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

gik

hpuse wrote: »

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

Yet they happily continue to advertise the legal sites?

hpuse

gik wrote: »

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

Err? What is missing?

gik

hpuse wrote: »

Err? What is missing?

I have no idea to be honest. I can think of no words that could be added to this that you typed that would make sense?:-

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


..clearly something is missing?

hpuse

gik wrote: »

I have no idea to be honest. I can think of no words that could be added to this that you typed that would make sense?:-

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


..clearly something is missing?

....now its almost 3 months past since OP?

RosiPossum

Hpuse, you said that the consumer has the right to prove that they did not receive the service they paid for.

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

I then asked (again) how they will prove this. My question was in direct response to your statement that they have the right to prove it.
Your response was a bit unhelpful.

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?

So if I were to raise this dispute, as is apparently my right, and my bank asked me to show I was misled, how would I go about this?

gik

hpuse wrote: »

....now its almost 3 months past since OP?

This is a very simple question hpuse. How many times have you edited your original OP and why?

powerful_Rogue

hpuse wrote: »

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"

However the last investigation by the OFT stated they all complied with the law.

The congestion charging is a completely different service to the ones I listed.

Money-Saving-King

hpuse wrote: »

But the lawmakers can put pressure on them - that is the reason why they have removed congestion charging ads from their website.

No it is not, This really shows you just make it up as you go along.

They also don't allow trade marked names in their ads, ads about mp3 downloads, I could go on for ages.

Why? Because then no one can sue them. They just remove anything that can cause them hassle. It's a business decision. They have NOT been told by "lawmakers" not to show them.

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

They re-key-in your "electronic papers works"

Hpuse, could you possibly reconstruct that sentence so that it becomes understandable?

Are some words missing?
Perhaps they are in the wrong order?
But for the benefit of all the people who "cannot be held responsible for clicking", you really should be trying just a little bit harder to make your posts understandable.

After all, you did say:

hpuse wrote: »

You keep asking people "read" "read" "read" what you are buying, but you fail to read my post.
Where have I said someone will get a refund or how to get a refund. Get real and read once more. Its funny we all love to laugh when people can't read.

It really is no laughing matter for you to continue to produce unintelligible posts.

shaun_from_Africa

hpuse wrote: »

....now its almost 3 months past since OP?

In which case, instead of referring to it as the OP, why not just call it "Trigger's broom"

Trigger "And that's what I've done. Maintained it for 20 years. This old brooms had 17 new heads and 14 new handles in its time."
Sid "How the hell can it be the same bloody broom then?"
Trigger "There's the picture. What more
proof do you need?"