Am I covered under the right to cancel for this purchase?

Valli

hearts wrote: »

I say again, if they were/are not out to deceive there is a simple solution. Offer a refund to those who buy their service mistakenly.

If they were to do that then they would go under. They know EXACTLY what they are doing BUT they operate within the law. By starting their service immediately they trap unwary customers. Customers who, it has to be said, often think they are getting a good deal UNTIL they realise they have actually only commited to a 'check and send' type service.

Google are (IMO) equally complicit - because they happily take a whacking great fee to ensure that these 'check and send' companies appear at the top of the searches.

Valli

!!!!!! wrote: »

(Waits for the inevitable claim from somebody that one of the defenders of the legality of this site works for them as normally happens when the morally outraged do not get everybody singing off their hymnsheet)

Oh you're forgetting the 'new' one - posters who post on MSE are paid to do so:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

rellarips

hearts I have done nothing but support you. I even provided you with the number for consumer advice who can directly pass you to Trading Standards if they feel that you can gain support there, and a long reply including the relevant section in their terms and conditions. I pointed out the responses you would get, given that it isn't a scam site, and I pointed out that I personally felt that the website was designed in such a way as to mislead a proportion of people.

You initially asked for advice, you've now turned this into a debate instead. It's provision of a service that they state they have begun ergo no refund. If you care enough not to allow this to happen again or feel that you should get a refund, contact consumer advice as they will be in the best position to answer your concerns and offer further assistance. This is a forum and has no legal directive, it cannot change a thing for you.

System

Valli wrote: »

Google are equally complicit - because they happily take a whacking great fee to ensure that these 'check and send' companies appear at the top of the searches.

Google will take a whacking great fee off anybody that is willing to pay as long as what they are promoting is not illegal and why shouldn't they - they are in business to make money and will do so in any legal way they can.

There is nothing to stop the Passport Office, DVLA etc doing the same thing - Fight fire with fire

rellarips

!!!!!! wrote: »

I don't believe anybody in this thread has said that it is a good honourable site - only you mentioning it now.

Nor did I say that any particular person had said that. Draw your own inferences, basically.

powerful_Rogue

rellarips wrote: »

The website is misleading enough to allow a proportion of people to make that inference and go ahead with what they think is a full passport application.

1 = Link to HM Passport Office
2 = Advising people this is a check and send service only.



3 = Highlighting the differences between this and the HM Passport office. Also advises HM Passport office is free and provides yet another link to the.



4 = Another link to HM Passport office
5 = Another advisory advising this is only a check and send service.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Gosh, and what happened to the Driving Licence application scam thread as well.


Dear, Dear.


Here is some advice from BoP to prevent future occurrences.
1 Deep Pockets
2 Short Arms

And never put your trust in some upstart TV programme to defend you!

rellarips

That is what you clearly see powerful_Rogue, you can clearly see what is there. However, you need to remember that not everyone sees or draws in the same information, or even has the same understanding of it - Advertising and promotional Psychology techniques apply.

An experiment looking at the effectiveness of a simple poster promoting health in a waiting room showed that most people only read an average of 8 words despite being sat infront of the poster for twenty minutes ; they could recall only the basic 'headline'. I just use that as an example of how easy it is to provide information which goes unnoticed.

System

rellarips wrote: »

Nor did I say that any particular person had said that. Draw your own inferences, basically.

So why throw that concept in after 40+ posts?

jacques_chirac

rellarips wrote: »

That is what you clearly see powerful_Rogue, you can clearly see what is there. However, you need to remember that not everyone sees or draws in the same information, or even has the same understanding of it - Advertising and promotional Psychology techniques apply.

An experiment looking at the effectiveness of a simple poster promoting health in a waiting room showed that most people only read an average of 8 words despite being sat infront of the poster for twenty minutes ; they could recall only the basic 'headline'. I just use that as an example of how easy it is to provide information which goes unnoticed.

Could we not apply the same principles to all advertising though? Should there be a right to cancel when we order a pizza or put money in a fruit machine, because we have been attracted to said item by jazzy/ appealing/ irresponsible/ unethical* advertising?

* Delete according to viewpoint