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

keyser666

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?

keyser666 wrote: »

Yes

hpuse wrote: »

I'm afraid, I say No, consumer should fight his case and raise this matter with all authorities. So together with the help of consumer, copycats will soon be a thing of past.....

So we agree to disagree. Hence part b) of OP will stand. Period.

keyser666 wrote: »

I am not asking you to change it just saying it is a load of rubbish of which it is only you to think otherwise.

What are the banks going to do by raising it with them then?

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.

So hpuse why

1) If you do not know the answer do you advise people to raise a dispute with their banks?
2) If you do not know the answer why do you above say you do not agree and people should not stop at C) and should continue to D) and raise a dispute with their bank?

hpuse

RosiPossum wrote: »

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.

If they are clearly operating within all the applicable trading laws, they should be taking legal action against Google.

Copycat syndicates can then claim their collective loss of revenue from Google for banning their ads.

hpuse

keyser666 wrote: »

So hpuse why

1) If you do not know the answer do you advise people to raise a dispute with their banks?
2) If you do not know the answer why do you above say you do not agree and people should not stop at C) and should continue to D) and raise a dispute with their bank?

Answer:

Raising a complaint, dispute, small claims etc re: dubious trades will get audited at different levels.

So even if the consumer doesn't get his or her money back, it works in the long run. So, yes, raising the dispute and making complaints with relevant authorities are very important.

One of the reason why google/bing ads got banned is due to public concerns re: this website. They appearing on the front page and as the first link is the main reason the ads unwary user clicking them.

RosiPossum

hpuse wrote: »

If they are clearly operating within all the applicable trading laws, they should be taking legal action against Google.

Copycat syndicates can then claim their collective loss of revenue from Google for banning their ads.

I don't know anything about it, but aren't they just customers to Google? Google can choose whichever companies they want to advertise or not advertise.
Maybe someone will know the right answer to this..?

keyser666

hpuse wrote: »

If they are clearly operating within all the applicable trading laws, they should be taking legal action against Google.

Copycat syndicates can then claim their collective loss of revenue from Google for banning their ads.

I doubt that would be the case they will collect any loss of revenue from Google as I am sure their T&C's will be watertight and probably cover them for erroneous adverts as well also they can in essence pick and choose their customers.

hpuse wrote: »

Answer:

Raising a complaint, dispute, small claims etc re: dubious trades will get audited at different levels.

So even if the consumer doesn't get his or her money back, it works in the long run. So, yes, raising the dispute and making complaints with relevant authorities are very important.

One of the reason why google/bing ads got banned is due to public concerns re: this website. They appearing on the front page and as the first link is the main reason the ads unwary user clicking them.

There will be no auditing or concerns with the bank regarding these disputes, there will be a stock reply, they will follow process and refuse the refund.

Making complaints to the ASA and your MP will be the only effective route. As for google banning these because of public concern, google does not listen to the public, don't be so silly. They have listened to the UK Governemnt here and them only. Google has just bought new extended premises in Kings Cross London after moving from their previous smaller premises and also paying minimal tax on their operations here. An educated guess would be they remove these as they appear otherwise HMRC (one of the departments affected) will be knocking at your door and looking through the books as to why any revenue from this country is processed in another. Quid pro Quo if you like.

wealdroam

Hpuse, have you noticed that there is an article about this issue in today's MSE Newsletter?

You will be disappointed on a number of counts.
1) there is no credit for your sterling work on this subject.
2) there is no suggestion that any 'victim' should contact their bank.
3) they supply a template letter the body of which is only thirteen lines long, compared to your template which has over eighty lines.

However, wipe those tears away, the good news is that there is now no need for you to continue your campaign, is there?

Just had another thought Hpuse...
Perhaps if you asked MSE nicely, they would allow you to replace the original post in this thread in it's entirety with their article.
I'm sure you'll agree that is well worth asking about.

RosiPossum

This is what happens when people go to their banks...

supersquirrel wrote: »

I went through my bank to get a refund - I got a part refund but now the bank is taking it back and paying it back to the shyster site, as I am being accused of non payment of goods provided.

keyser666

RosiPossum wrote: »

This is what happens when people go to their banks...

Which thread is that from Rosi? Ignore me ...

RosiPossum

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64950177#Comment_64950177

The forum discussion for the article that wealdroam linked to.
It takes you there if you click the arrow next to the name of the person quoted

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

hpuse wrote: »

One of the reason why google/bing ads got banned is due to public concerns re: this website. They appearing on the front page and as the first link is the main reason the ads unwary user clicking them.

I will explain commerce again. I will also add that Government cannot function without the revenue made from commerce that is collected as tax! As such, commercial enterprises are going to use facilities like Google to advertise their services on. As long as they remain services, no ammount of legislation can change this.

And I also note that the advice on the MSE thread pays scabnt reagrd to thsi post and that the MSE editors have edited the first post as well.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

Now here is a little bit of advice for OP.

The government collects taxes from the wealth created in our lands to provide services such as passports.

Google works by taking advertisements. As such a commercial organisation, will seek revenue from service providers!

Service providers will continue to promote their services.

It is commerce!

Back to [STRIKE]square[/STRIKE] post 1 for another edit of the post then!