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

gb12345

Oh look another user who managed to get a refund from one of these sites and look how they did it.

Mikey_T wrote: »

I processed the passport application in error from PASSPORT-UK.CO.UK thinking it was the official passport office, then realised it wasn’t and that it was going to cost me an additional £69 on top of the official passport application (I should point out that the small print on the website states that they are not affiliated with the HM passport office, but I had not read it). I realised my error almost immediately, phoned the number on the website and left a message on the recorded message system. Additionally, I emailed the company to cancel my order and then phoned my credit card company; unfortunately payment had been processed and so could not be stopped.

I next received an email stating that I could not be given a refund due to the fact the service had already started, which I replied to contesting that I had cancelled within 1 minute of purchasing. To my delight the next email I received from PASSPORT-UK.CO.UK stated that I would receive a full refund within three days. True to their word the refund is now showing on my credit card. I am extremely grateful to PASSPORT-UK.CO.UK for their understanding as I would have been completely fed up to have paid for a service (in error) which I didn’t need

Of course, they're another Newbie making their first post, so hpuse will consider their post irrelevant.

timbo58

Can anyone confirm that the ASA still have a problem with the websites wording etc?
I thought they had been found to be 'misleading' and had acted to sort the issue out with the ASA, but later posts by Hpuse seem to keep repeating the site is misleading, by which I assume it is STILL misleading according to the ASA?

If it isn't regarded as such by the ASA why has this thread gone for 20 pages as TS don't think it's doing anything illegal either?

Just because a website has fallen foul of the ASA (which to be fair act wholly on their own considered opinion, not via a court or other judicial process) in the past does not give anyone the right (once that particular issue has been resolved to the ASAs satisfaction) to claim loudly 'they are misleading', maybe that's just my opinion though?

Valli

timbo58 wrote: »

If it isn't regarded as such by the ASA why has this thread gone for 20 pages as TS don't think it's doing anything illegal either?

because 'someone' seems to think these sites are being defended by 'bullying senior members?' -

hpuse wrote: »

Here are some stats for the tongue wagers

Posts in this thread : 377
No of posters : 45
No of senior contributors : 33 (fantastic, faber-blas-gas-tic money savers!)
posters advising to delete OP : 14 (i.e don't contact bank blah blah)
posters calling OP misleading : 5
posters defending 'legality' : 34

So statistically all you senior contributors can be proud of the bullying you have achieved in these forums...

and faulty use of stats there hpuse - because, assuming you have identified 33 senior members (defined how, one wonders) you have 34 'defending legality', a further 14 advising against contacting the bank and 5 who claim you're misleading. Well it's 6 now - unless I already made the cut! Now, if, as I suspect, you are going to add that some of these posters have 'committed' more than one of your sins you still need to rewrite your post to include 'and';)

Perhaps this will encourage the non-senior posters to ignore your posts!

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

This is the reply I got from trading standards

Quote:
[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][/FONT]

[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]

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! )

Yes, Hpuse, I do have a comment:

The only reason I would possibly "jumping for joy" (and I assure you I'm not) is that the reply from Trading Standards just confirms what a lot of posters have been telling you for 20 pages.

You've highlighted 2 elements of the reply you received but not the key point - I've highlighted that in purple for you.

hpuse wrote: »

Here are some stats for the tongue wagers

Hpuse - "tongue wagers" is a nonsense phrase. :rotfl:

hpuse wrote: »

Here are some stats for the tongue wagers

Posts in this thread : 377
No of posters : 45
No of senior contributors : 33 (fantastic, faber-blas-gas-tic money savers!)
posters advising to delete OP : 14 (i.e don't contact bank blah blah)
posters calling OP misleading : 5
posters defending 'legality' : 34

So statistically all you senior contributors can be proud of the bullying you have achieved in these forums...

It's not a case of 'defending legality' though, is it?
Even Trading Standards have told you that:

While this may seem unfair, it is not necessarily against the law

Disagreeing with someone who is patently wrong is not bullying.
Almost everyone is disagreeing with you because you're writing rubbish, not because they are bullying you.

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

posters defending 'legality' : 34

Or to put it another way:

Posters agreeing with Trading Standards : 34

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

missprice wrote: »

Aww c'mon you know your just injecting pain now, and misrepresenting your original post to put me in your siggy. Who can I report you to? ASA maybe?

Moderators? Gosh, I suppose my hairs not being black and I am not from perranporth could lead to a lot of bovver.

As for the siggy thing, I has forgets how to do it.

Anyway, HPus is late today, must be collecting his dole.

shaun_from_Africa

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

Anyway, HPus is late today, must be collecting his dole.

More likely that it's something to do with all the rain we've had recently.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Shaun, you have too much internet searching on your hands and not enough free time.

shaun_from_Africa

I don't mind wasting time doing internet searching when I'm getting paid!

And before a certain person asks, no, I'm not getting paid by one of the companies being discussed on here.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I don't mind wasting time doing internet searching when I'm getting paid!

Well, with words like that, we need to create a passyourdrivingtest website to ...