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

hpuse

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

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

I am not sure who you mean by "they". Please be specific if you could?
I still see the following entry in ASA non-compliant list, which is a copycat addressed in OP.

TAD ServicesPay London Congestion Charge Online (paylondoncongestion.co.uk)Third party provider (congestion charge payments)25 February 2014

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Non-compliant-online-advertisers.aspx

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

hpuse wrote: »

I am not sure who you mean by "they". Please be specific if you could?
I still see the following entry in ASA non-complaint list, which is a copycat addressed in OP.

TAD ServicesPay London Congestion Charge Online (paylondoncongestion.co.uk)Third party provider (congestion charge payments)25 February 2014

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Non-compliant-online-advertisers.aspx

Currently 65 websites are listed as non compliant by the ASA, as at 12:51Z 2014-03-14. Of these websites, only one could be considered a copycat, and that is for the London Car Tax. There is currently no service provider website that is currently non compliant to the ASA.

There is no figure for the number of websites in the UK, but a conservative 1,000,00, would suggest the number of websites non complain is less than 0.006%, of theses, so called copycat websites are less than 0.0001% of the conservative UK websites.

powerful_Rogue

hpuse wrote: »

I am not sure who you mean by "they". Please be specific if you could?
I still see the following entry in ASA non-compliant list, which is a copycat addressed in OP.

TAD ServicesPay London Congestion Charge Online (paylondoncongestion.co.uk)Third party provider (congestion charge payments)25 February 2014

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Non-compliant-online-advertisers.aspx

Were talking about companies that assist in completing paperwork for a fee. The congestion charge website does not fall into this bracket.

Were talking about:

-Passport
-EHIC
-Driving Licence
-Tax Return
-Fishing Licence

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

Take that as a no then.

hpuse

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

Currently 65 websites are listed as non compliant by the ASA, as at 12:51Z 2014-03-14. Of these websites, only one could be considered a copycat, and that is for the London Car Tax. There is currently no service provider website that is currently non compliant to the ASA.

There is no figure for the number of websites in the UK, but a conservative 1,000,00, would suggest the number of websites non complain is less than 0.006%, of theses, so called copycat websites are less than 0.0001% of the conservative UK websites.

And these number leads us to Hallucinations Of......:rotfl:

hpuse

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Were talking about companies that assist in completing paperwork for a fee. The congestion charge website does not fall into this bracket.

Were talking about:

-Passport
-EHIC
-Driving Licence
-Tax Return
-Fishing Licence



Take that as a no then.

It is a yes, as OFT has taken actions against some of these websites in "copycat categories" you posted above.

And yes, congestion charging are copycats too. They re-key-in your "electronic papers works"

wealdroam

keith-66 wrote: »

exceedingly amazed to see the no: of people resisting hpuse and taking sides of copycats.

Can you please point out one person "taking sides of copycats".

bod1467

keith-66 wrote: »

exceedingly amazed to see the no: of people resisting hpuse and taking sides of copycats.

I guess you have the same reading skills as hpuse too then? You must do to have made that statement.

For the avoidance of doubt ... Nobody here is siding with these "copycats". We're just identifying that hpuse's advice is flawed.

Which I suspect you'll find out for yourself in about 5 or 6 weeks. But I hope to be proven wrong.

hpuse

bod1467 wrote: »

I guess you have the same reading skills as hpuse too then? You must do to have made that statement.

For the avoidance of doubt ... Nobody here is siding with these "copycats". We're just identifying that hpuse's advice is flawed.

Which I suspect you'll find out for yourself in about 5 or 6 weeks. But I hope to be proven wrong.

@keith-66

As you can see, people are interested only to challenge my OP and prove my existence in these forums a menace to consumer kind.

What they fail to recognise is my strong argument : consumers deserve and will get the benefit of doubt 'once' for being mislead by these shyters who run copycats. It is next to impossible to guarantee that every customers bank will act in the same manner.

It's only a matter of time GDS will clarify their legal position on online trades using government website services. Till then there will always be arguments quoting these trade's legal standings.

hpuse

Google remains very keen to hear from people who feel misled after clicking on adverts B]context: government copycat websites[/B appearing above their search results. This will help them remove such adverts as quickly as possible.

To make a complaint on google advertisement : Click here

gik

hpuse wrote: »

@keith-66

As you can see, people are interested only to challenge my OP and prove my existence in these forums a menace to consumer kind.

What they fail to recognise is my strong argument : consumers deserve and will get the benefit of doubt 'once' for being mislead by these shyters who run copycats. It is next to impossible to guarantee that every customers bank will act in the same manner.

It's only a matter of time GDS will clarify their legal position on online trades using government website services. Till then there will always be arguments quoting these trade's legal standings.

Is your keyboard faulty? There's clearly some words missing from that post.