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

hpuse

imoneyop wrote: »

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.

Firstly, I bumped into the subject and thread by coincidence while browsing the forum sometime in December. I am savvy enough to look at what I am buying from internet, at the same time I empathise with people who are not.

Then I also noticed a lot of 'heart and soul' affiliated-posters supporting other posters with their nasty trade-drenched immoral views. They will happily give a presentation here how a business can legally con people and make money by creating a website, adding small prints with non-refundable terms and conditions.. It is a pity to see them ganging up here.

FYI, I cannot open a dispute with my bank since I have not bought any services with these companies.
However, I know a consumer can dispute if he or she was persuaded to buy something as a result of deliberate misrepresentation by advertisement. Misrepresention is very clear on their online labels even though they say they are not affiliated with HMPO.

missprice

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..

Of course I have made mistakes, I have gasp even been scammed( although not on the internet yet).
However most people learn from the mistakes made. You make a error, you think about what happened and you tell yourself to move on and not be scammed in that way again.

This site and others are advising what to do when caught out. However hpuse 'advice' is nothing like good.

He keeps wittering on about a lot of charge backs from the banks having the effect of closing down these sites. I have yet to see proof that that would happen and or proof that banks have any control over internet sites. After all if a bank did cancel your account as a business you could open another account at another bank min minutes.

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

trade-drenched immoral views.

Are you accusing posters on here of having an undeclared affiliation with the sites in question? Do you have evidence to back that up or are you just falling into the normal retort of someone who has been proven to be wrong - "YOU ALL WORK FOR THEM"

hpuse wrote: »

FYI, I cannot open a dispute with my bank since I have not bought any services with these companies.

So your advice in your first post then to raise a dispute with their bank is based on hot air.

As that advice has been proven to be incorrect by the posts of a number of people who were taken in by these sites, do you now agree that that advice is incorrect and misleading and you should therefore remove it from your first post?

hpuse wrote: »

However, I know a consumer can dispute if he or she was persuaded to buy something as a result of deliberate misrepresentation by advertisement. Misrepresention is very clear on their online labels even though they say they are not affiliated with HMPO.

What misrepresentation would that be? With the exception of one recent advert that had the word GOV in its URL (not even in the domain name, just the page name), there are no hints or claims that the sites in question are misrepresenting themselves as being the official site.

Exile_geordie

This thread just keeps on delivering..:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


As with a lot of people who come on here banging on about thier rights, your rights, the secret 2 year EU rule, hpuse just fails and fails and fails.

yet oddly keeps coming back for more

hpuse

imoneyop wrote: »

So your advice in your first post then to raise a dispute with their bank is based on hot air.

As that advice has been proven to be incorrect by the posts of a number of people who were taken in by these sites, do you now agree that that advice is incorrect and misleading and you should therefore remove it from your first post?

It is not based on hot air, it is based on consumer advise on how bank deals with disputes by protecting the best interest of their customers. Check the link below, as you seem to have missed it in earlier posts.

If the customer affected does not shout loud - then they won't get their money back. Banks has more powers than trading standards when it comes to individual customer disputes. The important thing, consumers get their money back.

And I feel immensely proud and happy when I see a dodgy traders operating these con site ends up paying charge back charges to his/her merchant bank!!.

http://www.theukcardsassociation.org.uk/individual/disputed-transactions.asp

bod1467

imoneyop wrote: »

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.

hpuse wrote: »

Firstly, I bumped into the subject and thread by coincidence while browsing the forum sometime in December. I am savvy enough to look at what I am buying from internet, at the same time I empathise with people who are not.
Not relevant to the post quoted

Then I also noticed a lot of 'heart and soul' affiliated-posters supporting other posters with their nasty trade-drenched immoral views. They will happily give a presentation here how a business can legally con people and make money by creating a website, adding small prints with non-refundable terms and conditions.. It is a pity to see them ganging up here.
Not relevant to the post quoted

FYI, I cannot open a dispute with my bank since I have not bought any services with these companies.
However, I know a consumer can dispute if he or she was persuaded to buy something as a result of deliberate misrepresentation by advertisement. Misrepresention is very clear on their online labels even though they say they are not affiliated with HMPO.

So in other words - when you posted previously in this thread about opening a dispute (and you included a screenshot of it) you were lying?

imoneyop

Yet another irrelevant link that you have posted.

The only paragraph in that link that relates to contacting your bank is this one

If all else fails, you can try and get a refund from your credit card company. Copies of any correspondence with the retailer involved in your complaint will help. Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 your credit card company and the retailer could be equally liable in the event of any breach of contract or misrepresentation.

I've highlighted the important part for you, because you appear to have trouble reading. As you have been told repeatedly, there is no misrepresentation.

Also add to that the fact that the link relates to credit card payments and S75 protection. As none of the services offered by these websites are over £100, S75 would be irrelevant (as it would be if the customer paid by debit card).

Finaly, the link ends with this bit of sage advice, which appears to be very relevant here "Remember that you’re not legally entitled to a refund if you simply change your mind about what you have bought."

hpuse

@imoneyop

Please read the entire thread about misrepresentation.
ASA has made clear rulings about some of these websites that misrepresent their labels on selling of services. However, there is no formal enforcement yet, and that is why you see these threads still hanging in balance. For the enforcement to work - there has to be statistical evidences and that will take time.

If a customer has paid money to the company, it makes easy for the bank to apply their rationale based on ASA rulings and refund the money to the customer. And a consumer will get the benefit of doubt as well because their attempts to misrepresent is already in the public domain. So in effect, "not reading" is "not a reason" for not going to the bank and opening a dispute, as other posters advise here....

That means these traders will lose money as well (as a result of charge back), which they deserve to lose for creating a bogus service in the first place.

bod1467

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

Please read the entire thread about misrepresentation.

I did and the conclusion that I came to was that every post you have made is full of incorrect information and advice and irrelvant links.

hpuse wrote: »

ASA has made clear rulings about some of these websites that misrepresent their labels on selling of services.

And the misrepresentation that they found and ruled on with some of these sites has been addressed by those sites and they are therefore no longer misrepresenting who they are and what they are offering. Unless of course you can provide proof that these sites are still misrepresenting themselves and the service they provide to their customers.

Anyone going to their bank and asking to raise a dispute because they couldn't be bothered to read the large disclaimers on the site they went to will be told that they have no grounds for a refund. A fact that has been proven by a number of posters who have done just that and been told that by their bank.