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

RosiPossum

hpuse wrote: »

Time and again, this thread is a living example of a classic human behavioural science applied in a public forum...

If you read something that you do not want to read then speak out what you like to read...73 pages is still not enough for some people....

People are speaking out. They want good advice!

Pollycat

RosiPossum wrote: »

People are speaking out. They want good advice!

I agree, RosiPossum.

Here's another;
People are speaking out. They want accurate advice.

hpuse, it's not a case of 'reading something you do not want to read, then speaking out what you want to read' (what a quaint way of expressing yourself you have ), it's a case of reading something that is patently wrong and then speaking out.

shaun_from_Africa

hpuse wrote: »

If you read something that you do not want to read then speak out what you like to read...73 pages is still not enough for some people....

In case you've forgotten, 54 people did speak out about this,
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4934790
and 93% of those people thought that your opening post was misleading, yet you still keep posting the same drivel.

Money-Saving-King

Why hasn't Hpuse noticed that after 1458 posts still no one agrees with him?

Valli

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

Why hasn't Hpuse noticed that after 1458 posts still no one agrees with him?

Because what he reads and what he interprets the posts to have said are actually completely disparate!

hpuse

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

Why hasn't Hpuse noticed that after 1458 posts still no one agrees with him?

Even though 95% of forum posters disagrees with OP [as per the poll] it does not make any difference to me. In other words, I don't care.
It is known fact that banks do offer a dispute process [end resulting in chargeback if the dispute is successful]. It is upto the customers to prove that he or she has been mislead into buying a service. So yes, OP remains valid.

95% of the people voted do not want banks to refund money to mislead consumers. It is their personal view that people failing to read small print and T&C's stand to lose money. However, government and trading standards disagrees with that view. Overall, that is the collective opinion from this forum supported by senior posters. That makes them 'trade friendly' posters, not consumer friendly.

Also, if a newbie come and discuss the issue, they are reported swiftly as AE's of hpuse. [Strategy made to work]

Still this thread has survived the test of time....otherwise MSE Admins would have canned it a long time ago.

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

Even though 95% of forum posters disagrees with OP [as per the poll] it does not make any difference to me. In other words, I don't care.
It is known fact that banks do offer a dispute process [end resulting in chargeback if the dispute is successful]. It is upto the customers to prove that he or she has been mislead into buying a service. So yes, OP remains valid.

95% of the people voted do not want banks to refund money to mislead consumers. It is their personal view that people failing to read small print and T&C's stand to lose money. However, government and trading standards disagrees with that view. Overall, that is the collective opinion from this forum supported by senior posters. That makes them 'trade friendly' posters, not consumer friendly.

Also, if a newbie come and discuss the issue, they are reported swiftly as AE's of hpuse. [Strategy made to work]

Still this thread has survived the test of time....otherwise MSE Admins would have canned it a long time ago.

This time it's my turn to call you out as wrong.

You are wrong because ...

That wasn't the poll question.

Chargeback can occur if a consumer hasn't received the goods or service they paid for. Chargeback MAY fail when a copycat site has been used IF the customer DID receive the service EVEN IF the customer subsequently realised that they hadn't wanted that service. Nothing to do with what 'we' want. ('we' refers to those posters hpuse has collectively accused of being 'trade-friendly'.)

Many of us, myself included give VALID, APPROPRIATE and ACCURATE advice, elsewhere in this forum, to enable customers who have been deceived to get their money back, or replacement goods IF THAT IS THE REMEDY THEY ARE ENTITLED TO IN LAW.

There is no law which entitles a user of a copycat website to immediately get their money back. In fact the law PROTECTS CLONE WEBSITES BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THE CLONE/COPYCAT WEBSITES NOT TO OFFER REMEDIES OR REFUNDS UNDERS DSRs if the copycat websites start their service immediately. In other circumstances there is, in effect, a 7 day cooling off period. Customers of delivered goods, for example, may receive them, inspect them and reject them, for a full refund, under DSRs.

This is why I have advised that anyone who feels they have been duped by these websites should complain to their MP in the hope that the law will be changed. (THE DSRs could be changed, for example, to allow a cooling of period before the 'service' commences, or require a contract to be emailed to the customer prior to the service commencing, which would give an opportunity to cancel).

I would hardly call my stand on this trade friendly.

However, until these websites are outlawed (and that wouldn't appear to be on the legal agenda for anytime soon) it is imperative that users of the internet take more care in selecting websites from which to buy and reading the T&Cs of the websites BEFORE clicking.

Because never losing the money in the first place is far preferable to fighting a battle in an attempt to get it back!

I won't bother asking for an apology from you this time because you have shown your true colours on that one.

But I, for one, am in no way 'trade-friendly'.

hpuse

Valli, Poll was indeed about accuracy of advise contained in OP. And you have to admit the fact the close to 95% of accomplised posters think it is inaccurate or full of BS.

There is nothing in the post that is inaccurate. All the post is saying, talk to the bank, open a dispute and demonstrate to them that this website/company is attempting a con on money by duping a service. Yes, there is fault on consumers side that they did not read the small print or T&C's, however that does not make or prove the company providing a legit service or they are advertising and trading as per accepted norms. More importantly, consumer must not pay the price for them to exist in this world.

If anyone agrees with the above then they are consumer friendly poster.

Valli

I know what the poll was. You appear to know too!

So, to clarify -

It WASN'T about whether or not we wanted the banks to refund customers.

It wasn't about our 'personal view' either.

It is a fact that people who don't read the T&Cs of these websites may not get a refund.

Yet, once again you put your own special, personal interpretation on it and post this rubbish -

hpuse wrote: »

95% of the people voted do not want banks to refund money to mislead consumers. It is their personal view that people failing to read small print and T&C's stand to lose money.

And now you introduce more hpuse-isms to the thread.

'Trading as per accepted norms?'

Keep it simple - they're either trading within the law or not. As defined in legislation.

Don't muddy the water by putting your own slant on it.
I would defy you to find the term 'accepted norms' within ANY piece of UK legislation!

And I don't have to be defined by your interpretation of being a 'trade friendly' or a 'consumer-friendly' poster. I stand by my posts made over many years. One difference though - I, unlike you, read what other posters have posted and LEARN from them. And I apologise if I make an error or omission.

gik

hpuse wrote: »

Even though 95% of forum posters disagrees with OP [as per the poll] it does not make any difference to me. In other words, I don't care.
It is known fact that banks do offer a dispute process [end resulting in chargeback if the dispute is successful]. It is upto the customers to prove that he or she has been mislead into buying a service. So yes, OP remains valid.

95% of the people voted do not want banks to refund money to mislead consumers. It is their personal view that people failing to read small print and T&C's stand to lose money. However, government and trading standards disagrees with that view. Overall, that is the collective opinion from this forum supported by senior posters. That makes them 'trade friendly' posters, not consumer friendly.

Also, if a newbie come and discuss the issue, they are reported swiftly as AE's of hpuse. [Strategy made to work]

Still this thread has survived the test of time....otherwise MSE Admins would have canned it a long time ago.

It's called Care in the Community.