an application form to renew my passport.

16. That was not the case, and could never be the case. Accordingly, your representation was false. It induced me to enter the contract as I would not have done so had I known that you were unable to directly provide me with a passport without the payment of a further fee.

17. The representation was either made fraudulently, or negligently.

18. In either case, I am entitled to rescind the contract and claim any losses which I have suffered as a result from you: see Derry v Peek (if it was a fraudulent statement), or Papa Johns v Doyley and section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 if you allege that you somehow did not know that your representation was false and that it was therefore only made negligently.

19. I am therefore entitled to the return of the £99 on this ground as well, and I am additionally entitled to the other losses which I have suffered as a result of your misrepresentation. In this case, that is principally my time. Using a reasonable rate of £50 per hour, this presently stands at £100, representing the 2 hours which it has taken for me to deal with this claim to date. If the claim is not settled in short order, this figure is clearly going to increase.

Response required

20. In line with the Practice Direction for Pre-Action Conduct (readily available on the Ministry of Justice’s website), you are requested to respond to this letter within a reasonable time, 21 days in this case. If you are unable to respond within 21 days, I would be grateful if you would respond within 14 days explaining why you will need a longer period and suggesting an appropriate time-frame.

21. If no response is received within 21 days, or my claim is not paid in full by that date, I will not hesitate to issue a small claim.

22. For the avoidance of doubt, full payment of my claim means the return of the £99, together with the payment compensation for my wasted time to date.

I very much hope that we can quickly resolve this dispute, and that that the institution of proceedings will be unnecessary.

Excellent Letter. Thank you. I hope you do not mind me using the above template in my steps to take thread..

RosiPossum

Where did you get £50/hr as a reasonable cost of your time from, MJMH?

hpuse

RosiPossum wrote: »

Where did you get £50/hr as a reasonable cost of your time from, MJMH?

@MJMH,
sounds like RosiPossum would like to contribute to overall consumer welfare and fight against copycats ....please send your paypal ..:rotfl:

gik

hpuse wrote: »

Excellent Letter. Thank you. I hope you do not mind me using the above template in my steps to take thread..

....its really not, it's actually a piss poor letter and only you would think it was.

hpuse

gik wrote: »

....its really not, it's actually piss poor letter and only you would think it was.

Its so easy to say something is <bleep> poor.
But it takes guts, courage and knowledge to point out what is poor in the letter.... ready to take that challenge, gik?
That would require some tremendous pool of contributions..

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

Its so easy to say something is <bleep> poor.
But it takes guts, courage and knowledge to point out what is poor in the letter.... ready to take that challenge, gik?
That would require some tremendous pool of contributions..

For a start, claiming £50 per hour as a reasonable cost of ones time.

That would suggest an annual salary of well in excess of £100K

gik

hpuse wrote: »

Its so easy to say something is <bleep> poor.
But it takes guts, courage and knowledge to point out what is poor in the letter.... ready to take that challenge, gik?
That would require some tremendous pool of contributions..

For a start the letter is by far too long and rambling.

Tell us all what is excellent about the letter? Explain what 'tremendous pool of contributions' means.

hpuse

Valli wrote: »

That would suggest an annual salary of well in excess of £100K

@valli

You forgot to add something, copycats do not take holidays.

Web hosting are so advanced that now a days downtime of their websites can be as less as few seconds for the whole year...
So technically, its a 24/365hr operation, should make least a million. :rotfl:

hpuse

gik wrote: »

For a start the letter is by far too long and rambling.

Tell us all what is excellent about the letter? Explain what 'tremendous pool of contributions' means.

I suggest you read unfair trading regulation 2008 - only around 88 pages of ramblings?

gik

hpuse wrote: »

I suggest you read unfair trading regulation 2008 - only around 88 pages of ramblings?

As is usual from you yet another nonsense answer.