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

meer53

Here we go again with yet another load of irrelevant bo**ocks.

"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")"

Section 75 of the CCA covers transactions made using a credit card over £100 only. There is no (as already stated numerous times) debit card chargeback right in Visa Internationals regulations which can be used in this situation.

SO .... as we've ALL already said, contacting a bank in THIS instance IS A WASTE OF TIME !

If you feel there has been misrepresentation and your purchase was over £100, made using a credit card feel free to call the bank. BUT, a successful Section 75 claim is NOT guaranteed to result in a refund.

You are giving advice which is incorrect, you should amend your post.

In addition, i don't know where you got that piece of information about what happens when a transaction is disputed, but that too is a load of tosh.

hpuse

Martin Lewis: In support of stupid people's rights

Ripped off or caught out by the small print? It's your fault for not taking enough care, some cynics say. Martin Lewis begs to differ.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/10130861/Martin-Lewis-In-support-of-stupid-peoples-rights.html

The above article will catch all "read t&c" braggers of this forum pants down!.

It is indeed the same "stupid people's" right is what we are discussing here and it is highly relevant to the context of this thread.

To all those level headed online-shoppers who are extremely careful, advising here read-t&c-with-magnifying-glass care to comment on the above article ?

PS: Don't worry commenting won't get your handle blocked or IP barred. This is public non-moderated anonymous forum and everyone has right of speech!

hpuse

meer53 wrote: »

Section 75 of the CCA covers transactions made using a credit card over £100 only. There is no (as already stated numerous times) debit card chargeback right in Visa Internationals regulations which can be used in this situation.

SO .... as we've ALL already said, contacting a bank in THIS instance IS A WASTE OF TIME !

Interesting. So, as per all the "we've" inferences, the consumer stands at no rights whatsoever if the transaction amount is less than £100?

Money-Saving-King

hpuse wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/10130861/Martin-Lewis-In-support-of-stupid-peoples-rights.html

The above article will catch all "read t&c" braggers of this forum pants down!.

It is indeed the same "stupid people's" right is what we are discussing here and it is highly relevant to the context of this thread.

To all those level headed online-shoppers who are extremely careful, advising here read-t&c-with-magnifying-glass care to comment on the above article ?

PS: Don't worry commenting won't get your handle blocked or IP barred. This is public non-moderated anonymous forum and everyone has right of speech!

Did you read all of it?

The main point is this:

Others see this as financial Darwinism. "If it's in the terms and conditions and they sign it, then it's their problem." Yet if I walked up to you in the street and told you I was going to punch you, then punched you, the fact I'd informed you wouldn't make it legal. The same is true with commercial products. Just because you sign the terms and conditions, it doesn't mean they're within the law.

The sites you're moaning about are within the law!

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

@Pollycat,

I don't know how many attempts it will take to make you understand this. However, I will try once again, god forbid.

I don't know how many attempts it will take to make you understand that the first - and most important - step for someone who wants his/her money back is to check if the company they used has a refund policy.

hpuse wrote: »

@Pollycat,

T&C's of these companies are the basic starting point that leads to rip-off. These companies exempt consumers from cancelling their service the moment it starts .i.e they excercise Distant Selling Regulation Exemption clause when consumer clicks YES/I AGREE.

The only reason I mentioned T&Cs is to check if they offer a refund.
It's the first step to getting their money back - which is what people want more than anything.

OK - as the mere mention of T&Cs appears to send you into a hyperventilating fit, here's my advice slightly reworded:

A consumer should check if the website they have used has a refund policy.
If they do, contact them immediately in the way they describe to request a refund.

There you go, Hpuse - not s mention of T&Cs anywhere.

hpuse wrote: »

@Pollycat,

You have wasted energy so far here on various threads asking customers to check t&c. Whats the point ?
At least do you now understand now?
What do you think the customer should do if they got ripped-off by small print and t&c's ?
- please don't say "check t&c's" again :-)

The point in advising customers to check the T&Cs is to see if the company they used offers a refund policy.
If it does, then they request a refund.
They don't need to follow all the nonsense in your first post.

At least do you understand now?

They should check if the company offers a refund policy.
how simple is that?
No need to follow that ill-advised faraddidle that you posted.

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

It does not require 10K posts or a million thanks to understand the 'pulse' of a poster and stuffs he or she holds...

What on earth does this mean? :rotfl:

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

I
The only reason I mentioned T&Cs is to check if they offer a refund.
It's the first step to getting their money back - which is what people want more than anything.

@pollycat
If they offered a refund in a prompt and timely manner they wouldn't be called rip-off companies.

Now read the title of this thread - makes sense what I meant?

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

@pollycat
If they offered a refund in a prompt and timely manner they wouldn't be called rip-off companies.

Now read the title of this thread - makes sense what I meant?

Absolutely, it doesn't make sense.

It's a load of rubbish - as you have been told repeatedly.

Pretty much like this:

hpuse wrote: »

Aww.....I really can feel the hatred I have withered here...

:rotfl:

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

Absolutely, it doesn't make sense.

It's a load of rubbish - as you have been told repeatedly.

Pretty much like this:

:rotfl:

If it still doesn't make sense I would suggest you to get some help?
I have been told repeatedly, but you fail to apply senses repeatedly too..

gb12345

hpuse wrote: »

If they offered a refund in a prompt and timely manner they wouldn't be called rip-off companies.

Oh look it's those newbies again

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.

chiefnoobie wrote: »

And don't give up it took me nearly 2 weeks before I got mine back.

2 weeks is a bit long, but as a company legally has 30 days to make a refund, they're well within the law.

And how have they ripped anyone off? Someone signed up for their service and changed their mind and requested a refund, which was given - despite the fact that the service will have started immediately and they could have used distance selling regulations to avoid refunding. They've gone over and above their legal requirements - hardly a rip-off company.