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

transient

hpuse wrote: »

Guardian article was not written by me - so I can't comment.



Bank will use their best judgement from accumulated facts that Tesco, by trade does not generally mislead a customer by T&C's. They also do not rely on customer for not reading their terms and conditions for selling their products and services. Hence the customer will not be refund.
Anything else, Rogue ?

The bank will not use their judgement and decide based on accumulated facts that Tesco does not generally mislead a custome by T&C's

Each and every dispute will be judged on the merits of that transaction, nothing else, so stop making things up

meer53

Wrong - again.

hpuse wrote: »

Raising a dispute with the bank is very important....

Reasons:

Consumer has a contract with bank. Customer does not have a contract with the bank, they have a contract with the seller of the goods.Bank will investigate and protect the best interest of the customer, in reasonable circumstances that they think that lead to a dispute.

Raising a dispute with the bank will allow the bank to investigate on the trader's circumstances (for e.g fraudulent claims as in the case copycat websites, they are now being investigated by Trading Standards and Advertising Standard Authority ). No they're not

Raising a dispute with the bank may result in charge back , which means money is refunded to the consumer.

Upon investigation, bank will understand that trader was relying on the customer for not reading terms and conditions to get away with the sale, which is unfair.
Hence the banks can use their authority to enforce a charge back on the trader. Which also means, the trader will lose the money he gained from the sale plus additional cost to the trader.

Charge back also means full amount paid is refunded to the consumer. Any refund is applied temporarily pending the result of the dispute, it can be redebited at any time. Do not assume the dispute will be successful

Charge back cost money to the trader...it is around £30 to £50 per charge back levied on the trader depending on the bank

Charge back discourages traders from unfair trading practices.

More number of charge back means traders merchant account suspended....

Hence so forth, raising is dispute with the bank is very very very important to expose financial rip-off and jointly tackling unfair trading practices .

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

I will give OP his due, he is committed.

Smithers37

Hpuse, any luck with the 'dispute' with your bank?

keyser666

on another front, anyone know why gb12345 was PPR'd, quite liked his tone

Poldhu

I really must apologize. Silly me, thought this site was here to advise people. I never realized there were so many people had never made a mistake.
Schadenfreud doesn't even come near.
Let me say that I made my mistake a few years ago, when these sites were probably more misleading than they are today. And as I said, like many people, I was totally unaware that this type of site existed.
Sadly,there seems to be an element of derision and a bullying tone in some of these replies. Shame on them..

imoneyop

Poldhu wrote: »

I really must apologize. Silly me, thought this site was here to advise people. I never realized there were so many people had never made a mistake.
Schadenfreud doesn't even come near.
Let me say that I made my mistake a few years ago, when these sites were probably more misleading than they are today. And as I said, like many people, I was totally unaware that this type of site existed.
Sadly,there seems to be an element of derision and a bullying tone in some of these replies. Shame on them..

Perhaps if people didn't repeatedly give factually incorrect information they wouldn't be derided and I don't see any bullying (unless that is what you think lots of people who know the correct answer telling someone they are wrong is).

Pollycat

Poldhu wrote: »

I really must apologize. Silly me, thought this site was here to advise people. I never realized there were so many people had never made a mistake.
Schadenfreud doesn't even come near.
Let me say that I made my mistake a few years ago, when these sites were probably more misleading than they are today. And as I said, like many people, I was totally unaware that this type of site existed.
Sadly,there seems to be an element of derision and a bullying tone in some of these replies. Shame on them..

imoneyop wrote: »

Perhaps if people didn't repeatedly give factually incorrect information they wouldn't be derided and I don't see any bullying (unless that is what you think lots of people who know the correct answer telling someone they are wrong is).

I agree with imoneyop.

hpuse has posted lots of misinformation on this thread about 'the steps to take if you have been ripped off ......" as well as posting links to articles supposed to back up his case and also quoting 'facts' that he can't supply verifiable sources to.

Personally, I try not to pillory anyone who has been caught out by these websites on other similar threads.

Actually - I have never made a mistake. At least not in purchasing goods/services on the internet as I always read what I'm committing to and double check before I click 'OK'. :cool:

I do agree that these websites have become much 'cuter' in their presentation - as a result of action by OFT/ASA.
I can understand how you were caught out some years ago but most websites seem to make it pretty clear now.

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

hpuse has posted lots of misinformation on this thread about 'the steps to take if you have been ripped off ......" as well as posting links to articles supposed to back up his case and also quoting 'facts' that he can't supply verifiable sources to.

:j:j:j:j Feel free to use my name - you are granted rights.

My first post, still stands taller than some other "senior posters" age old ego.

And If there is one "misleading element" in my OP, I challenged people here to prove me wrong .... hahaha, those challenges resulted in abuse, name calling etc etc.

It is a fact here that some senior posters do not like sympathetic and consumerist view and stance take by me against this rip-off companies.

There is no doubt in my mind they clearly represent the best interest of these con-trade. Hence they keep coming back with their dirty-and-flaky legal defences time and again.

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

And If there is one "misleading element" in my OP, I challenged people here to prove me wrong .... hahaha, those challenges resulted in abuse, name calling etc etc.

Did your bank reply to your question to them about getting a chargeback due to your aleged "misrepresentation" by the sites in question?

You seem to have gone very quiet on that subject, so I assume they either ignored you or the response from them wasn't one you liked.