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

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

Here is the full title of the article.

Lies go on as the copycat tax website closes - because owners missed deadline to file accounts

The lies referred to in the title of the article relate to WHO4 saying this:

‘Our websites are no longer available to accept instructions. This is primarily a result of unsupported and unwarranted media articles and allegations – and as such we as a company have had no alternative but to voluntarily cease trading for the present time. We are assessing all legal remedies that may be available to us but Who4 will not be operating services for assistance with tax or passport issues, now or in the future.’

Also from the article:

Last week, the directors of Who4 were disingenuously spinning events their own way.


The statement (i.e. the one I've quoted above from WHO4), of course, is riddled with lies. Who4 has not voluntarily ceased trading – Companies House is striking the company off and Who4’s offices now lie empty. As for the unwarranted articles, I have files of complaints from users of its copycat websites, angry that they were duped and frustrated at not being able to get compensation.

FHS, does it really matter why they are no longer trading?

I personally don't care why - just happy that they aren't.

But, hpuse, the only reason WHO4 are not trading anymore is because they were stupid enough to fall foul of HM Revenue & Customs.
Do not delude yourself that there is any other reason.

Valli

Pollycat wrote: »

But, hpuse, the only reason WHO4 are not trading anymore is because they were stupid enough to fall foul of HM Revenue & Customs.
Do not delude yourself that there is any other reason.

Just to clarify for the benefit of the skim reader

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

But, hpuse, the only reason WHO4 are not trading anymore is because they were stupid enough to fall foul of HM Revenue & Customs.
Do not delude yourself that there is any other reason.

Pollycat/Valli/thankers - Could someone backup the above with a quote/reference please?

I can also confirm that after inception, if a company does not file their tax return in normal circumstances - it does not get removed within 24 months from CH register. If anyone wants a quote - please shout. :rotfl::rotfl:

bod1467

hpuse wrote: »

Pollycat/Valli/thankers - Could someone backup the above with a quote/reference please?

Erm .. how about the article that YOU linked to?

Are you really so stupid?

keyser666

hpuse wrote: »

Google bans copycat websites



taxdiscdirect gone to the google bin :j:j:j



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/10765909/Google-bans-copycat-websites.html

Google has not banned copycat sites, why lie, the link says exactly what I said here in POST 1324

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

Pollycat/Valli/thankers - Could someone backup the above with a quote/reference please?

You really are dim, hpuse - especially when you're tying to score cheap points.

'Backup' to my quote is actually in the quote you posted (# 1373)- when you revived this ridiculous thread yesterday - here:

Lies go on as the copycat tax website closes - because owners missed deadline to file accounts

You do understand that HM Revenue & Customs are responsible for tax returns, I assume.....

hpuse wrote: »

I can also confirm that after inception, if a company does not file their tax return in normal circumstances - it does not get removed within 24 months from CH register. If anyone wants a quote - please shout. :rotfl::rotfl:

Of course we would like a quote.
We're not so dim as to believe anything you write without proof of its source.

I really do doubt that Companies house would begin "proceedings to get Who4 Limited struck off its register and the company dissolved" - unless that were within the law.

Valli

Pollycat's already dealt with it.

Thing is hpuse you have been told multiple times that these companies are not breaking the law in 'offering' the 'check and send' service because there is no law to break.

If they fall foul of other laws, however, then they can be dealt with. As we are seeing. If the use copyrighted phrases/terms in their domain name/site name then they are breaking the law of copyright.

You need to stop implying that they are being stopped from trading because of the service they offer; that is simply NOT the case and it may give false hope to their victims.

hpuse

Valli wrote: »

Pollycat's already dealt with it.

Thing is hpuse you have been told multiple times that these companies are not breaking the law in 'offering' the 'check and send' service because there is no law to break.

If they fall foul of other laws, however, then they can be dealt with. As we are seeing. If the use copyrighted phrases/terms in their domain name/site name then they are breaking the law of copyright.

You need to stop implying that they are being stopped from trading because of the service they offer; that is simply NOT the case and it may give false hope to their victims.

Interesting you say these 'companies' aren't breaking any law, they are providing legit and legal check and send services, yada yada... Yet - you use the term 'victim' getting false hopes.

FYI, copycats (i.e companies as you mention) are not interested in providing any services. All they are interested is, a 16 digit card number and authorisation code from their merchant bank.

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

Interesting you say these 'companies' aren't breaking any law, they are providing legit and legal check and send services, yada yada... Yet - you use the term 'victim' getting false hopes.

FYI, copycats (i.e companies as you mention) are not interested in providing any services. All they are interested is, a 16 digit card number and authorisation code from their merchant bank.

But they are doing it within the law - as it stands today.

How many more times do you have to have this pointed out to you?

It doesn't matter what terminology posters use - it isn't against the law.

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

Interesting you say these 'companies' aren't breaking any law, they are providing legit and legal check and send services, yada yada... Yet - you use the term 'victim' getting false hopes.

FYI, copycats (i.e companies as you mention) are not interested in providing any services. All they are interested is, a 16 digit card number and authorisation code from their merchant bank.

Can you actually understand what you read? I didn't say these companies aren't breaking 'any' law; I said that, in offering the 'check and send' services they're not breaking the law because it's not illegal to provide a check and send service.

Clearly, and as I and others have said, some laws are being broken. They're flouting copyright laws IF they use copyrighted 'phrases' and then they can be taken down for that. If they don't file their accounts then they are breaking other laws and regulations. If they are using misleading advertising...

Have you got it yet?

The sites that are being taken down have done SOMETHING wrong. But they are NOT being taken down for being clone, or copycat, websites per se.

I use the term victims because, like LOTS of other posters on this thread I am well aware that people use these sites in the belief that they are using the official sites for passport renewal or whatever, and may not realise thay have paid more than they need to at the outset.

I don't know why I am even bothering to 'discuss' this with you; you jeer at me for using the term key words when you used it yourself, despite the fact that your posts are full of grammatical inaccuracies.

Not ONE of the sites that has been taken down has been taken down because of your paltry efforts though.

One final question ...

hpuse wrote: »

you use the term 'victim' getting false hopes.

How does my using the term victim give (which is what I assume you actually mean) someone - a victim presumably, false hopes? If they have been taken in by these sites then they may be a victim. Calling them a victim doesn't mean they'll get their money back though. They may well, simply, remain a victim. The person giving people false hope here, if anyone is, is YOU, because you persist in implying that they may be able to get their money back. I and other posters have pointed out that,as these sites are offering a service which the customer has agreed to then they may well NOT get their money back. So please do NOT accuse me of giving people false hope. That's been your remit from the outset.