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

hpuse

fermi wrote: »

False and misleading pursuit of people from another company run by the same people/person as UK Services & Support Ltd/britishpassportservices


http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/~/media/Files/PhonepayPlus/Adjudications/0136320Tribunal2020Minutes1.pdf

There are two easy ways to make money using technology. Both needs only a day to setup (in fact only hours if you are 'experienced')

a) Run a premium rate SMS service
b) Copycat an existing popular online service.

Needless to say, both the entities are legally allowed, so they will be happy to 'service' a consumer.... Hence they are called "service providers''....LOL!!
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

powerful_Rogue

Just a thought - If the company is providing a service before receiving funds from the customer, does that mean they are giving the customer credit? If so, they will need to be registered with the FCA.

Just a little train of thought that might be worth looking into.

hpuse

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Just a thought - If the company is providing a service before receiving funds from the customer, does that mean they are giving the customer credit? If so, they will need to be registered with the FCA.

Just a little train of thought that might be worth looking into.

Not all services, I think it depends on the nature of the service you provide, for e.g all investment and trading activities are regulated so that will require FCA registration. For e.g my accountant gets paid annually (i.e after providing services) and I don't think he is registered with FCA.

RuthnJasper

Sometime earlier on this thread (I think), probably over a thousand posts ago, I referred to an ex-schoolmate of mine who was involved in one of these "copycat website" scams - she and her colleagues are now having to face the music in the Crown Court: http://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/11752214.Two_Alresford_people_in_alleged___30_million_fraud/?ref=mr.

Quite right too.

hpuse

RuthnJasper wrote: »

It IS someone's fault if they sign a contract without reading the terms and conditions. Being stupid and lazy is not advisable, but not necessarily anyone's "fault".

It took post#114 to #2086....to have a change in attitude towards copycats and their targets?

RuthnJasper

hpuse wrote: »

It took post#114 to #2086....to have a change in attitude towards copycats and their targets?

No, it's still someone's fault if they don't read what they're agreeing to before handing their money over. But perhaps we can agree to differ there, as I have no intention of debating about it ad nauseam.


Best wishes.

Alpine_Star

RuthnJasper wrote: »

No, it's still someone's fault if they don't read what they're agreeing to before handing their money over. But perhaps we can agree to differ there, as I have no intention of debating about it ad nauseam.


Best wishes.

If the contract terms they are agreeing to turn out to fall foul of the legislation that governs them (which I believe they do) it is no fault of the customer.

fermi

Important info here for the britishpassportservices issue

---> http://legalbeagles.info/consumers-still-caught-misleading-passport-websites/

Money-Saving-King

Alpine_Star wrote: »

If the contract terms they are agreeing to turn out to fall foul of the legislation that governs them (which I believe they do) it is no fault of the customer.

Apart from then the legislation didn't include the fact that if they actually read even the large print on the front page they would have known they were going down a paid for route!

Because legislation says something does NOT mean that the other party wasn't at fault.

Alpine_Star

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

Apart from then the legislation didn't include the fact that if they actually read even the large print on the front page they would have known they were going down a paid for route!

Because legislation says something does NOT mean that the other party wasn't at fault.

That's not really the issue. The ASA adjudication against this outfit sums it up - ''the website was misleading, because it did not make clear that the fee charged by the advertiser was a service charge only, and that an additional fee was payable to HMPO to obtain a passport.''


http://asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/9/UK-Services-and-Support-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_273276.aspx#.VMz-KWByZnw


On the legislation point an unfair term is an unfair term regardless of whether it's been read and agreed to by the customer.