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

hpuse

gb12345 wrote: »

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.

You two cases are considered.
Quote the above two posts and and write to the owner of the site to bring it loud and clear .... Tell them there is something to celebrate - they have been awared a "non-rip-off" seal of authenticity :rotfl:

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

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..

I have no problem writing coherently and understanding written words that make sense.

You, on the other hand, appear not to understand, despite - as you admit - being told repeatedly that you are wrong.

The more this thread goes on, the less credibility you have. :rotfl:

hpuse

I don't know why some posters exhibit a 'wrong understanding' here thinking that they have a moral duty to defend everything that is termed and standing legal....

For them the most important thing is reading t&c's and clicking OK. That means consumer is now left with a mercy of the owner of these two-bit websites hosted under a dripping legal roof for getting their money back..
That's it - now consumer they have lost all their rights and better start begging for mercy.

What they do not realise is........... the more they attempt to defend the more mud they are throwing to their own handles..... Really a pitiable state !!

powerful_Rogue

hpuse wrote: »

For them the most important thing is reading t&c's and clicking OK.

Its not just the t&c's though. Its the numerous warnings advising people they are only purchasing a check and send service which people cant be bothered to read on the actual homepage.

hpuse

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Its not just the t&c's though. Its the numerous warnings advising people they are only purchasing a check and send service which people cant be bothered to read on the actual homepage.

Rogue,

Could you please quote me a definition for online "check and send" service from "any" of the service trade dictionaries?

A consumer has

• Right to choice
• Right to accurate information
• Right to safety
• Right to value for money
• Right to redress

Smithers37

hpuse wrote: »

That's it - now consumer they have lost all their rights and better start begging for mercy.

What rights are you talking about? The ones you're making up.

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

I don't know why some posters exhibit a 'wrong understanding' here thinking that they have a moral duty to defend everything that is termed and standing legal....

For them the most important thing is reading t&c's and clicking OK.

I do not feel I have 'to defend everything that is termed and standing legal....'(sic)

The most important thing for me is not 'reading t&c's and clicking OK'.

The most important thing for me is to make sure I'm not committing to buying anything or booking anything unless I'm damn sure that I've got everything 100% correct.
But Hey! That's just me.
I do understand how people make these mistakes.

hpuse wrote: »

That means consumer is now left with a mercy of the owner of these two-bit websites hosted under a dripping legal roof for getting their money back..
That's it - now consumer they have lost all their rights and better start begging for mercy.

Yes, consumer is 'left with a mercy of the owner of these two-bit websites hosted under a dripping legal roof for getting their money back..' (whatever that means)

Who do you think should help them?
Would it be HM Passport Office?
After all, it's that website which is being copy-catted so you would think they would have a vested interest in putting a stop to these copy-cat websites, wouldn't you?

But no.
They just turn away people who complain by telling them these companies are not breaking the law and they can't do anything:

mazwillow wrote: »

I thought I had applied on-line for a new passport re: change fo name. I filled out an on-line form, giving all details, including parents names, date of birth, address etc and paid £49 for what I thought was the renewal fee.

I received a paper copy of the application form from the passport office with instruction of what to do next. I took the completed form and all documentation required to the local Post Office for them to check. All was well until the lady asked me for not only the £8 to check the paperwork but the £72.50 application fee as well. I explained that I had already paid the fee online. The lady explained that I must have gone through a third party and the £49 was the fee for them to complete the form and that was all!! I then had to pay the full application fee there and then and was therefore out of pocket by £49.

I returned home rather furious and upset. I telephoned the Passport Office and they are aware that there are some companies who are acting as a legitimate company associated with the Passport Office but as they are not breaking any laws they can not do anything about them.

I think it is disgusting and immoral that companies can get away with fleecing people of £49 upwards by providing a service that is not needed, not wanted and immoral.

hpuse wrote: »

What they do not realise is........... the more they attempt to defend the more mud they are throwing to their own handles..... Really a pitiable state !!

I assure you, Hpuse, I am not throwing any mud at all to my own handles - wherever my handles happen to be. :rotfl:

powerful_Rogue

hpuse wrote: »

Rogue,

Could you please quote me a definition for online "check and send" service from "any" of the service trade dictionaries?

I have no idea what your talking about, please expand.

I would have thought the name of the service is pretty self explanatory.

"Check & Send" - The are of checking a document for any errors which may have seen its acceptance delayed or rejected had it not been checked. The document with no errors with then be forwarded on.

powerful_Rogue

hpuse wrote: »

A consumer has

• Right to choice
• Right to accurate information
• Right to safety
• Right to value for money
• Right to redress

Right to choice - Correct. If you don't want it don't buy it.

Right to accurate information - Correct. Read what your about to purchase, thats how your view information.

Right to safety - Without a doubt.

Right to value for money - I disagree. This isn't a right. It ties in nicely to point 1 - If something is overpriced, you have the choice not to purchase it.

Right to redress - Correct. Contact the company in question.

No doubt you'll say im wrong in some kind of un-poetic way that makes no sense to man or beast.

hpuse

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Right to value for money - I disagree. This isn't a right. It ties in nicely to point 1 - If something is overpriced, you have the choice not to purchase it.
No doubt you'll say im wrong in some kind of un-poetic way that makes no sense to man or beast.

It is not me saying you are 'wrong' - trading standards themselves, and of course I don't think they employ neither poets nor gunmen holding guns to compile all these trade literature to bring all people under a trade law!

Check this link :
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/navless/cedric/cedric.asp?itemID=181268