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

hpuse

wealdroam wrote: »

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.

@wealdroam
I can't comment on that.
If there is no suggestion to contact the bank, it may be due to MSE editorial policies.

If you look into this mse article (last edited Dec 2012) , it says consumer is entitled to a "chargeback" for fraud.
However, chargeback is not the correct term to be used, in fact it is a term used in the payment industry. When a card fraud happens, more than 50% of the cases, a consumer will not be able confirm a fraud - it is down to bank or network provider level, and they have to follow a stringent process.

Most modern banks and credit card providers have now got a fairly matured process to handle disputes. A dispute may result in chargeback.

Let me confirm this. It is not a consumer right to ask for a chargeback, but it is indeed his or her right to:
a) to raise a complaint or dispute
b) prove that he did not receive the service he paid for

A bank will always consider the merit of the case and then will decide on the outcome.

meer53

hpuse wrote: »

@wealdroam
I can't comment on that.
If there is no suggestion to contact the bank, it may be due to MSE editorial policies.

If you look into this mse article (last edited Dec 2012) , it says consumer is entitled to a "chargeback" for fraud.
However, chargeback is not the correct term to be used, in fact it is a term used in the payment industry. When a card fraud happens, more than 50% of the cases, a consumer will not be able confirm a fraud - it is down to bank or network provider level, and they have to follow a stringent process.

Most modern banks and credit card providers have now got a fairly matured process to handle disputes. A dispute may result in chargeback.

Let me confirm this. It is not a consumer right to ask for a chargeback, but it is indeed his or her right to:
a) to raise a complaint or dispute
b) prove that he did not receive the service he paid for

A bank will always consider the merit of the case and then will decide on the outcome.

When did this thread turn into one about fraud ?

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

@wealdroam
I can't comment on that.
If there is no suggestion to contact the bank, it may be due to MSE editorial policies.

Possibly. I too do not know their editorial policies, but as you point us to a MSE document devoted to chargeback in your next paragraph, it seems unlikely that MSE are avoiding referring people to their banks due to "policy".

hpuse wrote: »

If you look into this mse article (last edited Dec 2012) , it says consumer is entitled to a "chargeback" for fraud.
However, chargeback is not the correct term to be used, in fact it is a term used in the payment industry. When a card fraud happens, more than 50% of the cases, a consumer will not be able confirm a fraud - it is down to bank or network provider level, and they have to follow a stringent process.

Most modern banks and credit card providers have now got a fairly matured process to handle disputes. A dispute may result in chargeback.

Let me confirm this. It is not a consumer right to ask for a chargeback, but it is indeed his or her right to:
a) to raise a complaint or dispute
b) prove that he did not receive the service he paid for

A bank will always consider the merit of the case and then will decide on the outcome.

I didn't mention chargeback, but as MSE seem quite comfortable using that term, I'll continue to use it when necessary.

RosiPossum

hpuse wrote: »

@wealdroam


Let me confirm this. It is not a consumer right to ask for a chargeback, but it is indeed his or her right to:
a) to raise a complaint or dispute
b) prove that he did not receive the service he paid for

A bank will always consider the merit of the case and then will decide on the outcome.

How will they prove they did not receive it? As has been stated several times, the home page makes it clear what the consumer is paying for. If they don't receive this, then of course raise a dispute. It seems, however, you're encouraging people to raise a dispute because they are paying for something they think is something else.

hpuse

RosiPossum wrote: »

How will they prove they did not receive it? As has been stated several times, the home page makes it clear what the consumer is paying for. If they don't receive this, then of course raise a dispute. It seems, however, you're encouraging people to raise a dispute because they are paying for something they think is something else.

This is going back in circular trajectory.

If ASA, Govenment and Google can protect, ensure and take actions against misleading websites, why not banks too can safe guard the best interest of their customers?

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Dear oh dear, where is this inherent right to force the bank to do a charge back OP? Does that mean when I shop at the emporium this weekend, and drink all my beer, I can do a chargeback becasue i have a hangover? Is this what you imply?

In answer, the ASA has said these sites are not misleading, as they offer a service over and above what the government website do. Google are a commercial operation and otehrs exist, that make money by taking advertisments, related to peoples search words. they pay tax which keeps the government functioning.

A vicious circle, but a fact of life.

And no ammount of safeguards can prevent a consumer from quickly emptying their pockets without understanding what they have bought. This applies to these passport service providers, as well as Hong Kong sellers of Australian boots.

missprice

hpuse wrote: »

This is going back in circular trajectory.

If ASA, Govenment and Google can protect, ensure and take actions against misleading websites, why not banks too can safe guard the best interest of their customers?

This is going round in a circular trajectory, because you keep moving the goalposts.
ASA have said these companies are doing nothing wrong, as yet at least.
Google are still putting advertising up in the top if the pages. ( I just tried )
Government dont care yet because not enough people are giving them grief about these sites.
Banks don't care, its not there own money. And they have a department that deals with chargebacks et al. That department still has work with or without these sites.

Try harassing MPs to get the law changed. Maybe even start a petition if you really care so much,that would be much more effective than your ramblings on here.

hpuse

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

Dear oh dear, where is this inherent right to force the bank to do a charge back OP? Does that mean when I shop at the emporium this weekend, and drink all my beer, I can do a chargeback becasue i have a hangover? Is this what you imply?

In answer, the ASA has said these sites are not misleading, as they offer a service over and above what the government website do. Google are a commercial operation and otehrs exist, that make money by taking advertisments, related to peoples search words. they pay tax which keeps the government functioning.

A vicious circle, but a fact of life.

And no ammount of safeguards can prevent a consumer from quickly emptying their pockets without understanding what they have bought. This applies to these passport service providers, as well as Hong Kong sellers of Australian boots.

You are reading too much into my words, BoP, as you know now, there is always, hpuse, to correct you.

I reflect your own words, there is NO inherent right to force the bank to do a charge back. However, there is right to enter a dispute. If the concerned trade is NOT following the accepted advertising and trading norms, then customer cannot be held responsible for clicking. Hope all banks understand the same, and hope you too now understand where I am coming from?.

However, I do understand and acknowledge that ASA rulings and TS enforcements are like long distant telephone calls....You never know how they are getting connected :rotfl:

powerful_Rogue

hpuse wrote: »

However, there is right to enter a dispute. If the concerned trade is NOT following the accepted advertising and trading norms, then customer cannot be held responsible for clicking.

Well they are clearly following accepted advertising standards as they are compliant with the ASA.

They are also clearly trading legally as they have been investigated and cleared by the Office of Fair Trading.

Why can the customer not be held responsible for clicking a link and not reading what they are about to purchase?

Can you back your post I quoted up with any evidence at all?

Valli

The planet 'it's someone's else's fault' or possibly the planet 'don't blame me'.

Certainly NOT on Mea Culpa