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

RichardD1970

hpuse wrote: »

If anyone has heard of the term Continuous Improvement in business, I have subjected OP to the same, once again.
For those who do not understand the above jargon - it means I have edited my OP again.

Please feel free to comment or any further suggestions for improvement most welcome.
Thank you for your patience and kind understandings...

Ok lets do a Kiazan on you thread.

We'll start by doing a 5S audit.

Sort, Set, Shine, Standardise, Sustain.

Step 1 Sort, Eliminate all unnecessary tools, materials, eliminate what is not required.

Ah, think that means you,

no need to carry on.

Goodbye.

hpuse

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Ok lets do a Kiazan on you thread.

You mean, a Kaizen, RichardD1970??

Money-Saving-King

Valli wrote: »

tempted

but no

It's better than you'd expect.

hpuse wrote: »

Please note: This is NOT a definitive guide to secure a refund:

..................................................

Please do not ask them for a refund, it is likely to be refused.

RichardD1970

hpuse wrote: »

You mean, a Kaizen, RichardD1970??

Yes, thank you, that is what I meant, I will endeavour to spell it correctly in the future.

There is room for improvement in many aspects of our lives, the trick is to identify where our shortcomings are and to act on them and take on board the suggestions/recommendations of others and not blindly follow the same path, "because we have always done it that way".

I feel that you would benefit from a bit of critical self introspection and have a real good look at your motivation and what you hope to achieve from this ridiculous thread, where you have been proved wrong time and time again, but stubbornly refuse to acknowledge.

I doubt this will receive a sensible reply, just the usual incoherent rambling and possibly a spurious link, but we live in hope.

keyser666

The link to the letter in the OP that hpuse has changed is very clear that letter from the newbie is hpuse under an AE. The wording and the dialect/style if you will is exactly the same as hpuse

powerful_Rogue

So your first step is to now encourage people to send off a letter full of information they probably dont understand, threatening to take the company to small claims court and also charging compensation of £50 per hour for their time.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can rip that letter to bits. Just because its long and quotes legislation dosent make it correct.

For the information of others, here is that letter.

Dear sir/madam,

Letter before Claim

For ease of reference I have numbered the paragraphs in the balance of this letter under the various headings below.

Summary of claim

1. On the [date] you charged £99 to my credit card after I inputted its details into your website. I did so in the belief that you were part of, or otherwise an agent of, Her Majesty’s Passport Office such that the £99 would cover the cost of renewing my UK passport. In short, I believed that I was contracting with HMPO for the renewal of my passport. My belief was based upon and fostered by your website. The payment reference from your website was [reference].

2. In the event you did not renew my passport but provided me with various ancillary services (such as arranging an appointment with HMPO!), which I did not understand that I was paying for and I did not intend to contract for. This was wholly unclear to me until I attended HMPO’s office on [date] and was required to pay a further fee, much to my surprise and dismay.

3. The contract between us is accordingly void for mistake, and I am entitled to the immediate return of the £99 which has been charged to my credit card.

4. Further, and in any case, our contract was induced by various misrepresentations contained on your website. Accordingly, I am also entitled to rescind the contract and claim any losses which I have suffered as a result of my entry into the contract from you.

5. I therefore request that you refund the £99 charged within the next 14 days.

Detail of the claim against you

Your website / the basis of our contract

6. I was taken to your website by searching for “renew uk passport” on Google. Your website was at the top of the search results returned. It offered me the opportunity, in a number of places to “APPLY NOW”.

7. The “APPLY NOW” buttons were positioned next to various options including “Renewal”, and are the first and main things brought to a reader’s (including my) attention.

8. The use of the words “APPLY NOW” indicated to me, as it would to any reasonable person, that if they clicked on that button I would be applying directly for their passport. It did not make clear that by clicking on that button and following the process through, a third party (yourselves) would be making the application. The impression created was that I would be making the application.

9. The next most prominent area of the front page declares that your website is “the UK Passport application assistance service” (my emphasis). Again, this indicates to a reasonable person that this is the method of applying for a passport online.

10. The first paragraph of that section states that: “Our service provides you with a virtual passport application service via HM Passport Office”, thereby underlining the impression that you are at the least an agent of HM Passport Office.

11. Having now gone back through your website with a fine tooth comb, I accept that you mention in various places that you are not in fact affiliated with HMPO. These statements are in no way as prominent as the words used to foster the impression that you are. For example, they often appear in small print and no particular attempt is made to bring them to the reader’s attention. As such, they do not counteract the impression created by the other much more prominent words.

12. Further, as you will be aware, under Regulation 7(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, it is a requirement that any seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language. Regulation 7(2) provides that any ambiguity is to be construed in favour of the consumer. This makes it yet more unlikely that any small print on your website will be taken by a court to counteract the clear impression created by the buttons and words at the top of your website.
Mistake

13. Accordingly, I believed that I was contracting with HMPO. I did not agree to contract with your company. A unilateral mistake as to the identity of a contracting party can render a contract void if it was fundamental and it induced the contract: see the case of Cundy v Lindsay. In this case the mistake was clearly fundamental and induced the contract as it affected the service which you could provide. The contract is therefore void.

14. As a result of your above-described website, I was also mistaken as to the service which you offered. This too is a mistake which goes to the root of the contract; it is fundamental, and induced the contract. The contract is void on this ground also.

Misrepresentation

15. The use of the words “APPLY NOW” at the head of your website also amounts to a misrepresentation in that it represented that by clicking on that button I would be completing an application form to renew my passport.

16. That was not the case, and could never be the case. Accordingly, your representation was false. It induced me to enter the contract as I would not have done so had I known that you were unable to directly provide me with a passport without the payment of a further fee.

17. The representation was either made fraudulently, or negligently.

18. In either case, I am entitled to rescind the contract and claim any losses which I have suffered as a result from you: see Derry v Peek (if it was a fraudulent statement), or Papa Johns v Doyley and section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 if you allege that you somehow did not know that your representation was false and that it was therefore only made negligently.

19. I am therefore entitled to the return of the £99 on this ground as well, and I am additionally entitled to the other losses which I have suffered as a result of your misrepresentation. In this case, that is principally my time. Using a reasonable rate of £50 per hour, this presently stands at £100, representing the 2 hours which it has taken for me to deal with this claim to date. If the claim is not settled in short order, this figure is clearly going to increase.

Response required

20. In line with the Practice Direction for Pre-Action Conduct (readily available on the Ministry of Justice’s website), you are requested to respond to this letter within a reasonable time, 21 days in this case. If you are unable to respond within 21 days, I would be grateful if you would respond within 14 days explaining why you will need a longer period and suggesting an appropriate time-frame.

21. If no response is received within 21 days, or my claim is not paid in full by that date, I will not hesitate to issue a small claim.

22. For the avoidance of doubt, full payment of my claim means the return of the £99, together with the payment compensation for my wasted time to date.

I very much hope that we can quickly resolve this dispute, and that that the institution of proceedings will be unnecessary.

Im sorry, but your providing very poor information to others hpuse. This thread really has gone to far now.

hpuse

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Yes, thank you, that is what I meant, I will endeavour to spell it correctly in the future.

There is room for improvement in many aspects of our lives, the trick is to identify where our shortcomings are and to act on them and take on board the suggestions/recommendations of others and not blindly follow the same path, "because we have always done it that way".

I feel that you would benefit from a bit of critical self introspection and have a real good look at your motivation and what you hope to achieve from this ridiculous thread, where you have been proved wrong time and time again, but stubbornly refuse to acknowledge.

I doubt this will receive a sensible reply, just the usual incoherent rambling and possibly a spurious link, but we live in hope.

If I am wrong, then you would have to say banks considering disputes on copycat transactions are also wrong, would you?

Forget whether dispute results in a chargeback or refund -that is beyond our hands.

hpuse

keyser666 wrote: »

The link to the letter in the OP that hpuse has changed is very clear that letter from the newbie is hpuse under an AE. The wording and the dialect/style if you will is exactly the same as hpuse

My list of AE's is as expanding as ever ....:rotfl:

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

I am in the Crown and Anchor. While pondering what meat to have with my lunc, I did another google search.

Lo and behold, I sees a passport application service is there on google! And also the Post Office service as well!

Gosh, my third ale has arrived. I maybe some time!

Money-Saving-King

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

So your first step is to now encourage people to send off a letter full of information they probably dont understand, threatening to take the company to small claims court and also charging compensation of £50 per hour for their time.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can rip that letter to bits. Just because its long and quotes legislation dosent make it correct.

For the information of others, here is that letter.

Im sorry, but your providing very poor information to others hpuse. This thread really has gone to far now.

It seems to be a letter before action with a slightly different title. Surely the title "Letter before making a fool of myself in court" would be a better heading?