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

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

If they are bold enough they will admit themselves otherwise they are simply sockpuppets fighting for their own survival .. !

Another possibility is that they are just telling the truth and pointing out the error of your ways.

But if you want to continue with the personal abuse, rather that justify your position, then carry on as you are.

hpuse

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Yes!
It means no-one has complained to the OFT, or people have complained to the OFT who have looked into it and decided there is no case to answer.

Ah! ....Ignorance is a bliss!
So far, you have not taken notice of all the ruling by ASAs in connection with these websites ? or with a pinch of salt?

If it helps you understand, it is similar to this:

Prostitutes does not 'advertise' their services in a country where it is illegal. What would the law enforcement in that country do to tackle the same issue? Do they go around and shut down all the bars were they go to fetch their clients? No!

Shutting these websites are not the main issue here.
Tackling the trade is one issue, and then enforcing the same is other issue. For both we need statistical evidence to bring a ruling.
That's why I say it takes time with our system....it is deliberately designed to be slow.

By writing the above, I didn't mean to scare anyone. honestly :rotfl:

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

I guess what people are not realising is, there has been quiet a lot of 'involuntary revelations' in these threads that makes them appear like they are either affiliated or connected with these rip-off websites??

For e.g :

Statements like these are compelling evidences ....
......"dont contact the bank, it is a stupid advise, delete the post" (obviously they don't want to pay the chargeback fee to their merchant bank!)

......."nothing wrong with t&c's", you should have read it

......."customer clicked and agreed to T&C's", so now beg for mercy for a refund

I am not quoting and shaming those obvious posters....
If they are bold enough they will admit themselves otherwise they are simply sockpuppets fighting for their own survival .. !

Yep, that's right, Hpuse.

Trot out that same old tired accusation that the people who disagree with you are either employed by, affiliated to, supporting or defending these websites. :rotfl:

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

Yep, that's right, Hpuse.

Trot out that same old tired accusation that the people who disagree with you are either employed by, affiliated to, supporting or defending these websites. :rotfl:

I don't care whether people disagree with me or not.

What I showed you is evidence. i.e people spiralling back and forth in this thread paralysing the reader bring their insecurity and frantically advising as below..

"don't contact the bank, they wont issue refunds, the wont do anything, it is a stupid advise by OP, delete the post"

powerful_Rogue

hpuse wrote: »

What I showed you is evidence.

Can you show me the following evidence:

- Complaints to the OFT during 2012/2013/2014?

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

I don't care whether people disagree with me or not.

Whew!
I'm relieved at that, given the number of people who are disagreeing with you.

hpuse wrote: »

What I showed you is evidence. i.e people spiralling back and forth in this thread paralysing the reader bring their insecurity and frantically advising as below..

Maybe it's just me but I didn't read any evidence of 'people spiralling back and forth in this thread paralysing the reader bring their insecurity and frantically advising as below..' - but then again you seem to use such strange and quaint terminology, there's no saying what point you're trying to get over.

hpuse wrote: »

"don't contact the bank, they wont issue refunds, the wont do anything, it is a stupid advise by OP, delete the post"

Not sure who posted that (have you forgotten how to use the 'quote' function?) but I've never said that.

bod1467

Nobody has. I've used the "Search This Thread" forum tool and the only results are the above posts - the statement by hpuse, and the quote of it.

meer53

hpuse wrote: »

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

A consumer has rights whatever they purchase.

This thread is about offering consumers advice about paying for a service by card which can be bought elsewhere, sometimes at a cheaper price. (or even free of charge) YOU started the post - remember ?

No mention was made by YOU as to what to do if a credit or debit card was used.

If a credit card was used and the consumer feels they were misled/misrepresented, they have the right to contact their bank IF the transaction was over £100 and less than £30,000. As the majority of these transactions are less than £100, Section 75 of the CCA wouldn't be available via a bank.

If a debit card was used, there is NO POINT in them contacting their bank as there is no dispute which will cover this situation.

As they cannot buy this service without either a credit or debit card, your advice is incorrect. They should contact the seller for a refund as per their procedure.

Which bit don't you understand ? All of it ? Or just the words ? Mine are in the right order, something you seem to have difficulty with.

As far as i'm aware, i'm not paralysing anyone ?

keyser666

How deluded is the OP not a single grasp of the situation nor can substantiate anything and as for implying by the thread you will get a refund hmmph

Backbiter

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Yes!
It means no-one has complained to the OFT, or people have complained to the OFT who have looked into it and decided there is no case to answer.


Until people like you stop spouting rubbish about sites that are legal.

Plenty of people have complained, but are met with an automated response, telling them that "the OFT does not have the power to assist or advise consumers on an individual basis."

As I found when I googled and came across this blog:

http://asystemofrandomtangents.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/thieving-lying-!!!!!!!s/

The blogger also received a detailed response stating the Passport Office's concerns and complaints about these websites - see above link for the full letter.