taxreturngateway.com

bod1467

Nope. Wrong absolutely. All said person NEEDS is to be able to read the various articles and ASA information that is available, to be able to make an informed decision.

Keep digging - have you reached Australia yet?

hpuse

bod1467 wrote: »

Nope. Wrong absolutely. All said person NEEDS is to be able to read the various articles and ASA information that is available, to be able to make an informed decision.

Keep digging - have you reached Australia yet?

What is absolutely wrong, and what is "informed" and what is "decision" we are talking about here???

Have you lost something ?I will soon help some posters to reach 'escape velocity'

DCFC79

really_angry wrote: »

I'm just another of those idiots who fell for this and have paid £500 for my stupidity. However, the words Gateway and Tax Return are designed to fool us. It's only the second time I ever filed an online return. If these people had any integrity, they would make it a lot clearer that you are not on the HMRC website. The fact that numbers of people have made the same mistake says a lot. I don't need reminding I'm an idiot, but nevertheless this still seems like a deliberate attempt to dupe innocent people. Can nothing be really be done?

So this from the website didnt make you think twice " 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."

You need to be wary of the land registry, passport, driving licence application and the EHIC application sites.

missprice

hpuse wrote: »

What is absolutely wrong, and what is "informed" and what is "decision" we are talking about here???

Have you lost something ?I will soon help some posters to reach 'escape velocity'

!!!!!!????

What does it matter, you keep accusing people on here of working for these companies because 'in your view' they are defending them.
Its not true, I for one have never worked for one of these companies, and frankly I don't have the skills to set one up or work for one.

However I dont rush into putting my credit card/debit card number onto any site until I am happy with the service/thing I will get.
I normally use the likes of amazon which is a well known online retailer. However the first time I used it I read all the important info first. Also I check that i am on the correct website when I finally choose to buy something/service.

Who cares about absolutely wrong whatever that means? What decision, made by who? ASA again? Well they made themselves clear did they not.

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

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

It might sound like it to you, Hpuse, but then again, we've all had experience of your blathering on other threads.
Not to mention your misunderstanding of many posters' points.

hpuse wrote: »

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 ?

I'm actually basing my comments on something said by Matt Wilson from ASA:

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.

Now, Hpuse, I don't find it too difficult from the statement above to reason logically that
(a) some companies were operating illegally but - as a result of OFT investigation and/or ASA ruling - are now operating legally
(b) some companies e.g. the one mentioned above are still operating illegally.

However, you may find that too hard to follow.
If you do, I suggest you stick with the CBBC website.

As for not authenticating my source, I quoted the link that contained the above quote in my post #46 on this thread.
But here it is again:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2537716/You-stop-Brazen-copycat-website-ignores-advert-ruling.html

As for acting as 'a spokesperson for some of these companies', I don't think merely repeating a direct quote from someone representing a regulatory body which was printed in the press can - even in your misguided imagination - can be termed 'acting as a spokesperson'.

Edit: to change incorrect name of source of quote

bod1467

Matt Price? Surely you read the ASA quote you posted?

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

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

You may not have said I worked for any of these companies but you did say it 'sounded like I was a 'spokesperson of some of these companies'.
And a spokesperson 'speaks for another person or a group'.
So logically, you insinuated that I was affiliated or supportive of these companies.
Wrong.
Very very wrong.

hpuse wrote: »

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 ??

As I said in my post #56 I was merely quoting someone from ASA (Matt Wilson).
I assume he was speaking 'authoritatively' as he is a spokesman for ASA.
The article in which Matt Wilson was quoted was a 'third verifiable source'.
I've already provided the link several times.

So, no, I am neither a spokeperson (sic) of any of these companies or ASA.
Matt Wilson, on the other hand, is a spokesperson for ASA and that is why I quoted him.

hpuse wrote: »

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

Make sense, bod1467 ??

You don't need to 'guess' which one, Hpuse, as I've just proved conclusively that I am not a spokesperson for any of these companies or the ASA.

Make sense, Hpuse??

Money-Saving-King

I've been filling in Self Assessment for about 10 years now & always have a vague idea of how much it'll be anyway. I don't get how people can be charged £500 or more and not know it's the wrong amount?

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

As I said in my post #56 I was merely quoting someone from ASA (Matt Wilson).

....................and............Matt Wilson says,

‘In 99 per cent of cases, advertisers comply immediately".

....................and............Pollycat says

And a lot of these companies have changed their websites to make them legal (meaning 'in the eyes of the law')

:rotfl:



So the million dollar equation is ...............

Matt Wilson statement = Pollycat inference = Makes "some" of "them", i.e copycat website companies "LEGAL"

hpuse

@Pollycat,

Please don't stop posting....your grasp of the situation is highly entertaining !!!