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

hpuse

bod1467 wrote: »

You show yourself for what you are by highlighting ONE of my posts in THIS thread only.

That highlighting was very much required to show posters (incl yourself) and the stance they took hell bent on these copycats 'legal' status a year ago.

So, let me ask you a question - how much you have changed your attitude to these trades still doing rip-offs?

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

That highlighting was very much required to show posters (incl yourself) and the stance they took hell bent on these copycats 'legal' status a year ago.

So, let me ask you a question - how much you have changed your attitude to these trades still doing rip-offs?

I'll answer that question, hpuse.

I'm well aware of the stance I took regarding these websites a year ago.

They were operating within the law as it stood.
I made that point frequently, as did many other posters.

That is borne out by the number of people who tried to get their banks to refund the money and were refused or were refunded and then had the money taken back again.

You or I may not have liked it, but they were operating legally.

Some of them were made to make their non-alliance to official websites more clear on their websites.

I hope for the sakes of these people who have been sent these 'you're going to court' letters that it is desperation on the part of this company.

bod1467

hpuse wrote: »

So, let me ask you a question - how much you have changed your attitude to these trades still doing rip-offs?

Like above, my attitude hasn't changed ... I STILL deal with facts. I didn't agree with those copycat sites then, and I still don't, but most of the ones being highlighted a year ago were operating within the law as it stood.

And that is all that the people you are claiming are "copycat lovers" were highlighting, but you couldn't (or wouldn't) see this. (And you still can't, apparently).

hpuse

bod1467 wrote: »

I didn't agree with those copycat sites then, and I still don't, but most of the ones being highlighted a year ago were operating within the law as it stood.

Even we speak today - they're all operating entities within law. As far as I am aware, nothing in the law has changed since starting this thread a year ago. However operating within law does not always mean that T&C's are justified. More importantly, someone unfortunately clicking them are NOT giving them the license to rip-off within T&C's..

This is the main reason why such ads are banned from Google.

As I stated before, T&C's are meant to prevent revenue loss...not aid revenue generation...keep it as simple as that.

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

Even we speak today - they're all operating entities within law. As far as I am aware, nothing in the law has changed since starting this thread a year ago.

Then why ask this superfluous question, hpuse?

hpuse wrote: »

So, let me ask you a question - how much you have changed your attitude to these trades still doing rip-offs?

If the majority of us (and you are very much in the minority) based our opinion on the fact that these companies were (and still are by your own admission) operating within the law, why do you think our attitudes would have changed from what they were a year ago?

fermi

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2924567/Foiled-Mail-Sunday-Websites-designed-trick-taxpayers-filing-tax-returns-HMRC-site-prevented-reaping-rich-rewards-ahead-self-assessment-deadline.html

(Esmerelda's OH I believe in the 2nd image (not the bloke up on charges )

missprice

hpuse wrote: »

This is the main reason why such ads are banned from Google.

But, but, but, they still have ads on Google. Not banned at all?

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

Then why ask this superfluous question, hpuse?


If the majority of us (and you are very much in the minority) based our opinion on the fact that these companies were (and still are by your own admission) operating within the law, why do you think our attitudes would have changed from what they were a year ago?

I hope 'you', i.e the majority here now agree that operating within law does not mean license to rip-off?.

That was and always my argument...designing a business using T&C's???...and wow, posters here thought it is a wonderful idea to support them since their legal position is valid?

I hope at least some of those posters now understands what a 'system' could do to such entities, yes the system itself is slow as this long 100 page thread has taken its course.

hpuse

missprice wrote: »

But, but, but, they still have ads on Google. Not banned at all?

There is no system that works at 100% efficiency.
If you don't like copycats ads, you still have two options I think
a) Name and shame them here
b) Report to google using this link

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

I hope 'you', i.e the majority here now agree that operating within law does not mean license to rip-off?.

That was and always my argument...designing a business using T&C's???...and wow, posters here thought it is a wonderful idea to support them since their legal position is valid?

I hope at least some of those posters now understands what a 'system' could do to such entities, yes the system itself is slow as this long 100 page thread has taken its course.

I never thought it did mean licence to rip off.

As long as the law allowed these companies to operate, they were doing nothing legally wrong.
I make no comment on the morality of making money in this way. That's a different subject altogether.

IIRC, no poster ever supported these companies.
All we said was they were operating within the law.
A fact that you refuted many times on this thread until the penny finally dropped for you and you understood the point we were making.

hpuse wrote: »

There is no system that works at 100% efficiency.

I agree with you!

And the Google engineers working 24/7 certainly don't appear to work at 100% efficiency. :rotfl: