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

wealdroam

Hpuse, Tip for the day:

Posting the same thing twice does not make it right.

keyser666

hpuse wrote: »

To all those posters who HATE me to death for publishing blatant truth and informative evidence of "smearing" on this thread please click "THANKS" now :beer:

This is not Facebook you mug. You haven't been informative if anything you have muddied the waters

George_Michael

hpuse wrote: »

I see - so when do you think the first Card Not Present transaction ran over the internet? in 1983 ?

And what exactly does this have to do with your earlier comment that:

Section 75 is an 'old' section it is not really useful for modern day and age to handle disputes especially online card fraud. Everyone acknowledges it, including card companies and credit networks. However, act is an act and it will be held till something comes new.

You seem to think that just because S75 wasn't used for online CC transactions in 1983 that it is no use nowadays, something that couldn't be further from the truth.
The links that I provided (factual evidence, something that you keep failing to give) clearly show that credit issuers, the OFT and the financial ombudsman clearly consider S75 a useful tool for consumers to recover money in the event of contractual disputes.


I'm still waiting for you to show something to back up your claim that card companies and credit networks acknowledge that S75 is not useful for helping with online disputes.
Surely you have proof of this claim and you weren't just making it up were you?

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

I will add few letter templates later so that you can "copy-paste" and insert relevant details in your email/letter.

Hi Hpuse.

Over a week has passed since you wrote that.

Are we anywhere near seeing these template letters?

hpuse

George_Michael wrote: »

And what exactly does this have to do with your earlier comment that:

You seem to think that just because S75 wasn't used for online CC transactions in 1983 that it is no use nowadays, something that couldn't be further from the truth.
The links that I provided (factual evidence, something that you keep failing to give) clearly show that credit issuers, the OFT and the financial ombudsman clearly consider S75 a useful tool for consumers to recover money in the event of contractual disputes.


I'm still waiting for you to show something to back up your claim that card companies and credit networks acknowledge that S75 is not useful for helping with online disputes.
Surely you have proof of this claim and you weren't just making it up were you?

I did not say that S75 is not useful or used.
Read my post again - I said bank/credit card companies strictly do not enforce S75 while dealing/tackling online disputes and fraud.
Or in other words, S75 was written and amended 'once upon a time' where there was no online trade using internet (hence I used the term 'old')....

For law enforcement to tackle dubious marketing tactics and rip-off trade façades like copycat government website they need statistical evidences.

That is why it is very important to make complaints to put an end to this trade.

hpuse

missprice wrote: »

I agree complete troll.

Gonna have to stop feeding it.

I say we let this thread drop right off the page, as its not going to be deleted.

Unless its a test to see if we all know our consumer law? Inn which case we passed

People stoop far too low here. I found this link and this link on google which probably is a good summary of posters profiles and attitude displayed in this forum. It certainly gels wells with I have noticed and seen in this thread so far.

PS: now feel free to say I wrote all the above :rotfl:

George_Michael

hpuse wrote: »

I did not say that S75 is not useful or used.
Read my post again -.

I think that you should be the one to read your post again.

hpuse wrote: »

Section 75 is an 'old' section it is not really useful for modern day and age to handle disputes especially online card fraud

Any comment?

George_Michael

hpuse wrote: »

People stoop far too low here. I found this link and this link

I certainly wouldn't give any credence to an anonymous blogger who starts their rant with:

Illterate bunch of senior reviewers.
If you want to to see the most illerate,ill-mannered, low-worth section of our society who uses internet, pay a visit to their forums.!

And then goes on to use the extremely old and tired argument that people who post on there are only doing so to promote their goods or companies.

keyser666

hpuse wrote: »

People stoop far too low here. I found this link and this link on google which probably is a good summary of posters profiles and attitude displayed in this forum. It certainly gels wells with I have noticed and seen in this thread so far.

PS: now feel free to say I wrote all the above :rotfl:

So reading the first review would include you then to, you have asked for thanks several times on this thread already

gb12345

hpuse wrote: »

I found this link and this link on google which probably is a good summary of posters profiles and attitude displayed in this forum

Probably written by two posters who didn't get the replies that they wanted, but instead got the correct answers (sound familiar).

Perhaps those 2 posters stupidly signed up for a service that they didn't need because they were too lazy or stupid to read the T&Cs that they agreed to and were asking if they could get their money back by raising a dispute with their card provider and didn't like it when they were told the correct way to try and get a refund.