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

hpuse

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

Hpuse have you still not figured out how to install and ad blocker yet?

I believe ads are an integral part of internet eco-system that need to sustain in order to deliver services that are free for the general public to consume.

Suppressing ads with software does not help, it is like sweeping all the problems under the carpet to eliminate a tiny problem.
Copycats are a classic example - that we need to eliminate, by stopping their only penetration channel, i.e search engines.

We do this by:

a) Put measures in place to curb their penetration
b) Educate people about importance of finding a site through the right place (for e.g gov.uk )

I do condemn the nasty SEO tactics , PPC tracking campaign and that other manned-help that perpetrators of copycats websites engage in.

They also receive help from people who flock forums like these to to bolster their legal stand on trading positions. Such traders are disgusting and a menace to internet based online trade..

Money-Saving-King

hpuse wrote: »

I believe penetration is disgusting and a menace

You write some weird stuff. With just a bit of basic editing the words above are actually in your post!

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

So using OPs example, adverts are ok if these checking services are aligned to the post office! Other services are available.

OP, have you got your money back yet?

Good to see Hpuseless has voted, but it is now like a England cricket score, 35 for 1!

hpuse

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

You write some weird stuff. With just a bit of basic editing the words above are actually in your post!

You are doing your job very well.... My mistake I responded to you, as I said eduction is better served to those deserving, not opposing!

bod1467

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

but it is now like a England cricket score, 35 for 1!

hpuse would rather hope that the poll would be like an England cricket score ... 36 for 5.

peachyprice

Pollycat wrote: »

I disagree.
The Post Office 'check & send' service has been in existence for many years and is actually recommended by gov.uk.

And you can't use it if applying on-line so you have to physically - and therefore knowingly - visit a Post Office so you are well aware that you are paying for a 'value-add' service.

Sorry, i disagree entirely.

The girl sitting behind the counter in my post office who has worked there for 3 months is no more qualified to check my passport application than my butcher.

There have been many, many people just on this forum alone who have passport applications refused by UKPA after they have been 'checked' by the post office.

If you're capable of reading the passport form yourself Check and Send it yet another unnecessary rip-off 'service'.

Pollycat

peachyprice wrote: »

Sorry, i disagree entirely.

The girl sitting behind the counter in my post office who has worked there for 3 months is no more qualified to check my passport application than my butcher.

There have been many, many people just on this forum alone who have passport applications refused by UKPA after they have been 'checked' by the post office.

If you're capable of reading the passport form yourself Check and Send it yet another unnecessary rip-off 'service'.

I'm not sure what part of my post you are disagreeing with.


I did not say anyone working in a Post Office was qualified to check a passport application.
I did not say the PO 'check & send' service was infallible.
I did not say that the PO 'check and send' service was worth paying for.

I said it had been in existence for many years - and it has.
I said it was recommended by Gov.uk - and it is.
I said you can't use it on-line - and you can't.
I said it was not like the copycat websites being discussed in this thread because you couldn't use it on-line.

If you check back I even used commas round 'value-add'.

peachyprice

Sorry, things got slightly out context with quotes. To clarify you disagreed with missprice when she said its still a paid for advert and a rip off.

IMO, that's exactly what it is, just a government endorsed one.

Pollycat

peachyprice wrote: »

Sorry, things got slightly out context with quotes. To clarify you disagreed with missprice when she said its still a paid for advert and a rip off.

IMO, that's exactly what it is, just a government endorsed one.

How do you tell if it's a 'paid-for' advert?

bod1467

Because it has Ad next to the web link.