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

bod1467

Or dig it deeper.

hpuse

WTFH wrote: »

Your first argument has been blown out of the water, you are unable to respond with any intelligent answer.

Blown out of water?

Atleast you agree that stupidity is personified by t&c's crafted and added by these companies that "you chose not to respond" to my post.:rotfl:

WTFH

hpuse wrote: »

Blown out of water?

Atleast you agree that stupidity is personified by t&c's crafted and added by these companies that "you chose not to respond" to my post.:rotfl:

Cancer Research UK would like to thank you for your donations so far, long may you continue to support a good cause. :beer:

You were the one who started with the analogy of stupid drivers. Tell me, in what way was my response incorrect?

gb12345

Two posts from the other thread on this

chiefnoobie wrote: »

I got refunded my money in the end minus the £8 as expected I only had one random email from Passport.net at 7pm in the evening asking for my order ID and it got refunded to my paypal account a couple of days later.

ljtough wrote: »

So, it seems I have just been refunded. I first emailed the request to the company on Friday night so they have dealt with it relatively quickly.

They both read the T&Cs and realised what they had to do to get their refunds, rather than following the other crap advice of hpuke.

Pollycat

gb12345 wrote: »

Two posts from the other thread on this

They both read the T&Cs and realised what they had to do to get their refunds, rather than following the other crap advice of hpuke.

Hpuse
please take note.

Maybe now you will amend your initial post to reflect that the first step should be to check the T&Cs to see if the company you used does actually offer a refund.

I suggested this 2 days ago but you don't seem to understand it.
Or maybe it's that you don't 'read' posts. :rotfl:

I actually think you started this thread as a joke because you sure as hell don't seem to want to help people, despite your claims to the contrary.

hpuse

WTFH wrote: »

You were the one who started with the analogy of stupid drivers. Tell me, in what way was my response incorrect?

You said, you can't legislate for stupidity, and I responded saying, yes you can. The example I quoted is to show that we have a system in place to make sure all drivers (including stupid ones) got to be insured whether they were 1 time or 10 times stupid as long as their driving license is valid..

Now bringing the analogy back to these rip-off companies.
All they have is a "legal" defense and they are looking for "stupid people".

Now answer my question. You think all "stupid people" who did not read t&c's must be removed from accessing the internet or just a handful of 10+ rip-off companies that target stupid people those who do not read t&c's. Which one is easier than being more'stupid'?

Feel free... choose not to respond...:rotfl:

WTFH

hpuse wrote: »

You said, you can't legislate for stupidity, and I responded saying, yes you can. The example I quoted is to show that we have a system in place to make sure all drivers (including stupid ones) got to be insured whether they were 1 time or 10 times stupid as long as their driving license is valid..

Except stupid ones pay far more than they need to for their insurance because they don't check, they just blindly click on the first link on Google and decide that must be the right thing.

Is it legal that stupid people pay more for car insurance?
Should you be campaigning against that too?

missprice

hpuse wrote: »

You said, you can't legislate for stupidity, and I responded saying, yes you can. The example I quoted is to show that we have a system in place to make sure all drivers (including stupid ones) got to be insured whether they were 1 time or 10 times stupid as long as their driving license is valid..


Now answer my question. You think all "stupid people" who did not read t&c's must be removed from accessing the internet or just a handful of 10+ rip-off companies that target stupid people those who do not read t&c's. Which one is easier than being more'stupid'?

Feel free... choose not to respond...:rotfl:

ERM what system is this ye spake of? What stops people driving with no insurance?

And if there really are stupid people that don't read the t and cs who's fault is that? Maybe they should not be allowed access to inter web thingy til they have a adult nearby who can advise, until that time, people over 18 can throw there own money away wherever they want to.

hpuse

WTFH wrote: »

Except stupid ones pay far more than they need to for their insurance because they don't check, they just blindly click on the first link on Google and decide that must be the right thing.

Is it legal that stupid people pay more for car insurance?
Should you be campaigning against that too?

Don't go on the "insurance" tangent. Stick to the topic of stupidity and answer my question.

Now answer my question. You think all "stupid people" who did not read t&c's must be removed from accessing the internet or just a handful of 10+ rip-off companies that target stupid people those who do not read t&c's. Which one is easier than being more'stupid'?

hpuse

gb12345 wrote: »

Two posts from the other thread on this


They both read the T&Cs and realised what they had to do to get their refunds, rather than following the other crap advice of hpuke.

I think you should invent yourself and bring a better defense here next time rather than quoting two noo-bies :rotfl: