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

RichardD1970

hpuse wrote: »

Of the many private messages I received even since this thread was started the one below is worth copy-pasting

It takes a more than an intelligent man to squash a fight with these posters representing there best interest in these con-websites. You obviously know the legal ground they are standing will soon fall apart - well done, keep it up.

It means a 1000 "thanks" to me... and thank you!!

Am I the only one that find it a massive coincidence that the "PM" quoted is written in the same nonsensical style as the OP uses?

gb12345

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Am I the only one that find it a massive coincidence that the "PM" quoted is written in the same nonsensical style as the OP uses?

It probably comes from his alter ego lostmymoneyduetostupidity

keyser666

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Am I the only one that find it a massive coincidence that the "PM" quoted is written in the same nonsensical style as the OP uses?

Was just going to post the exact same thing.

Truepat

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Am I the only one that find it a massive coincidence that the "PM" quoted is written in the same nonsensical style as the OP uses?

It is very rare that people who mention PM's of support are being honest.

What usually happens now is that the administrators will go into the account to find out how honest the person is - since they will have access to all PM's.

bod1467

And even if they delete the PM from their account, it doesn't actually delete the PM - just the reference to it. (And admins would see this all anyway).

hpuse

hpuse wrote: »

Rogue,
b) Trading standards

And will wait for a reponse from them

I will delete the entire post , if there is one worded wrong or comes as misleading from it..

If not you can bring another army of posters continue to throw insult here - that's all you people can do, sadly.

This is the reply I got from trading standards

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]At present, it is not illegal for a company to charge for checking forms for government services.

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]The difficultly is that while I understand you are unhappy with the company, they are essentially relying upon the consumer not to read the information they have provided. While this may seem unfair, it is not necessarily against the law. At this stage, your only real course of action is to see whether your bank can dispute the transaction.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Re: post #1, do I still need to delete my post??? ... That is the question to all those fellas who said my post#1 is "utterly" "seriously" and "stupidly" misleading":D .

I am not stooping low and naming and shaming those idiotic and synchronous post facilitators of this forum.

Any comments ?

(of course trading standards confirmed that these companies are not necessarily acting against law at present, and reading that Pollycat is going to jump in joy! )

Below - I will write the million dollar equation for some senior posters on their behalf

IF someone says something is not illegal , to many of them here, it is an opportunity to quote the same as, they said "they are legal"

RichardD1970

hpuse wrote: »

IF someone says something is not illegal , to many of them here, it is an opportunity to quote the same as, they said "they are legal"

Sorry don't understand your point :huh:

If something isn't illegal then surely that means it is legal. :huh::huh:

transient

hpuse wrote: »

This is the reply I got from trading standards

Re: post #1, do I still need to delete my post??? ... That is the question to all those fellas who said my post#1 is "utterly" "seriously" and "stupidly" misleading":D .

I am not stooping low and naming and shaming those idiotic and synchronous post facilitators of this forum.

Any comments ?

(of course trading standards confirmed that these companies are not necessarily acting against law at present, and reading that Pollycat is going to jump in joy! )

Below - I will write the million dollar equation for some senior posters on their behalf

IF someone says something is not illegal , to many of them here, it is an opportunity to quote the same as, they said "they are legal"

So nowhere in their response do they sauy the sites are misleading like you continually highlight, it does say that it relies on people not reading the website, that'll be mugs like you then?

gb12345

hpuse wrote: »

This is the reply I got from trading standards

And have your bank replied to tell you whether they would rase a dispute? Or have you delayed that response as you've had to reword your mail to them as you now know that the sites are legal, not misleading or mis-representing their service, as confirmed by Trading Standards and the only problem was that you bought something you didn't need/want because you were too lazy to read the T&Cs.

bod1467

At this stage, your only real course of action is to see whether your bank can dispute the transaction.

I've adjusted the bolding of the quote you made. Overlooking the word "whether" completely changes (erroneously) the interpretation of the statement made.