taxreturngateway.com

dodger1

Thoroughlyfedup wrote: »

I have just lost £650! I didn't see the warnings until it was too late. I too was drawn to the 'Submit your on-line tax return' button.

Ok this is directly below the "Submit your tax assessment online now", not hidden away at all, how did you not see it?

We are not connected to or affiliated with HMRC, DWP or any other official government body. We offer a bespoke, value for money, tax return assistance service for which we levy a charge. You may submit your tax return directly to HMRC at no charge, without the benefits of our services, by visiting the official website.

Also on the top line of the home page it has "Fees and Charges", again not even trying to hide it, it's on the very first line. Why didn't you click that?

Further down on the Homepage it compares Tax Return Gateway and HM Revenue and Customs. In the comparison it states "Submission Fee Tax Return Gateway £150-£1,000.....HM Revenue and Customs No Charge.

I'm sorry you've lost £650 but there is so much on their Homepage telling you about charges and not hidden away in small print or T&Cs.

I understand sometimes when things are hidden away on the fifth page or in print so small you need a magnifying glass but this isn't so on this particular site.

Angry_about_tax

Beware of the taxationreturngateway.com
It is a site that is design to dupe. It is very similar to HMRC and anyone rushing to fill in a tax return can easily be misled.

The site uses basic pay per click (PPC) search advertising on Google to get its leads. Often number one on the paid Google searches.

The company involved obviously know this and are playing a numbers game - the more they pay for PPC the more people they are likely to attract and consequently dupe into paying for a tax service that is free.

PLEASE DO NOT BE FOOLED

The checkout page on the tax return gateway service is design to extract money from users. It says you owe tax when actually you may owe nothing at all. The claim owe simply refers to the FEE that they are charging for nothing other than a few fancy links.

Since being dupe by this site I have read that the company are run by accountants, if so they need investigating by the FSA. If they are run by a company who are very website marketing astute then they should be barred by Google.
The advertising standards agency needs to investigate their behaviour and the Trading standards also need to investigate.

Go the Companies House online using the register number on their website and you will see changes in address and changes to the details of the directors of this company.

All does not seem what it should be!

Quick to use, misleading and a big expensive mistake.

Complain and do as much as possible to ensure that other people are not mislead.

wealdroam

Angry_about_tax wrote: »

Beware of the taxationreturngateway.com

<snip the rest>

Angry about tax, thanks for that.

Have you seen MSE's News item about this:

Filing a tax return? Avoid self-assessment copycat sites

wantmemoney

powerful_Rogue wrote:

Originally Posted by Thoroughlyfedup
This is immoral - I understand that similar web sites (run by the same people) - driving licences, passports, eu health cards have been shut down. This one has got to be next. I feel sick!

They havent been shut down, they are still active.

The OFT investigated them and confirmed they were legal.

@Thoroughlyfedup
many of copycat adverts you refer to were 'shut down' by the ASA until they altered the misleading advertising

There is still at lot of misleading information being posted on these threads by the same group of posters who appear to have an agenda to leave a picture defending these rip-off sites by claiming the websites are legal so the customers are to blame.

They are making misleading blanket statements that the official Government bodies are claiming these websites are 'legal'.

When in 2010/11 the OFT said these websites were legal, they were referring to the point that it was not illegal for a private company or individual to charge for a service that was being offered by others for free.

The OFT and other Government bodies are not saying or inferring that it is legal to sell these 'services' using misleading adverts(websites)

since 201/11 a number of these copycat rip-off sites have been found guilty(illegal) by the ASA for using misleading advertising.

Pollycat

wantmemoney wrote: »

@Thoroughlyfedup
many of copycat adverts you refer to were 'shut down' by the ASA until they altered the misleading advertising

There is still at lot of misleading information being posted on these threads by the same group of posters who appear to have an agenda to leave a picture defending these rip-off sites by claiming the websites are legal so the customers are to blame.

And a lot of these companies have changed their websites to make them legal (meaning 'in the eyes of the law') by clearly stating that they are not the official website, sometimes giving a comparison of what you get by using them and even in some cases providing a link to the official website.

And guess what?
Yep, people are still using them.

And will continue to use them - to their cost - because even with big banner 'we are not official' notices, they don't read what's in front of them.

wantmemoney (is that how you spell it :rotfl:)
No defending from me (or any of the other posts I've read) about the websites who ASA have ruled against because they do not make it clear that they are not the official website.

And - just for the record whilst you are flinging accusations about posters 'defending' these companies - I don't like the ones that are legal either.
But as long as they are legal, they will continue to operate.

wantmemoney wrote: »

@Thoroughlyfedup
many of copycat adverts you refer to were 'shut down' by the ASA until they altered the misleading advertising

There is still at lot of misleading information being posted on these threads by the same group of posters who appear to have an agenda to leave a picture defending these rip-off sites by claiming the websites are legal so the customers are to blame.

They are making misleading blanket statements that the official Government bodies are claiming these websites are 'legal'.

When in 2010/11 the OFT said these websites were legal, they were referring to the point that it was not illegal for a private company or individual to charge for a service that was being offered by others for free.

The OFT and other Government bodies are not saying or inferring that it is legal to sell these 'services' using misleading adverts(websites)

OK, so not all these websites are legal.
But the majority are - because they've been smart enough to make sure they are.

wantmemoney wrote: »

since 201/11 a number of these copycat rip-off sites have been found guilty(illegal) by the ASA for using misleading advertising.

Ah, yes.
ASA and their rulings being upheld.

Go get 'em, Tiger.

Or maybe not. :cool:

Extract from this article:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2537716/You-stop-Brazen-copycat-website-ignores-advert-ruling.html

Matt Wilson of the Advertising Standards Authority is angry that Paylondoncongestion is defying its ruling – but has so far done nothing about it. ‘In 99 per cent of cases, advertisers comply immediately. But in this instance, Paylondoncongestion has not. We are disappointed. The website still does not make it clear that it is unofficial,’ he says.

He adds that if the company does not fall into line, the ASA has other measures it can take. These include ‘naming and shaming’ it on the authority’s website, paying for its own adverts to appear in internet searches alongside those of the rogue website to warn potential users away, and liaising with search engines such as Google to get the website address removed.

As a last resort it can refer the company to the Trading Standards Institute, which has the power to take statutory action and impose fines.

So Matt's disappointed, is he?
I bet all the people caught out by this website (Paylondoncongestion) are 'disappointed' too.

I'd be bloody furious that ASA has 'so far done nothing about' these websites that are not operating legally - apart from express their 'disappointemnt' at the bare-faced flouting of their ruling to the press.

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

No defending from me (or any of the other posts I've read) about the websites who ASA have ruled against .......


And - just for the record whilst you are flinging accusations about posters 'defending' these companies - I don't like the ones that are legal either.

You are not 'defending' but the quotes below overflows with love and affection as I read it :rotfl:

And a lot of these companies have changed their websites to make them legal (meaning 'in the eyes of the law')
........................
OK, so not all these websites are legal.
But the majority are - because they've been smart enough to make sure they are.

PS: If you don't like them why tell the world on a public forum that that they are smart and legal....:D

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

You are not 'defending' but the quotes below overflows with love and affection as I read it :rotfl:

As you read it?
Then you read as poorly as you write, Hpuse.

You really do find it hard to keep up, don't you, Hpuse?

You simply don't understand the difference between (a) acknowledging that a company is - according to OFT - trading legally because their websites are not misleading (and that's according to OFT who have investigated the legal ones, not my own opinion) and (b) supporting or defending said websites.

You quoted this but omitted the part in blue which slightly changed the context so I've included it:

Pollycat wrote: »

And a lot of these companies have changed their websites to make them legal (meaning 'in the eyes of the law') by clearly stating that they are not the official website, sometimes giving a comparison of what you get by using them and even in some cases providing a link to the official website.

OK, so not all these websites are legal.
But the majority are - because they've been smart enough to make sure they are.

My comments are not 'overflowing with love and reason'.

My comments are stating a fact.

And that fact is that some of the companies have been investigated and have been found to be legal.
Some have been investigated and have been found not to be legal and ASA are still waiting for them to change their websites to make them legal.

hpuse wrote: »

PS: If you don't like them why tell the world on a public forum that that they are smart and legal....:D

I don't like them.

Acknowledging that the company owners have been smart enough (or clever enough or savvy enough if you prefer) to realise that they shouldn't use misleading adverts isn't me 'overflowing with love and affection'.
It's having the common sense to realise that these companies aren't stupid.
It doesn't mean that I agree with the way these companies operate. I don't.
But this has nothing to do with what I think or what you think.
It's to do with the law.

As for telling the world that they are legal, it's a fact that a lot of them are (now).
And some of those that aren't are changing their websites to comply with the ASA ruling.
And some of the others that aren't are totally disregarding the ASA ruling.

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

As for telling the world that they are legal, it's a fact that a lot of them are (now).
And some of those that aren't are changing their websites to comply with the ASA ruling.
And some of the others that aren't are totally disregarding the ASA ruling.

So that does sounds like you are a 'spokeperson' of 'some of those companies'

The reason why I say the above is because - I can't be bothered to check 14+ copycat websites or simply do not have the time to do so.

By the above post, clearly, you seem to factually represent 'some' of 'those' websites who have really 'complied' ASA ruling otherwise you are posting the above without accurate information ?

bod1467

Are you for real? Seriously?

Just because someone CAN read and CAN understand the written word, does NOT mean they work for (or even approve of) such companies.

Sheesh!

hpuse

bod1467 wrote: »

Are you for real? Seriously?

Just because someone CAN read and CAN understand the written word, does NOT mean they work for (or even approve of) such companies.

Sheesh!

I agree, and I did not say Pollycat works for them.

However, Pollycat "authoritatively" says some of them complied with ASA ruling (without using a third verifiable source).

For someone to say that thoroughly and firmly they have to be either a 'spokeperson; of

a) ASA or
b) some of 'those' websites

Which one is easy to guess after reading 100s posts on the same topic in these threads?

Make sense, bod1467 ??