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

WTFH

hpuse wrote: »

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

You're the one who brought up insurance.

But regarding your (now) preferred topic, you will undoubtably win the argument, as I may base my ideas only on knowledge of the topic, whereas you can base yours on a lifetime of personal experience.

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

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

I think you should wake up, realise that your initial post is a load of stupid, inaccurate tosh and change it.

Or better still, delete it.

Quoting two noo-bies?

How rude of you!

Those 2 posters wrote to tell of their experiences.

Sadly for you, it just highlighted how wrong your advice is. :rotfl:

hpuse

WTFH wrote: »

You're the one who brought up insurance.

But regarding your (now) preferred topic, you will undoubtably win the argument, as I may base my ideas only on knowledge of the topic, whereas you can base yours on a lifetime of personal experience.

All I wanted is to prove the point below...

Online companies carefully creating services, crafting t&c's to target "stupid "and "non-reading" "careless" "ignorant" people can indeed be bought under legislation. That is why we have a trade monitoring and advertising standards body in place.

Legal definition of the terms "rip-off" and "fraud" as it stands is only a thinline difference.....

I know majority people hate me here for speaking my "non-sensical" mind, but hey I don't care....:rotfl:
But I do like dealing with a "strong defence" rather than noobie quotes. They are very bleak tactics if you have strong points to make, .bring it on and take me on....

PS: My IQ is lower than 159 :-)

bod1467

There's an old adage ... never argue with an idiot, for he'll drag you down to his level then beat you with experience.

hpuse

bod1467 wrote: »

There's an old adage ... never argue with an idiot, for he'll drag you down to his level then beat you with experience.

Haha, argument is always welcome as long as there is a point . But sadly someone people resort to calling names..

ther crap advice of hpuke

If you want , I can bring more emotional "pain injection" here....:rotfl:

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

All I wanted is to prove the point below...

I thought you wanted to help people caught out by these 'rip-off' websites......

hpuse wrote: »

Online companies carefully creating services, crafting t&c's to target "stupid "and "non-reading" "careless" "ignorant" people can indeed be bought under legislation. That is why we have a trade monitoring and advertising standards body in place.

That's wonderful news!
So when can we expect these 'rip-off' websites to be 'brought under legislation?

hpuse wrote: »

Legal definition of the terms "rip-off" and "fraud" as it stands is only a thinline difference.....

So are these websites legal or not?

hpuse wrote: »

I know majority people hate me here for speaking my "non-sensical" mind, but hey I don't care....:rotfl:
But I do like dealing with a "strong defence" rather than noobie quotes. They are very bleak tactics if you have strong points to make, .bring it on and take me on....

I don't hate you, Hpuse, but I do feel sorry for you fighting a rear-guard action on your own and slowly but surely losing.

You don't have a 'strong defence'.
Several newbies' experiences, however, have proved you wrong.

'Bleak tactics'?
What on earth are you blathering on about? :rotfl:

RuthnJasper

Pollycat wrote: »

I thought you wanted to help people caught out by these 'rip-off' websites......


That's wonderful news!
So when can we expect these 'rip-off' websites to be 'brought under legislation?



So are these websites legal or not?



I don't hate you, Hpuse, but I do feel sorry for you fighting a rear-guard action on your own and slowly but surely losing.

You don't have a 'strong defence'.
Several newbies' experiences, however, have proved you wrong.

'Bleak tactics'?
What on earth are you blathering on about? :rotfl:

I'm beginning to feel sorry for Hpuse as well. It must be a very bleak existence.

meer53

I'm keeping quiet because your posts are ridiculous.

My recommendation for amending your post stands.

There is no dispute procedure available for when someone willingly gives their card details to buy a service, and then finds out afterwards that they could have got the same service for free on the official website. The time to check the small print is BEFORE you hand over access to your account. Not AFTER.

A consumer can contact their bank to ask their advice and, as in all queries, it's a good idea to keep copies of all correspondence.

What is it about this that you don't understand ? Is it too complex for you ?

hpuse

RuthnJasper wrote: »

I'm beginning to feel sorry for Hpuse as well. It must be a very bleak existence.

I too feel sorry for posters who just want to make an appearance in this thread quote my handle and say some blah blah..rather than contributing , well they got nothing to contribute.

hpuse

meer53 wrote: »

I'm keeping quiet because your posts are ridiculous.

My recommendation for amending your post stands.

There is no dispute procedure available for when someone willingly gives their card details to buy a service, and then finds out afterwards that they could have got the same service for free on the official website. The time to check the small print is BEFORE you hand over access to your account. Not AFTER.

Ok, my posts are ridiculous, but appallingly, I still see people trying hard to prove a point.

You have carefully chosen not to use the word 'misrepresentation' this time.

A clear and concise advise should be like this:

A consumer must contact the bank immediately if he or she thinks was persuaded to buy a product or service by means of misrepresentation.
In this instance of copycat government websites, the misrepresentation is in two forms
a) Advertising
b) Service labeling ("online passport application")