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

dannny_2

Pollycat wrote: »

If you really believe - despite comments by peachyprice and shaun from Africa - the change hasn't fixed the problem, report them to ASA.

If all these people posting on threads about these companies actually did something constructive to try to change things, instead of just posting endless inaccuracies, maybe something would get done.

Well stop posting inaccuracies then. Show me where I have posted inaccurate information.

Go back to your original post on this thread, see that ASA disagree with you, post a screenshot of what you see when you look at these websites, see if that falls into the criteria of the ASA ruling, then come back here.

Heres ASA riuling

We were concerned, however, that that information was included in the body copy of the ad and users had to scroll down the page before they were presented with a full explanation of the service. In addition, we noted that bold headline text at the top of the page stated "Complete your passport application online ..." and was accompanied by a number of "Apply now" buttons. We considered that a number of consumers, particularly those who had clicked through from a sponsored link, might have accessed the application form without reading the text further down the home page, and would therefore be unaware of the true nature of the service. Because of that, we concluded that the ad was misleading. On that point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).

Show me where the advertising webpage now meets these requirements. It doesn't, so nothings change.

!!!!!!

gb12345

So what will these steps to take actually achieve then? NOTHING.

Why would any one advise someone to raise a dispute with their bank if the intended out come wasn't to try and get a refund? Because they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

You still didn't answer my question about whether your bank gave you a refund when you raised a dispure with them, but that's not surprising as the answer would just confirm that everything you spout is crap.

powerful_Rogue

hpuse wrote: »

To all of you "bleeding in pain" reading the title of this thread,

Firstly, please, I would advise you to take your emotions out from this thread and stop calling names.

"Steps to take" simply means excersing the rights of a consumer who strongly believe he has been ripped-off by T&C's of these websites.

It simply does not mean or guarantee you a refund and no where I have mentioned this in my post. Hope that is clear.
Peace. Now back to discussion

Your post is wrong as people have pointed out to you.

First step someone should take after purchasing a service they didn't need, should be to read the T&C's. Some sites do offer refunds, however these have to be requested as per their terms and conditions.

Can you comment on the post below, you seem to keep missing it for some reason.

meer53 wrote: »

Second Step:

a) Call the bank or credit card company and tell them you would like open a dispute. Give all the details of the transactions including date/time, website name and personals/email address and correspondences received when complained to the company(first step). If required, they will ask for copies all correspondences you have had with this company.

Having dealt with many of these queries, this information is incorrect and very misleading for people who have used these websites. OP, i suggest you remove this from your post.

Banks cannot dispute transactions where the company have advised that they ARE NOT affiliated to the organisations they are offering services for. They aren't doing anything wrong, if people choose to use a service without reading ALL the information WHEREVER IT IS on the website, then they are agreeing to the T & C's.

dannny_2

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

First step someone should take after purchasing a service they didn't need, should be to read the T&C's.

Correct. However, T&Cs don't override UK (english, Scots) law.

I could set up a site tomorrow with T&Cs stating that any goods purchased are sold as seen and you can get stuffed if you want a refund, it doesn't make it legal.

These sites sail close to the wind, and sometimes so close they cross the line.

Unfortunately the watchdogs can act as toothless puppies.

gb12345

dannny wrote: »

Correct. However, T&Cs don't override UK (english, Scots) law..

So which law is it that these sites are breaking then?

I'm sure all their "victims" would like to know as it will be amunition from them in their attempt to get a refund

Pollycat

dannny wrote: »

Show me where I have posted inaccurate information.

You've already been shown.
!!!!!! :rotfl:

Pollycat

dannny wrote: »

Unfortunately the watchdogs can act as toothless puppies.

Now that I will agree with although I might have said 'do' rather than 'can'. :cool:

Why aren't the Government doing anything about this?

powerful_Rogue

dannny wrote: »

Correct. However, T&Cs don't override UK (english, Scots) law.

I could set up a site tomorrow with T&Cs stating that any goods purchased are sold as seen and you can get stuffed if you want a refund, it doesn't make it legal.

These sites sail close to the wind, and sometimes so close they cross the line.

Unfortunately the watchdogs can act as toothless puppies.

I haven't said the terms and conditions do override the law. Maybe you would be so kind as to point out what laws they are over riding?

These sites don't legally have to offer a refund. When you purchase the service you waive your right to the 7 day cancellation under the DSR as the service starts immediately.

Some of these sites offer a refund.
Some of these sites offer a refund but with an admin fee.
Some of these sites don't offer a refund.

Check the terms and conditions.

hpuse

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Can you comment on the post below, you seem to keep missing it for some reason.

Some posts deosn't deserve a reply, that was one of the them. More over that was personal opinion ..."banks cannot disupute a transaction", which is laughable. Of course, banks cannot and will not dispute a transaction it is "consumers" rights to dispute.

What the poster has failed to take note is, dispute here is not about a "transaction" it is all about "misrepresentation" of a service and a financial loss as a result of that..

PS: poweful_Rouge, now please click thanks to me, I did a favour to you by replying on your request... :-)

powerful_Rogue

hpuse wrote: »

Some posts deosn't deserve a reply, that was one of the them. More over that was personal opinion ..."banks cannot disupute a transaction", which is laughable. Of course, banks cannot and will not dispute a transaction it is "consumers" rights to dispute.

What the poster has failed to take note is, dispute here is not about a "transaction" it is all about "misrepresentation" of a service and a financial loss as a result of that..

More like you didnt know how to answer it!

Please explain how this is "misrepresentation" and I will explain why it isnt.

1) The site advises on its home page and in its t&c's that it is a check and send service.

2)The site has warnings advising it is not connected the HMPO.

3) The site offers a comparison between its service and that of HMPO.

4) It offers a direct link to HMPO.

5) The OFT have found the site to be legal.

Hello Natwest? Id like a chargeback please. I purchased something I didnt want because I didnt bother to read what the site offered. I also said I agreed to the terms and conditions but didnt bother to read them either.