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

hpuse

George_Michael wrote: »

I gave links to various organisations all detailing how S75 claims worked and the financial ombudsman website gives plenty of examples where successful claims were made following Internet purchases, so your attempt to evade giving an answer by claiming that this info is covered by the FOI act is rubbish. (Just like much of the other stuff you have posted)

Sadly, none of the links you posted tells about misrepresentation and fraudulent trading activities handled under S75.

George_Michael wrote: »

Most of the companies being discussed do have Companies house registration, and surely you know that there is no legal requirement to provide a telephone number, landline or otherwise.

However, there is a requirement to provide a postal adress, did you know that too?.
There is only one copycat website in the list that has a postal address displayed, which is: 145-157 St John Street, London, EC1V 4PW

It is an easy job for anyone to find out that they are using this virtual address service
for mail forwarding.

That itself is against company house policies, which states registered address must be a physical location for the delivery or inspection of company house registration documents

Once again I say, the more you stress your mind and fingers to counter me or prove me wrong - the more "pain injection" I wither on this forum? So I guess its more peaceful here when people stay quiet......

meer53

God, will it never end ??

There is no chargeback right for "misrepresentation"


Section 75 covers misrepresentation.

"Once again I say, the more you stress your mind and fingers to counter me or prove me wrong - the more "pain injection" I wither on this forum? So I guess its more peaceful here when people stay quiet......"

!!!!!! ??????

keyser666

hpuse wrote: »

However, there is a requirement to provide a postal adress, did you know that too?.
There is only one copycat website in the list that has a postal address displayed, which is: 145-157 St John Street, London, EC1V 4PW

There is also no requirement for a company registered at companies house to use the same domain name as their business and vice versa did you know that?

Valli

battleborn...earthstorm...hpuse...

same old same old

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

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

I don't need you to 'grant rights' to use your name on this website.

hpuse wrote: »

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.

hpuse wrote: »

Then I also noticed a lot of 'heart and soul' affiliated-posters supporting other posters with their nasty trade-drenched immoral views.

Yep, hpuse - that same old chestnut.

You are wrong so you just accuse people who tell you that you are wrong of defending, supporting or being affiliated to these websites.

You are making a mockery of your own (supposedly helpful) thread.

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

However, there is a requirement to provide a postal adress, did you know that too?.
There is only one copycat website in the list that has a postal address displayed, which is: 145-157 St John Street, London, EC1V 4PW

It is an easy job for anyone to find out that they are using this virtual address service
for mail forwarding.

That itself is against company house policies, which states registered address must be a physical location for the delivery or inspection of company house registration documents

Then why not do something useful and report these companies to the appropriate body?

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

However, there is a requirement to provide a postal adress, did you know that too?.
There is only one copycat website in the list that has a postal address displayed, which is: 145-157 St John Street, London, EC1V 4PW

It is an easy job for anyone to find out that they are using this virtual address service
for mail forwarding.

That itself is against company house policies, which states registered address must be a physical location for the delivery or inspection of company house registration documents.

I don't believe that 'company house policies' state that a registered office needs to be a place for inspection of registration documents.

If it does say that, then I put it to you that that policy was written before the internet was invented and as such has fallen into disuse.
(a bit like you saying Section 75 serves no purpose in this internet age).

Please can you point me to such a policy.
A link to an authoritative webpage would be great.

Meanwhile, here is what I have found on the Companies House website about a Registered Office:

What is a registered office (RO) address?

All companies must have a registered office, which must be a situated at a physical location in their country of registration. It can be your business address, the address of your accountant or any other address you choose. However, it must be an address at which you will be able to deal with all official letters and notices that you receive.

Hpuse, can you please explain why you think the company you mention is not meeting that requirement?

meer53

wealdroam wrote: »

I don't believe that 'company house policies' state that a registered office needs to be a place for inspection of registration documents.

If it does say that, then I put it to you that that policy was written before the internet was invented and as such has fallen into disuse.
(a bit like you saying Section 75 serves no purpose in this internet age).

Please can you point me to such a policy.
A link to an authoritative webpage would be great.

Meanwhile, here is what I have found on the Companies House website about a Registered Office:

Hpuse, can you please explain why you think the company you mention is not meeting that requirement?

Aaaaand......................Hpuse scuttles off to Google for some more irrelevant information........................to be continued

Sayaka

imoneyop wrote: »

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.

Tonight's Ad word results on Google: using the word "Official"

imoneyop

Sayaka wrote: »

Tonight's Ad word results on Google: using the word "Official"

Which is the same site that I referred to that is using the word Gov in its URL - as it is still there, it looks like hpuse and his friends are happy to spout garbage on forums, but when it comes to taking action and reporting adverts such as that one - can't be bothered.