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

hpuse

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

Post overflowing with assumption.

Check your Post #1349 ; biggest testimony and sweeping statement so far I have come across.

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

The main problem I see is events and facts after OP was posted.:

The OP you have edited MULTIPLE times

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

95% of the people voted do not want banks to refund money to mislead consumers.

You are wrong (again).
It's not a question of 'not wanting' banks to refund.
It's whether customers are misled.
And - as we've been round and round so many times - the majority of these websites make it very clear that they are not the official website.
So, no misleading = no refund.

hpuse wrote: »

It is their personal view that people failing to read small print and T&C's stand to lose money.

Yes, people failing to read small print & T&Cs do stand to lose money.
I think you actually mean 'deserve to lose money'. :rotfl:

And, yes, if they don't read the very prominent disclaimers on these websites that say they are not the official website, they do deserve to lose their money. They have not been misled.

I think you are confused about 'small print' and 'T&Cs' from when these websites did hide the truth about their business behind small print and T&Cs.
That is no longer the case.
Do keep up.

hpuse

Pollycat,

Almost all your post contains the word an unavoidable word ...."IF"....

So its my turn, take them in sequence....

"IF" these websites were not there, would the consumer lose money ???.

"IF" the websites did not appear in the search results, would the customer lose money?

"IF" the website had their terms and conditions NOT designed to rip-off, would the consumer lose money??

---

What google and government is doing is eliminating "IFs"


Hope it makes sense you, now, or least ?

Valli

Pollycat wrote: »

You are wrong (again).
It's not a question of 'not wanting' banks to refund.
It's whether customers are misled.
And - as we've been round and round so many times - the majority of these websites make it very clear that they are not the official website.
So, no misleading = no refund.


Yes, people failing to read small print & T&Cs do stand to lose money.
I think you actually mean 'deserve to lose money'. :rotfl:

And, yes, if they don't read the very prominent disclaimers on these websites that say they are not the official website, they do deserve to lose their money. They have not been misled.

I think you are confused about 'small print' and 'T&Cs' from when these websites did hide the truth about their business behind small print and T&Cs.
That is no longer the case.
Do keep up.

hpuse wrote: »

Pollycat,

Almost all your post contains the word an unavoidable word ...."IF"....

Ooh a game!

Spot the IFS in Pollycat's post.

I spotted 1!

Maybe some are hidden

:rotfl:

Maybe the Government and Google got to the post first and have eliminated almost all of them

:rotfl:

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

Pollycat,

Almost all your post contains the word an unavoidable word ...."IF"....

So its my turn, take them in sequence....

"IF" these websites were not there, would the consumer lose money ???.

"IF" the websites did not appear in the search results, would the customer lose money?

"IF" the website had their terms and conditions NOT designed to rip-off, would the consumer lose money??

---

What google and government is doing is eliminating "IFs"


Hope it makes sense you, now, or least ?

No it doesn't make sense, hpuse - and neither does the sentence/question in bold.

The websites DO exist.
The website ARE appearing in search results
It's not just in 'terms and conditions' - it's in big letters prominently displayed.
So, your 'ifs' are nonsense.

It's very illuminating how - throughout this thread, whenever you have been proved wrong - you nit-pick on the slightest thing.

I said this:

Pollycat wrote: »

And, yes, if they don't read the very prominent disclaimers on these websites that say they are not the official website, they do deserve to lose their money. They have not been misled.

Yep, that's my one 'if' (thanks, Valli).
And it's true.
If they can't read what's 'writ large' on the screen in front of them they do deserve to lose money.
It's called personal accountability, hpuse.

I said this in my previous post:

Pollycat wrote: »

I think you are confused about 'small print' and 'T&Cs' from when these websites did hide the truth about their business behind small print and T&Cs.
That is no longer the case.
Do keep up.

ETA:
hpuse - you seem to be having difficulty understanding my point so here it is phrased differently:
Anyone who doesn't read the very prominent disclaimers on these websites that say they are not the official website deserve to lose their money. They have not been misled.

There you go - not one 'if' anywhere in those 2 sentences.

hpuse

Pollycat, Vali and other thankers....

I still haven't got answers to my three important logical questions from your 'perspectives'...Once again, would you care to answer them, at least with an YES/NO. Long winding rationales are also welcome..

"IF" these websites were not there, would the consumer lose money ???.

"IF" the websites [ads] did not appear in the search results, would the customer lose money?

"IF" the website had their terms and conditions NOT designed to rip-off, would the consumer lose money??

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

Pollycat, Vali and other thankers....

I still haven't got answers to my three COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL questions from your 'perspectives'...Once again, would you care to answer them, at least with an YES/NO. Long winding rationales are also welcome..

Edited for you.

Are you wanting an answer from an historical perspective? ie had the websites not been there would the consumer have still lost money?

Or for a future perspective? If the websites are taken down will the consumer lose money?

Completely fallacious and pointless hpuse.

The websites were found when people used google and searched.

SOME people read t&cs or realised they were sponsored ad hits and never engaged with these websites.

SOME people ingenuously 'trusted' google and engaged with the 'top of the list' website.

You've been told, numerous times though, why these websites continue to trade. You choose to ignore it. People need to be more internet-savvy.

And IF you're going to get all 'antsy' because a specific post of yours has not been responded to I suggest you do other posters the courtesy of responding to questions they have asked or points that have been raised.

Pollycat

Valli wrote: »

Edited for you.

Are you wanting an answer from an historical perspective? ie had the websites not been there would the consumer have still lost money?

Or for a future perspective? If the websites are taken down will the consumer lose money?

Completely fallacious and pointless hpuse.

The websites were found when people used google and searched.

SOME people read t&cs or realised they were sponsored ad hits and never engaged with these websites.

SOME people ingenuously 'trusted' google and engaged with the 'top of the list' website.

You've been told, numerous times though, why these websites continue to trade. You choose to ignore it. People need to be more internet-savvy.

And IF you're going to get all 'antsy' because a specific post of yours has not been responded to I suggest you do other posters the courtesy of responding to questions they have asked or points that have been raised.

Oh, how I would like to thank the above post more than once. :T

hpuse
Valli has just made you look incredibly silly.

powerful_Rogue

hpuse, to sum up the point made by Valli in a way you'll probably understand better.......................