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

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

Earlier, I was accused of posting "misleading" info and now it has taken a tangent of grandstanding.

What do you mean 'now'?

I said you were grandstanding several days ago:

Pollycat wrote: »

Hpuse - you are just grandstanding with this thread.

grandstand
ˈgran(d)stand/
verbderogatory


gerund or present participle: grandstanding

1. 1.
   seek to attract applause or favourable attention from spectators or the media.
   
   
   
   

Fits you and your comments on this thread to a T.

hpuse wrote: »

For the sake of argument, if I am attempting grandstanding that does worry/concern anyone else ...please report.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/forum-faqs

:rotfl:

I wouldn't dream of reporting your posts.
I think the longer this thread goes on, the less credibility you have.

WTFH

hpuse wrote: »

Another instance of breathing "trade air"....

WTFH wrote: »

Please explain what you mean

Would you care to answer?

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

Another instance of breathing "trade air"....

hpuse wrote: »

To all the posters who breath and expel the "dodgy trade oxygen" in these forums,

hpuse wrote: »

....and exhibiting ill-knowledge in a public forum is not wisdom. Now peace.

WTFH:
The more posts I read from Hpuse, the more I'm convinced that English is not his first language.

hpuse

WTFH wrote: »

Would you care to answer?

Yes, of course - more than pleased.

Despite pointing out 3 times, there are quiet a few posters here that would love to wear "thinking hats" of a tradesmen, not a consumer.

For them, it does not matter what the trade does. For e.g a trade can rip-off a consumer by designing 'con' by t&c's and exempt the transaction from DSR etc. As long as the trade is 'legal', and that consumer agreed, they must pay. They strongly believe that they have the right to argue such business must exists for humankind.

Now, do you want me to explain what "thinking hats" mean, please let me know?!"

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

WTFH:
The more posts I read from Hpuse, the more I'm convinced that English is not his first language.

:j thank you! thank you! for reading my posts. That means I instil/create some positive energy in you to reply to each and every posts as well

PS: North East midlands is a bit far for me to reach if you are a 'cat' and egorically impressed by my posting :rotfl:

WTFH

hpuse wrote: »

For them, it does not matter what the trade does. For e.g a trade can rip-off a consumer by designing 'con' by t&c's and exempt the transaction from DSR etc. As long as the trade is 'legal', and that consumer agreed, they must pay. They strongly believe that they have the right to argue such business must exists for humankind.

I would argue about things being moral and ethical, which is probably the argument you should be using.
There are plenty on here who argue that morals and ethics are irrelevant when the rules are applied against a business. I try to see both sides, hence my signature.

I do not strongly believe that any business "must" exist. Most businesses exist because they are able to generate income from customers. Without the customer, the business will quickly fail.
But it is not possible to legislate against the stupidity of human beings, these forums a re a prime example of that.
Rather than encouraging people to save money by not spending it, this place is full of people being told where they can spend money, and being told of immoral and unethical ways of getting around the law, or of depriving others in an effort to satiate their greed and their divine right to sue.

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

:j thank you! thank you! for reading my posts. That means I instil/create some positive energy in you to reply to each and every posts as well

PS: North East midlands is a bit far for me to reach if you are a 'cat' and egorically impressed by my posting :rotfl:

It's a pity you don't put as much factual content in your posts as you do puns.

Ha-Ha (not).

hpuse

WTFH wrote: »

But it is not possible to legislate against the stupidity of human beings, these forums a re a prime example of that.

I'm afraid I don't agree with that view.

If I had the same view as yours, I would say people should be denied buying insurance policies for "stupidly driving" even once .....It just simply does not make sense....

Without losing context of this thread topic - ask yourself this question:

Which came first ?

- a stupid non-reading consumer "clicking" YES/I AGREE or this "rip-off" business that designed t&c's ?

Most importantly, what do you think, should be taken-off first?

- would you please care to comment?

RuthnJasper

hpuse wrote: »

Yes, of course - more than pleased.

Despite pointing out 3 times, there are quiet a few posters here that would love to wear "thinking hats" of a tradesmen, not a consumer.

For them, it does not matter what the trade does. For e.g a trade can rip-off a consumer by designing 'con' by t&c's and exempt the transaction from DSR etc. As long as the trade is 'legal', and that consumer agreed, they must pay. They strongly believe that they have the right to argue such business must exists for humankind.

Now, do you want me to explain what "thinking hats" mean, please let me know?!"

Guessing you mean "thinking caps"...?

I've got an IQ of 159, but I can't understand what you're wittering on about in the above post.

Do you need some help? Is there anyone we can call for you...?

missprice

hpuse wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't agree with that view.

If I had the same view as yours, I would say people should be denied buying insurance policies for "stupidly driving" even once .....It just simply does not make sense....

Without losing context of this thread topic - ask yourself this question:

Which came first ?

- a stupid non-reading consumer "clicking" YES/I AGREE or this "rip-off" business that designed t&c's ?

Most importantly, what do you think, should be taken-off first?

- would you please care to comment?

Not entirely sure what you mean, but if its something about insurance for cars, then you should read every word of the document, see what you are and are not covered for.

Same with house insurance, holiday insurance, contents insurance, white goods insurance. Remember these often cost more or similar amounts to passports.
Also if you ever buy a house, you should read very carefully every scrap of paper about the house, your mortgage and any life insurance dependent.

Same if your renting, if you do not read and understand what your signing for you could well be up a creek without a paddle.

So if your OK to spend 10s if thousands on a house without the slightest research, then your good to lose money on these passport service sites.