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

RuthnJasper

I think this is just feeding an over-hungry troll, to be honest, now.

Chuck him back under his bridge and let him selectively-read what he likes.

:hello:

wantmemoney

This thread is one of several that appears to be being used by the 'rip-off' industry to post inaccurate nonsense about these rip-off sites being 'legal'.
These posters are all using the exact same age old con to defend these rip-off copycat sites that con men (and worse) have always used.

BLAME THE VICTIM

it was their fault because they were greedy.
it was their fault because they dressed provocatively.

have become
it was their fault because they were stupid.
it was their fault because they were lazy.
it was their fault because they didn't read the terms and conditions.

RuthnJasper

wantmemoney wrote: »

This thread is one of several that appears to be being used by the 'rip-off' industry to post inaccurate nonsense about these rip-off sites being 'legal'.
These posters are all using the exact same age old con to defend these rip-off copycat sites that con men (and worse) have always used.

BLAME THE VICTIM

it was their fault because they were greedy.
it was their fault because they dressed provocatively.

have become
it was their fault because they were stupid.
it was their fault because they were lazy.
it was their fault because they didn't read the terms and conditions.

It IS someone's fault if they sign a contract without reading the terms and conditions. Being stupid and lazy is not advisable, but not necessarily anyone's "fault".

And I don't think that a comparison with this issue and rape -

it was their fault because they dressed provocatively.

- is appropriate.

wantmemoney

RuthnJasper wrote:

Originally Posted by wantmemoney
This thread is one of several that appears to be being used by the 'rip-off' industry to post inaccurate nonsense about these rip-off sites being 'legal'.
These posters are all using the exact same age old con to defend these rip-off copycat sites that con men (and worse) have always used.

BLAME THE VICTIM

It IS someone's fault if they sign a contract without reading the terms and conditions.

thank you for posting such a clear example of what I was referring.

So the person responsible for the misleading AD(illegal website according to the ASA) doesn't shoulder any blame for intentionally duping the customer!

RuthnJasper

wantmemoney wrote: »

thank you for posting such a clear example of what I was referring.

So the person responsible for the misleading AD(illegal website according to the ASA) doesn't shoulder any blame for intentionally duping the customer!

No.

Always read the SMALL print, rather than just the bells and whistles and shiny promises on the front cover. Would you buy a house just because it looks nice on the outside without looking inside and then simply sue the Estate Agent for misrepresentation?

I've never used any of these sites, though I've seen them (and I don't work for any of them either) - but I would certainly not hand over £70-odd without reading exactly what my money will and will not get me.

wealdroam

RuthnJasper wrote: »

I've never used any of these sites, though I've seen them (and I don't work for any of them either) - but I would certainly not hand over £70-odd without reading exactly what my money will and will not get me.

Thank you RuthnJasper.
That sentence pretty much describes the view of many of the posters on here.

It is probably fair to say that that is the view of all the posters Wantmemoney is describing when he says:

wantmemoney wrote: »

This thread is one of several that appears to be being used by the 'rip-off' industry to post inaccurate nonsense about these rip-off sites being 'legal'.
These posters are all using the exact same age old con to defend these rip-off copycat sites that con men (and worse) have always used.

Unfortunately, Wantmemoney has now branded you, along with the rest of us, as working in this industry.

wantmemoney

RuthnJasper wrote:

Originally Posted by wantmemoney
thank you for posting such a clear example of what I was referring.

So the person responsible for the misleading AD(illegal website according to the ASA) doesn't shoulder any blame for intentionally duping the customer!

No.

extraordinary reply!

wealdroam wrote:

Originally Posted by wantmemoney
This thread is one of several that appears to be being used by the 'rip-off' industry to post inaccurate nonsense about these rip-off sites being 'legal'.

Unfortunately, Wantmemoney has now branded you, along with the rest of us, as working in this industry.

@wealdroam
in the interest of honesty and accuracy and show your not just lying to cause trouble could you link to my post and quote the part where you claim I claimed RuthnJasper 'as working in this industry'.

wealdroam

wantmemoney wrote: »

@wealdroam
in the interest of honesty and accuracy and show your not just lying to cause trouble could you link to my post and quote the part where you claim I claimed RuthnJasper 'as working in this industry'.

"lying to cause trouble"... that's too is a little bit strong, don't you think?

I will concede that I was a little bit premature with my accusation, but now that RuthnJasper has clearly stated their view...

Whilst we are all striving towards clarity, just who were you talking about when you wrote:

These posters are all using the exact same age old con to defend these rip-off copycat sites that con men (and worse) have always used.

Pollycat

wantmemoney wrote: »

This thread is one of several that appears to be being used by the 'rip-off' industry to post inaccurate nonsense about these rip-off sites being 'legal'.
These posters are all using the exact same age old con to defend these rip-off copycat sites that con men (and worse) have always used.

BLAME THE VICTIM

it was their fault because they were greedy.
it was their fault because they dressed provocatively.

have become
it was their fault because they were stupid.
it was their fault because they were lazy.
it was their fault because they didn't read the terms and conditions.

Are you saying that you think any of the posters on this thread are connected with this 'rip-off' industry (your words)?
I hope you're not trotting out that tired old attack.
I would be interested to read the answer to wealdroam's question in post #119.

It is not posting 'nonsense'.

It's actually recognising the fact that the majority of these websites (as found after an investigation by OFT) are operating within the law.
You need to realise the difference between 'legal' and ethical and moral.
There is a vast difference and you are confusing them.
If these websites were not operating within the law, they would have been closed down.

There's a very big difference (which you appear not be able to understand) between acknowledging the fact that they are legal and supporting or defending these companies.

I do not support them.
I do not defend them.
I wish these websites would have a big boxing glove that leapt out of the screen and hit potential customers on the forehead and left a stamp reading 'Don't use me, you can get it cheaper or for free on the official website'.

I can actually understand how people get caught out with these websites.
You'll see very few posts from me on this subject blaming someone for making a mistake - unless they've been rude to me first.

Money-Saving-King

Has the op added all the presenters of Watchdog as a friend of Facebook yet?