Driving licence application

George_Michael

It's been answered many times by many different posters, it's just that you can't or won't accept the answer.

If someone has a problem with a dubious company then of course they should report it.
But if as you now admit, these companies are operating legally and if someone enters into a contract with them without fully understanding what this contract covers despite it being clearly defined on the website and in the terms and conditions, what is there to report?

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Gosh, I just wasted five minutes of my life reading this. Pub, please!

powerful_Rogue

Yes there is, s2 Fraud Act 2006 - Fraud by false representation.

However, as pointed out numerous times, the OFT have investigated these sites and reported they are acting legally.

The site mentioned in this thread highlights the fact it is a check and send service on its main page in big bold letters and also in its FAQ.

What "Public Joe" need to do, is to start reading and taking responsibility for their own actions. This site has not hidden that it is only a check and send service. 15 seconds reading the home page of the site would have highlighted that.

gb12345

More rubbish.

What is it to do with the payments industry? They are processing payments for legal services.

Things have changed from a couple of years ago and these companies now make sure that they indicate that they are not associated with the real provider of the service they are adding value to.

If you have examples of websites that are not doing so then the people to complain to are TS and the OFT, not the banks.

Legally, they do not have to provide a cancellation option if they are providing a serivce that starts immediately, although some do.

See my answer to your first quote - all of the ones I have seen are operating and trading legally.

Do you accept that if they make it clear to visitors that they are not associated with the DVLA (or whatever organisation) then they are providing a legal service that people are free to pay for if they want to?

George_Michael

How many of those links show where a new member has joined up for the sole purpose of backing up one person, and that new member has exactly the same spelling problem as the existing member?

This "new" member stated that they previously posted on MSE, so why did they need to re-register? and why won't they say what id they posted under in the past?

Ky-An

I claimed the money back from my bank as I used a debit card. Good luck.

wantmemoney

powerful_Rogue wrote:

We are not affiliated with DVLA, the UK government or any official body.

The checking service we provide can be obtained from the DVLA directly at a reduced fee
or
you can apply without a checking service where there will be no checking fee payable.

they are telling me upfront its only a check and send service

The smoke and mirror waffle you have selected from their site has not been 'upfront' with what they actually supply and more importantly are not supplying.

For example: "We are not affiliated with DVLA" wouldn't mean anything to many people.

why even mention (if not to intentionally confuse) the price of the driving license if their 'service' doesn't include supplying it.

wealdroam

wantmemoney wrote: »

For example: "We are not affiliated with DVLA" wouldn't mean anything to many people.

Eh?

What should they be saying then, if they want to make it clear that they are not affiliated with the DVLA?

Pollycat

wantmemoney wrote: »

The smoke and mirror waffle you have selected from their site has not been 'upfront' with what they actually supply and more importantly are not supplying.

For example: "We are not affiliated with DVLA" wouldn't mean anything to many people.

why even mention (if not to intentionally confuse) the price of the driving license if their 'service' doesn't include supplying it.

That's not the findings of OFT.

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 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.

If you (or anyone) have examples of websites that are not being 'upfront' then you need to provide "further evidence of suspected infringements" to OFT.

In fact, instead of arguing the toss on here, why aren't you checking all these websites and reporting them to OFT?

Money-Saving-King

wantmemoney wrote: »

For example: "We are not affiliated with DVLA" wouldn't mean anything to many people.

Even if someone say didn't know the meaning of the word affiliated surely they'd probably figure it means nothing to do with!!