Steps to take if you have been ripped-off by a copy-cat government website

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

In the link below you will see 'action' against a legally existing company taken by trading standards that did not 'break' any law.

The link

If you believe that The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 are not law, then sadly you have just destroyed what little faith any of your disciples may have had left.

Hpuse, have you seen my new signature?

shaun_from_Africa

hpuse wrote: »

LOL! Consumer credit card act !! Spot on !! ...may be too much wine for the night



Correction, action has only started more to come.

To answer the un-answered question, best way is to post a link.
In the link below you will see 'action' against a legally existing company taken by trading standards that did not 'break' any law.

The link

I didn't ask about Tesco, I asked about the companies of the type that are being discussed on this board, something that you are doing an amazing job of managing to not reply to.

Anyway, your claim that Tesco did not break any laws is, as expected, more rubbish as the prosecution was for them breaking the "Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations Act 2008."

http://birminghamnewsroom.com/2013/08/tesco-fined-300k-for-strawberry-offer/

Retail giant, Tesco Stores Limited, has been fined £300,000 following a prosecution by Birmingham City Council about misleading the public on a ‘half price’ offer regarding punnets of strawberries.
At Birmingham Crown Court today (August 19) the national retailer was prosecuted under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations Act 2008.

Exile_geordie

hpuse wrote: »

missprise & imoneyop

Get this statement below written straight into your heads(or brains?)

Google has banned all advertisements of passport, driving copycat websites that existed as of 02-March-2014.

What you are seeing ads are for new copycats.Needless to say, OP applies to all copycats.:rotfl:

Really? Whats this then?

Exile_geordie

Top paid for advert and then 4th one down the normal list too.

I thought you said google had banned all ads?

gik

Exile_geordie wrote: »

Top paid for advert and then 4th one down the normal list too.

I thought you said google had banned all ads?

We moved on from that ages ago....keep up!

Exile_geordie

gik wrote: »

We moved on from that ages ago....keep up!

I reply as I read thanks.

And its always good to bring such things back to the fore for hpuse to have a look at and ignore because he was wrong.

Money-Saving-King

Exile_geordie wrote: »

I reply as I read thanks.

And its always good to bring such things back to the fore for hpuse to have a look at and ignore because he was wrong.

After over 1000 posts on this thread we have established the general theme is Hpuse is wrong.

powerful_Rogue

hpuse wrote: »

You would find that link that says bank refunded money is not much welcomed here.

You do like to ignore things dont you hpuse! As has already been pointed out from that article:

A letter sent by Amazon said: “A credit for the transaction and any related fees will show on your next statement.” Taxreturngateway has 45 days to dispute this decision, it added.

We've seen refunds issued before only to be returned to the company after theyhave provided evidence of the service.

Mr Wadsworth’s success appears to have hinged on cancelling the Taxreturngateway service and filing for self-assessment through official channels, on the same day as he used the website, leaving the copycat firm no opportunity to provide a “service”.

hpuse

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

You do like to ignore things dont you hpuse! As has already been pointed out from that article:



We've seen refunds issued before only to be returned to the company after theyhave provided evidence of the service.

Powerful_R

If you recall earlier, people here were saying bank simply will ignore and they will not entertain a dispute because the customer clicked agreed to T&C's of this website.

Atleast now are we in agreement that they will agree for a dispute!!

So my OP still stands tall !

hpuse

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I didn't ask about Tesco, I asked about the companies of the type that are being discussed on this board, something that you are doing an amazing job of managing to not reply to.

Anyway, your claim that Tesco did not break any laws is, as expected, more rubbish as the prosecution was for them breaking the "Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations Act 2008."

http://birminghamnewsroom.com/2013/08/tesco-fined-300k-for-strawberry-offer/

I really wanted you to quote the regulation bit in your post.

Now that you have bought it, you now know what was enforced in case of Tesco under a regulation and act are different?

Now coming to copycats - that is probably the same course of action.

Point really to make is - legally existing and trading entities are subject to monitoring and 'actions' by authorities even if they did not explicitly break any law.