Have i been scammed?? Raspberry Ketone Fresh

wealdroam

walmergreen wrote: »

A member of my family has just been caught with this scam. I was able to see the website, and it did not have any T&C's visible anywhere. When I looked at the site two days later, the front page had been changed to show T&C's.

What website?

If you could possibly provide a link to the dodgy webpage, that would be great.

walmergreen wrote: »

However, the issue is really with the UK Banks and their Chargeback scheme. The 2009 Regulations are quite clear, yet Banks continue to ignore them, and actually force their customers to pay.

What are these 2009 Regulations you speak of?
Perhaps you can give us a link to them too... or if not, a bit more of a clue to what you are talking about than 'the 2009 Regulations'.

walmergreen

Wealdroam

http://www.cleansextrem.com ... pick any product, and you will be sent to the page offering you a trial, where you pay a shipping only charge of £4.95. If you really really look, at the very bottom of the page in a small font, you will find either 'Offer Terms' or 'Terms and Conditions'. This is where you will read that you are entering into a recurring charge agreement of £95 per month, for further supplies.

Why would anyone pay £95 for a product that can be found on any High Street for £10?

The deception is where the reader of the page is guided to the top right hand area of the page, (above the fold), where they are requested to fill out their address or whatever. ie anything to get them away from the T&C's (below the fold) that are not prominently displayed at the bottom of the page.

I have read some comment on this forum that says that people should be more careful, and that they would not get caught.

Could I perhaps offer up the following links, to enhance people's information of this subject, most of them taken from moneysavingexpert.com:

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/3/Beyond-Nutra-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_217447.aspx

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/shopping/2014/02/raspberry-ketone-fresh-avoid-costly-facebook-diet-pill-ads

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/apr/12/ketone-premium-hidden-costs-free-trial

The product is called Raspberry Ketone Fresh, but also named Raspberry Ketone Blast. Moneysavingexpert has forum complaints going back to 2010. I also note that Michael Smith, news reporter for Moneysavingexpert, wrote an excellent report on this subject dated the 4th Feb 2014, and which is prominently displayed on this site, and is one of the links I have given above.

The Company is based in Ohio and no doubt Ohio Laws will apply. They operate an affiliate network, where hundreds of websites will be created which give information regarding the product, and then offer the free trial. It is at this stage that you leave the original website, and go to the Ohio Product site, and you will usually find the T&C's at the bottom of the page, and basically out of sight.

I personally have seen sites that do not have any T&C's, and do not comply with UK and EU regulations, but because they originate from the USA, all that can be done, is that our governmental organisations can complain to the USA authorities.

Hmm Obama and Dave, can read our Yahoo and Gmail emails, but they can't stop these crooks?

As I said before, I believe that the Banks are participating and assisting in a fraud. I equally think that the Royal Mail should also consider it's position quite carefully, because they are handling the FREE samples via a PO Box.

That PO Box is:
Arc Labs Inc.P.O. Box 13511 Linlithgow, West Lothian, EH49 7YH UK(0)20 3014 4035

You will find that your free sample of Raspberry Ketone comes from here. It will be sent via the Royal Mail PO Box, and will be tracked.

Hey! They've now got proof that you have received the pills.

Ring them if you want to, if they do answer it will be someone who doesn't speak English very well. They are also tending now to give out a phone number that goes to the US, where they will lie to you about addresses, times, or whatever. They never answer emails.

Now, should these Banks and the Royal Mail be held to task over basically assisting this Company?

Well let me tell you this:
Google UK returns 513,000 website pages, for the keywords raspberry ketone fresh scam, and also 369,000 pages, for the keywords raspberry ketone blast scam, which are two of the Brand Names used by this Company.

So I say that it is certainly in the Public Domain, but no one is doing anything about it. People are complaining, and a huge amount of money is being shipped by our banks over to the USA.

In my case the person who was scammed was over 70 years old, and the Halifax Bank was more concerned with not refunding their customer, than dealing with a crook.

This problem needs to be dealt with, it is no good the USA chasing our kids for downloading music, our Asperger suffering computer buffs (rather cleverly), getting into their Pentagon computer, or even having Mr Assange holed up in an Embassy in London, which costs us several million pounds per year to fund ... whilst they sit on their hands, whilst their crooks scam our elderly.

That's my view folk's, there needs to be action, and maybe that's why the political horizon appears to be changing. People are just fed up to their back teeth, all they hear are words, and no action!

Kind Regards
Alex

antrobus

wealdroam wrote: »

....What are these 2009 Regulations you speak of? Perhaps you can give us a link to them too... or if not, a bit more of a clue to what you are talking about than 'the 2009 Regulations'.

Probably the Payment Services Regulations 2009. Specifically (I imagine) reg 61 - Payment service provider’s liability for unauthorised payment transactions - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/209/regulation/61/made

They are indeed "quite clear" but relate to unauthorised transactions and aren't of that much help when you're talking about a transaction that is authorised, even if that authorisation was obtained by an alleged misrepresentation.

And is (in any case) something quite different from 'chargeback' which arises from Visa and MC processing rules and not statute.

walmergreen wrote: »

.....The actions of the Halifax Bank of Leeds are inappropriate, ...

On a point of order, there is no ' Halifax Bank of Leeds'. Halifax is a trading name of the Bank of Scotland plc, which is part of the Lloyds Banking Group, which is merely part-owned by the British people. (25% now, I believe.)

walmergreen

OK, I accept the point of order regarding the Halifax Bank.

"merely part-owned by the British people. (25% now, I believe.)"

So the taxpayer is the still the largest shareholder, and the rest of their holding was sold off pretty cheaply anyway.

I'll put that to one side, but it is surely the case that shareholders can and do bring change, as Barclays were very recently reminded.

With regard to Chargeback. This is the word used by the Complaints Officer at the Halifax Bank, who is probably not so quite up to speed with the Regs...as your good self. As I am one of those who owns 25% of their Company, I am a little worried.

Authorised and unauthorised. where does this begin and end?

If I give my numbers out to a trader for a transaction, and they then charge me again at a much later date, when does that actually change from authorised to unauthorised?

wealdroam

Walmergreen, thanks for providing the link.

You said in your first post "A member of my family has just been caught with this scam".

Was that earlier this year? Or maybe last year sometime?

You see, I am trying to help you by looking for a version of that webpage which may've been the one your relative saw... i.e. without the T&Cs on it.
If we can find that then your claim against Halifax will be much easier.

I am sorry to say that all versions of that webpage going back to the middle of last year do show the text you mention:

walmergreen wrote: »

A member of my family has just been caught with this scam. I was able to see the website, and it did not have any T&C's visible anywhere. When I looked at the site two days later, the front page had been changed to show T&C's.

Here is 7 August 2013 version of that page:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130807213450/http://www.cleansextrem.com

wealdroam

walmergreen wrote: »

Authorised and unauthorised. where does this begin and end?

If I give my numbers out to a trader for a transaction, and they then charge me again at a much later date, when does that actually change from authorised to unauthorised?

If you authorised just one payment, then clearly if the company takes a second payment then that second payment is unauthorised.

In the circumstances we are discussing, it seems that you (or your relative) authorised a second and subsequent payments without actually realising it. In this case, the second payment is authorised.

Now, if you had unwittingly authorised subsequent payments, but then cancelled that authorisation, then until you cancelled the authorisation the payments are authorised, but after you have cancelled the authorisation, then subsequent payments are of course unauthorised.

You cannot expect your bank (however much of it you own ) to return authorised payments.

walmergreen

[QUOTE=wealdroam;65655216
Now, if you had unwittingly authorised subsequent payments, but then cancelled that authorisation, then until you cancelled the authorisation the payments are authorised, but after you have cancelled the authorisation, then subsequent payments are of course unauthorised.

You cannot expect your bank (however much of it you own ) to return authorised payments.[/QUOTE]

Oh yes I can This farce has been going on with the same Company for 4 years. People are having their money stolen by a shady enterprise in Ohio, and the UK Banks are hiding behind a set of Banking Rules, which are designed to continue profit, whilst operating a flawed debit card system, and putting their customers at financial risk.

Perhaps an FOI request would yield the number of customers that each and every Bank has, that have been caught in this scam.

Over half a million scam references on Google UK alone, for just one of this Company's products, and all the banks do is refer you to their rules. I think that any sane person would believe that banks are fully aware of this scam, and by protecting their flawed debit card system, they are actually participating in the fraud.

The UK Banking industry has been quite appalling in recent times, and it really does seem to me that little is changing.

I had been warned that to delve into moneysavingexpert is not recommended, as their forums appear to have lurking representatives of interested institutions, so before they arrive, I'll thank you for your previous replies, and bid you farewell
Rgds
Alex

wealdroam

walmergreen wrote: »

Oh yes I can. This farce has been going on with the same Company for 4 years. People are having their money stolen by a shady enterprise in Ohio, and the UK Banks are hiding behind a set of Banking Rules, which are designed to continue profit, whilst operating a flawed debit card system, and putting their customers at financial risk.

I didn't realise that is was the UK banks that should be enforcing the law.

The real point is that if a company, any company, has a lawful authority from one of their customers to request money from that customer's bank account, then the bank must oblige.
If the bank decides not to comply, then the bank leaves itself open to a legal challenge.
Of course the same applies to claiming money back.
If the company has legally obtained the money from their customer, then the bank would be on dodgy ground if they were to forcefully recover the money.

I haven't read your '2009 regulations', but as they are about payment services I suspect that somewhere in there it says the bank must comply with their customer's wishes.

walmergreen wrote: »

Perhaps an FOI request would yield the number of customers that each and every Bank has, that have been caught in this scam.

Freedom of Information requests only apply to government departments etc.
FOI does not apply to commercial enterprises.

walmergreen wrote: »

Over half a million scam references on Google UK alone, for just one of this Company's products, and all the banks do is refer you to their rules. I think that any sane person would believe that banks are fully aware of this scam, and by protecting their flawed debit card system, they are actually participating in the fraud.

Flawed debit card system? If you say so.

As said above, the bank can only act within the law.

walmergreen wrote: »

The UK Banking industry has been quite appalling in recent times, and it really does seem to me that little is changing.

I agree.

walmergreen wrote: »

I had been warned that to delve into moneysavingexpert is not recommended, as their forums appear to have lurking representatives of interested institutions, so before they arrive, I'll thank you for your previous replies, and bid you farewell
Rgds
Alex

Silly stuff.

But I will just clarify that I too dislike these companies and their methods, but the prospective customer really must make themselves aware of what they are actually buying before they buy... that goes for any purchase.

walmergreen

Wealdroam

Dear oh dear... you really do support the banking fraternity.

Voyager2002 gave me the information that I need. 'Good Man'

Byee

George_Michael

walmergreen wrote: »

Wealdroam

Dear oh dear... you really do support the banking fraternity.

Voyager2002 gave me the information that I need. 'Good Man'

Byee

Dear oh dear.
Just because someone posts something that you don't agree with doesn't mean that they actually agree with what is happening.

walmergreen wrote: »

I had been warned that to delve into moneysavingexpert is not recommended, as their forums appear to have lurking representatives of interested institutions, so before they arrive, I'll thank you for your previous replies, and bid you farewell

If you think that moneysavingexpert is not recommended and is full of undercover company representatives, why bother asking for advice in the first place?