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

hpuse

missprice wrote: »

You suddenly learned proper speak? Not one single mangled phrase?


Some copycats advertise their Ltd company details alongside their domain registration.

While some others, hide behind by anonymising their domain owners details.

And more proper writing, verbs and everything.

Who are you and what have you done to hpuse

Thanks for those kind words, 'miss'price.
I am blushing here seeing your curious eyes scanning each and every words/phrase/grammar of my posts. Definitely, I will try and improve it, all for you, my love.:A

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

There are two different categories of copycat websites:

• unofficial ‘copycat’ websites, which explain within their terms and conditions that they are not affiliated with any Government agency. Although they may look like the official website, if the site clearly states it is not endorsed or affiliated with a government agency and you decide to accept their fee, then the company is not committing any criminal offence.
• misleading websites, which purport to be affiliated and associated with a Government agency and give the impression that you need to apply for the product through them at an extra cost, when in fact they have no such association and the consumer could have quite easily applied themselves for free.

Source: http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11187841.Watchdog_warns_Bradford_people_about_web_scams/

Well, it's about time, hpuse.

You've finally conceded that what the rest of us have been saying throughout this thread - that those companies who explain within their terms and conditions that they are not affiliated with any Government agency - are not committing any criminal offence.

Bloody Hell! :j

I thought we'd be :wall::wall::wall: until the end of time.

powerful_Rogue

Someone else in the same situation as you Anna.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4965847

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

Well, it's about time, hpuse.

You've finally conceded that what the rest of us have been saying throughout this thread - that those companies who explain within their terms and conditions that they are not affiliated with any Government agency - are not committing any criminal offence.

Bloody Hell! :j

I thought we'd be :wall::wall::wall: until the end of time.

Pollycat, I don't know what you mean by "rest of us"? I am not an alien!

FYI, the second category, i.e the misleading category.
Did you know, under consumer protection it is a criminal offence for a trader to give a misleading indication?.

That is the reason why TS have classified it into two, i.e to act within their enforcement authorities. Now stop jumping in joy, I know what I am talking about !.

bod1467

hpuse wrote: »

I know what I am talking about !.

Eventually ... after railing against everyone giving that very same advice, whereas YOUR previous advice was the opposite! Took you long enough to finally see sense.

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

Pollycat, I don't know what you mean by "rest of us"? I am not an alien!

I didn't say you were an alien.
And you know perfectly well what I mean about 'the rest of us' - the meaning was clear from my earlier post.
But - just to be clear - I mean the rest of the posters who've been saying from the beginning of this ridiculous thread that you started that these companies are not committing a criminal offence.
That would be the posters who you continually accuse of being employed by or affiliated to these companies.

hpuse wrote: »

FYI, the second category, i.e the misleading category.
Did you know, under consumer protection it a criminal offence for a trader to give a misleading indication?

FYI - I didn't mention the second category at all.
My post was entirely concerned with the first category i.e. "unofficial 'copycat' websites" - which you have now acknowledged are 'not committing any criminal offence'.

hpuse wrote: »

Now stop jumping in joy, I know what I am talking about !.

I don't agree that you know what you're talking about.
And I'm sure that the majority of posters would agree with me.

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

My post was entirely concerned with the first category i.e. "unofficial 'copycat' websites" - which you have now acknowledged are 'not committing any criminal offence'.

I now know your post was about first category.
But at least understand for your benefit that there is a second category, i.e misleading category and deliberate misleading is a criminal offence under customer protection laws/acts.

I have one question tho':

If at all you think so, what makes you think all the copycat websites are in the first category? .
Do you now understand where I am coming from?
If you do you need further explanation to make you undestand, please shout here.....

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

I have one question tho':

If at all you think so, what makes you think all the copycat websites are in the first category?

Can I please butt in here Hpuse and answer that question?

And my answer is, because I cannot find any in the second category.

I specifically asked you earlier this week:

wealdroam wrote: »

Oh, by the way, are there really any websites in your second category?
I.e. are there any misleading websites "which purport to be affiliated and associated with a Government agency"?

It would be good if you could post just one link.

But as you so often do, you chose to ignore that simple request.

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

If at all you think so, what makes you think all the copycat websites are in the first category? .
Do you now understand where I am coming from?
If you do you need further explanation to make you undestand, please shout here.....

Jeez - do you ever read posts and understand the content before starting to type reams of rubbish?

I didn't say I thought all the copycat websites are in the first category.

However, I have looked a lot of these 'copycat' websites and all the ones I've looked at do make it clear that they are not affiliated to any Government agency.
Of course, that is not to say that all 'copycat' websites do say that - just the ones I've checked out.

I have one question for you tho':
What evidence do you have to the contrary?
Note, hpuse - evidence.

I'll reiterate wealdroam's question:

wealdroam wrote: »

Oh, by the way, are there really any websites in your second category?
I.e. are there any misleading websites "which purport to be affiliated and associated with a Government agency"?

It would be good if you could post just one link.

If you can't provide evidence, we'll just have to assume that you actually don't know what you're talking about.

hpuse

wealdroam wrote: »

Can I please butt in here Hpuse and answer that question?

And my answer is, because I cannot find any in the second category.

I specifically asked you earlier this week:

But as you so often do, you chose to ignore that simple request.

Ok, you cannot find any, and most of the forum users here will agree with you Wealdroam.

However, TS (i.e the trade monitoring authority) does find.
That is probably the difference between me and majority of posters here. I believe in a system and their finding that monitor trade (i.e copycat websites). Feel the difference, Wealdroam?