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

MamaMoo_2

ONLINE Ts & Cs: Copycat websites have been highlighted lately so ensure that you read the small print on websites and their terms and conditions to avoid being conned.

con1
kɒn/
informal
verb
past tense: conned; past participle: conned
1.
persuade (someone) to do or believe something by lying to them.
"I conned him into giving me your home number"

Am I the only one that thinks that the only person misleading anyone is the person who claims to have been conned?
The websites make no false claims, yet a consumer doesn't get what they're expecting due to them not actually reading the website. The consumer makes an incorrect assumption as to what the website will do, despite the website clearly stating it doesn't do this, so the consumer has mislead themselves by making (incorrect) assumptions based on what they want and not what the website actually says it does.

RosiPossum

hpuse wrote: »

A trade body representing an entire region (Scotland) has spoken against copycats and their misleading and conning nature.

Yet, some people uphold a two digit score done overnight and form rationales.
Guys, you are simply amazing. Hats off !!

If a consumer thinks he did not get the service he paid for - then he has the right to enter a dispute. That's all OP is helping him/her to do. If you did not like my post then shut your eyes and remain silent [courtesy wealdroam' signature]

Collective response to OP and attitude formed has only helped idiosyncrasies that protrude here become more buoyant each day as post & thank count goes high!

As another poster said, Scotland is a country, not a region. It has its own government and everything!

And your post is also flawed further on. If a trader has the name "Bob the Builder" and I go to him because I need a wall, and he says "okay, but all I can do is deliver the bricks to you. You'll have to call my friend Fred and pay him to actually build it" and I hire him, I can't enter into a dispute because I thought he was going to build the wall. He's told me exactly what he's going to do and I paid for that service, even if what I really wanted was the wall built.

These sites are nasty and counting on people not reading what is on the front page, but there isn't the 'right to dispute' that a service hasn't been received unless it has been. Some people aren't receiving their forms, or they haven't been done correctly (on the site's side, not the consumer filling it in incorrectly). These people have every right to get a refund due to the service not being received. The people who fill in their form then receive it in the post have had the service they paid for and can't say they didn't get the service they paid for,

I realise just how many times I wrote some version of 'receive' in that paragraph - eek!!

hpuse

Here is something for all of you to read.
http://katenasser.com/teamwork-warning-signs-of-a-clique/

May I kindly remind you - though your trade and consumer-will-pay-the-price-n-sacrifice ideologies are interesting, our democratically elected government disagrees with you.

That is why they have asked Google to remove copycat trade advertisements from search pages. It is almost safe to say that they will soon be a thing of past.

MamaMoo_2

hpuse wrote: »

Here is something for all of you to read.
http://katenasser.com/teamwork-warning-signs-of-a-clique/

May I kindly remind you - though your trade and consumer-will-pay-the-price-n-sacrifice ideologies are interesting, our democratically elected government disagrees with you.

That is why they have asked Google to remove copycat trade advertisements from search pages. It is almost safe to say that they will soon be a thing of past.

You still fail to realise that it's not Google's place to make sure the link at the top is the one that you were thinking of, it's the consumer's job to make sure the link they click and the service they sign up for is the one they wanted.
Will google remove the ads of websites that aren't misleading and state clearly what they do? No, they won't. Google are already transparent in that they highlight which links are ads.

At some point, people need to take responsibility for their actions. It's as simple as that. If someone cannot use the internet correctly and read what they are signing up to, perhaps they ought to back away from the internet and cut up their credit/debit cards...

hpuse

MamaMoo wrote: »

You still fail to realise that it's not Google's place to make sure the link at the top is the one that you were thinking of, it's the consumer's job to make sure the link they click and the service they sign up for is the one they wanted.
Will google remove the ads of websites that aren't misleading and state clearly what they do? No, they won't. Google are already transparent in that they highlight which links are ads.

At some point, people need to take responsibility for their actions. It's as simple as that. If someone cannot use the internet correctly and read what they are signing up to, perhaps they ought to back away from the internet and cut up their credit/debit cards...

There are mainly 2 category of consumers.

Category 1 will always make sure what he is buying, but a hasty or hurried. i.e category2 of Consumers may not always.

There are businesses (such as copycats) solely exists with discerning ethics to target category2 of consumers. Govt has a responsibility to ensure such trade practices are curbed. Best approach is to prevent them appearing.
As a prevention measure, they have used their authority to instruct Google to remove such trade adverts.

Hence, in the near future consumers will stop seeing passport copycats or driving license copycat advertisement that misleads and deliver mere 'paperworks' using Google advertisements.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

On the day BoP was born:
- I was smothered in Mother BoPs care
- I could not read, but knew a decent drop of milk
- I did not need any rights

Now some points to blow hPuseless apart (keeep your eyes peeled)

- 100's gullable people have lost their common sense
- Service providers assist thiose who to lazy to wipe their own bottoms
- Some people have lost the ability to stop and think what they are buying

Now carry on what you are no good at

So strange that even my FiL, 72, new to computing, knows a rip off when he sees it!

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

A trade body representing an entire region (Scotland) has spoken against copycats and their misleading and conning nature.

Scotland is a country;)

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

Here is something for all of you to read.
http://katenasser.com/teamwork-warning-signs-of-a-clique/

May I kindly remind you - though your trade and consumer-will-pay-the-price-n-sacrifice ideologies are interesting, our democratically elected government disagrees with you.

That is why they have asked Google to remove copycat trade advertisements from search pages. It is almost safe to say that they will soon be a thing of past.

Ah yes. The democratically elected Government THAT HAS FAILED TO OUTLAW THSE SITES AND MAKE THEM ILLEGAL.

The Government has the ultimate authority here yet doesn't act.

Have you ever, for one moment, wondered WHY these websites continue to have carte blanche to target consumers, whether they be hasty, or vulnerable, or just plain daft and take money off them?

Because all the vitriol you pour on posters here on this thread is having NO impact whatsoever on the continuing operation of these websites?

missprice

hpuse wrote: »

Govt has a responsibility to ensure such trade practices are curbed. Best approach is to prevent them appearing.
As a prevention measure, they have used their authority to instruct Google to remove such trade adverts.

Hence, in the near future consumers will stop seeing passport copycats or driving license copycat advertisement that misleads and deliver mere 'paperworks' using Google advertisements.

You got some proof of this authority telling Google what to do?

If someone is rushed or drunk or Ill or having a bad day, maybe just maybe they should not be on the internet or let loose with a credit card.

hpuse

Valli wrote: »

Because all the vitriol you pour on posters here on this thread is having NO impact whatsoever on the continuing operation of these websites?

I do not own or run a copycat website, but it is safe to assume Google banning copycat passport websites and London congestion charging has had an negative impact on their inward cash flow. Do you agree, Valli?

Oh by the way, I do not expect every posters to know everything happening in copycat world.