Driving licence application

wealdroam

Sharon87 wrote: »

Well the check and send service didn't do their job as they didn't realise no payment to the DVLA was made, so that may give the OP some stance in a refund because obviously they didn't spot that!

The website the OP used says they send the completed form back to the applicant for posting to DVLA.
Probably needs a signature too.

So it looks like the OP didn't include the DVLA fee when sending the form to the DVLA.
Perfectly reasonable action because the OP at that time believed they had already paid.

kinkine

Widelats - the problem is finding the £50 to give the DVLA. As I stated earlier, I have not earned any money since August.

Sharon87 - thanks for the input but again in the fine print they state that they will send the form for signature, and you have to send any fees due to DVLA.

I know it was my fault but I do feel that £50 (which coincidentally is the amount for the licence) is steep for what I consider a non-service - what can they check? They don't know if I put my daughters name down correctly, they don't know if I put her date of birth or her address down correctly, they don't know if the photograph is a true likeness.

They copied the information I put in online and sent me a paper application (proper DVLA) for signature. Nice work if you can get it.

System

kinkine wrote: »

They don't know if I put my daughters name down correctly, they don't know if I put her date of birth or her address down correctly, they don't know if the photograph is a true likeness. .

Which is no different to the Post Office check system.

All that gets checked is that all necessary areas are completed in the correct manner. They do not check the accuracy of the information supplied

Pollycat

I'm sorry that you've been caught out by one of these websites.

They seem to be appearing for all sorts of things, including:

booking driving tests
European Health Insurance Card (EHIC)
Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) for travel to USA
Passport renewal

A few years ago, Trading Standards were closing EHIC websites down. It was announced on this website.
The fact that you could get a free or cheaper service from the official website was hidden in the very small T&Cs on their websites.

Since then, they have made it much more visible, some even going so far as to list the 'extras' you get by using their company and some even give a link to the 'proper' website.

Some of the passport companies do offer a refund but from reading the T&Cs that wealdroam posted, this particular company that you used doesn't.

I doubt that your appeal to their good nature will have any effect and sadly, I think you'll just have to put it down to experience.

Truepat

I think something needs to be done to shut down these sites - they rely heavily on people not reading (which the user has to take responsibility for).

In this instance the homepage of the site is however quite clear. BUT YOU DO NOT NEED TO USE A CHECK AND SEND SERVICE FOR PASSPORTS OR DRIVING LICENCE - in my opinion they are just parasites.

Pollycat

Truepat wrote: »

I think something needs to be done to shut down these sites - they rely heavily on people not reading (which the user has to take responsibility for).

In this instance the homepage of the site is however quite clear. BUT YOU DO NOT NEED TO USE A CHECK AND SEND SERVICE FOR PASSPORTS OR DRIVING LICENCE - in my opinion they are just parasites.

The Post Office also offer a check & send service.
Do you think that should also be shut down?

I found this on MSE:

In 2010, the Office of Fair Trading took action against several sites which deceptively sold EHICs, see the OFT website for more. In July 2011 it also announced investigations into online websites deceptively selling Government services, including the EHIC.

The 'investigations' announced in the above quote is this:

Press releases 2011 -

OFT investigates deceptive online selling of government services

81/11 14 July 2011
The OFT has opened investigations into a number of websites that charge people for government services that are available directly from government either at no cost or for a lower fee.
The investigation will look into websites that charge consumers to apply for services that are free such as European Health Insurance Cards (EHICs) as well as websites that impose higher charges for services that do carry a cost such as booking a driving theory test.
The OFT will consider, amongst other things, whether the websites are deceptively presented as official government services - an unfair commercial practice. This would raise particular concern if consumers are thus misled into paying fees for services that are available free of charge from the official government website, or paying significantly more than what they would have to pay when using the official website.
Once the OFT has completed its investigations it will consider what further action, if any, is appropriate. At this stage, the OFT cannot identify the companies that are subject to this investigation and no assumption should be made that any companies being investigated have broken the law.
Cavendish Elithorn, Senior Director of the OFT's Goods and Consumer Group, said:
'It is important that companies are clear about the service they are offering, and do not trick people into paying for something that they can get for free or much cheaper on government websites. We will be considering whether any of the sites under investigation are misleading consumers.
'With summer holidays approaching, many people will be making applications for EHICs in particular, so we encourage travellers to take time to check that they are using an official government website.'
Applications for EHICs can be made free of charge from the NHS website. Driving theory tests can be booked on the Directgov website.

NOTES

1. Read the opening case summary in respect of these investigations.
2. In August 2010, the OFT took enforcement action against four online traders who deceptively sold EHICs to consumers. The new investigations have been opened following complaints from consumers and information received from other government departments including the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and Department of Health. For information about the OFT's previous investigation into the provision of EHICs, see the press release OFT takes action over misleading European health insurance websites (10 August 2010).
3. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) prohibit unfair commercial practices. The Regulations are enforceable through the civil and criminal courts. Read further information and advice for businesses.
4. The OFT does not provide advice or resolve individual complaints for consumers. Consumers who are concerned they have been unfairly treated or want advice on their personal circumstances can contact Consumer Direct.

The bit I've highlighted in red is (imho) critical.

I think that the EHIC websites just changed to make it clear i.e. not just in the small print that you could get the goods/services free or at a reduced cost from the official website.

This investigation was 'case closed' on 8th November 2012.
Here's the result:

Summary of work

The OFT has decided, on administrative priority grounds, to close its investigation into websites which charge consumers for processing applications for a range of government services, such as European Health Insurance Cards (EHICs), which are available free or at a low cost if obtained directly from the government.
The investigation examined whether there had been an infringement of consumer protection legislation, in particular the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Among the matters investigated, the OFT looked at whether these websites were deceptively presenting themselves as official government websites.
The OFT found that in most instances the sites investigated carried statements explaining the nature of the service provided and disclaiming any official status or affiliation with the government.
The OFT also worked with central government to help official government websites appear more prominently when searched for online.
The OFT prioritises its work in accordance with its published prioritisation principles. Broadly speaking, it focuses its efforts and resources on deterring and influencing behaviour that poses the greatest threat to consumer welfare
Based on the results of its investigation and the improvement in online searches, the OFT has concluded that potential for significant consumer detriment is low and there is insufficient evidence of breaches of consumer protection legislation to warrant prioritising formal enforcement action in this instance. It may reconsider its decision in the future if it receives further evidence of suspected infringements, or its prioritisation assessment changes.
The OFT is, however, concerned that people visiting a website that charges for processing applications for a government service may not always be aware that they can save money by going direct to the government, so has issued a consumer alert to help raise awareness and warn people to be cautious when entering their card payment details online.

See the parts highlighted in red.

Basically, most of these websites are operating within the law.

Also see the part highlighted in blue.

Truepat

Pollycat wrote: »

Basically, most of these websites are operating within the law.

I agree, but I think it is the law that needs to be reviewed.

Pollycat

Truepat wrote: »

I agree, but I think it is the law that needs to be reviewed.

I agree too, and I think anyone who has fallen foul of any of these unofficial websites should contact every official body and person they can think of to flag this up.
Saying it on a public forum won't result in any action.

OFT appear to have given up for the time being:

the OFT has concluded that potential for significant consumer detriment is low and there is insufficient evidence of breaches of consumer protection legislation to warrant prioritising formal enforcement action in this instance.
It may reconsider its decision in the future if it receives further evidence of suspected infringements, or its prioritisation assessment changes.

Apples2

Truepat wrote: »

I agree, but I think it is the law that needs to be reviewed.

I hold Google equally to blame too.

I know they have made changes but the Advertisement results should be much more prominent.

Google for Driving License and the FIRST result is
https://www.gov.uk/browse/driving/driving-licences

However, above that are three scam sites, the first one of those is guess which?,
www.drivinglicence.uk.com

The same one the OP fell for.

Google are, in a roundabout way partly responsible, their results encourage this type of business.

Pollycat

I agree about Google.

One poster on another thread suggested reporting the company to Google but I doubt that would have much effect.

I hope wealdroam doesn't mind but I've copied this from another thread (passport renewal):

wealdroam wrote: »

If more people used Adblockplus, they wouldn't even see these 'sponsored listings' at the top of search lists.

It also banishes many many other adverts throughout the internet.

Oh... and it's free.

I think it's a case of - as the law stands at the moment - nobody is doing anything about these websites so you need to help yourself.

Unfortunately, for people like the OP of this thread, it's simply too late.