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

keyser666

hpuse wrote: »

Fair enough. You are entitled to that opinion.

I have a request tho'. If you do not like what you read from my post, please do not report. That will be a waste of time in my opinion.

you seem to be very selective about the questions you respond to in peoples post, care to answer?

hpuse

keyser666 wrote: »

you seem to be very selective about the questions you respond to in peoples post, care to answer?

I hope you appreciate the fact that I may not know answers to all questions.
In such cases, I ignore/do not respond.

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

I hope you appreciate the fact that I may not know answers to all questions.
In such cases, I ignore/do not respond.

A more courteous response would be "I am sorry, I don't know the answer to that".

hpuse

wealdroam wrote: »

A more courteous response would be "I am sorry, I don't know the answer to that".

Courteousness and respect is something posters receive when they give.
55 pages of this thread is a running testimony .....

Exile_geordie

hpuse wrote: »

Courteousness and respect is something posters receive when they give.
55 pages of this thread is a running testimony .....

Maybe you should be courteous to other posters too by at least getting their name right rather than trying to be funny with them


or do you only expect courtesy your way?

Money-Saving-King

hpuse wrote: »

Hello Keyser666,

How are you doing today?.
Do you agree with the statement below.

a) A consumer loses money to copycat for not reading t&c's
b) Consumer tries to recover money from copycats
c) Consumer fails/failed to recovery money from copycats

d) Consumer opens a dispute with the bank in an attempt to bring the matter to attention with other parties involved.
e) Consumer tries to recover money via bank from copycats
f) Consumer fails to recovery money via bank OR
Consumer succeeds in recovering money via bank


So, according to you someone who lost money should stop at step c) ?
Is that what you are saying?

The harsh side of me says they should stop at A. They were perfectly happy to be that amount of money at the time, it's not like the pages of the websites don't have at least 5 warnings/clues on every single page to show what your paying for and that there is a cheaper version if you should so wish.

RosiPossum

hpuse wrote: »

Hello Keyser666,

How are you doing today?.
Do you agree with the statement below.

a) A consumer loses money to copycat for not reading t&c's
b) Consumer tries to recover money from copycats
c) Consumer fails/failed to recovery money from copycats

d) Consumer opens a dispute with the bank in an attempt to bring the matter to attention with other parties involved.
e) Consumer tries to recover money via bank from copycats
f) Consumer fails to recovery money via bank OR
Consumer succeeds in recovering money via bank


So, according to you someone who lost money should stop at step c) ?
Is that what you are saying?

But it's not just the terms and conditions (which, let's face it, a lot of people don't bother reading). It's plastered on the front page. Not hidden away anywhere.

Valli

Funny how the OP thinks he's the only person on the side of the consumer at all.

Making a mockery of this whole site IMO

It's a money SAVING site. Not a 'Getting your money back if you have spent it unwisely' site.

THAT'S why MSE advises customers NOT to use these sites in the first place. Because, over at MSE Towers, they know FULL WELL what these sites are and how they operate.

RosiPossum

I don't think anyone is on the side of these sites. We're just pointing out that they are operating within the law and can and will defend themselves if disputes are raised.
Apparently, pointing this out means you're on the side of the trader.

Sayaka

I would hope that no-one here is on the side of these sites who are clearly out to make money from the unwary (even if it is legal)

Maybe, just maybe, if enough disputes with the bank are raised (even if unsuccessful) the banks will put pressure on their government chums to make a change in the law.

These sites are morally wrong and I think it's a good thing that people are trying to stand up to them.