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

hpuse

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

For the majority of legislative infractions involving such things as Health and safety, trading offences, weights and measures etc, the relevant body will first issue a warning letter which can be delivered either by hand or by post to the registered office for the business concerned (which is why I linked to the Companies act legislation showing the legal requirements for a registered office).

If this letter is ignored, then a letter of enforcement will be sent and this generally gives a set time for compliance. This can also go to the registered office.

If enforcement is required, Trading Standards, HSE etc will then visit the premises where the illegal activity is taking place and if required, either issue a notice requiring trading to stop until the matter has been addressed or again, give a set timescale for compliance and with the assistance of law enforcement agencies, they can also get offenders detained.

Unless the illegal/dodgy activity is taking place at the registered office, there is no need for any actual physical presence of enforcement officials as all that needs doing is for the relevant paperwork to be served there, and as already mentioned, it is perfectly acceptable for this to be carried out by post.

LOL! This is not a restaurant business or Chinese seller selling forfeited goods.
Search for enforcement concordat for online trading, that might help.

If you don't find any documents, I'm sure you will come back here...

bod1467

hpuse wrote: »

Search for ...

You're quick to tell other people to do this (and they often do, and shoot down your argument in flames), but very slow to do likewise yourself to support your argument.

But then the old adage is true I guess ... Never argue with an idiot, because he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

shaun_from_Africa

hpuse wrote: »

Search for enforcement concordat for online trading, that might help

So you've managed to find a phrase and are now trying to use that phrase to back up your extremely weak (ie, non existent) argument without apparently understanding what exactly it is.

Point one.
What relevance does any sort of enforcement have when you have clearly admitted " I know for a fact that these companies are legal"?

Point two.
The enforcement concordat is simply a set of non legally binding guidelines as to the procedures that should be taken when carrying out physical enforcement of a breech of legislation.

Point three.
As stated above, the EC are the procedures followed for enforcement.
This physical enforcement only takes place as a last resort when all other attempts to get a trader to change their practices has failed. (ie, by letter to the registered offices).

Point four.
None of what the EC has stated disagrees in the slightest with my earlier post about how enforcement is actually carried out.- First by giving advice, then a warning and finally, a visit by TS or the OFT.

Point five.
With every post you are making hpuse, it is clear that you do not have the slightest clue about what you are trying to argue about and you are simply using Google in an attempt to try to find something to get you out of the hole that you have dug yourself in to.

Pollycat

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

So you've managed to find a phrase and are now trying to use that phrase to back up your extremely weak (ie, non existent) argument without apparently understanding what exactly it is.

Point one.
What relevance does any sort of enforcement have when you have clearly admitted " I know for a fact that these companies are legal"?

Point two.
The enforcement concordat is simply a set of non legally binding guidelines as to the procedures that should be taken when carrying out physical enforcement of a breech of legislation.

Point three.
As stated above, the EC are the procedures followed for enforcement.
This physical enforcement only takes place as a last resort when all other attempts to get a trader to change their practices has failed. (ie, by letter to the registered offices).

Point four.
None of what the EC has stated disagrees in the slightest with my earlier post about how enforcement is actually carried out.- First by giving advice, then a warning and finally, a visit by TS or the OFT.

Point five.
With every post you are making hpuse, it is clear that you do not have the slightest clue about what you are trying to argue about and you are simply using Google in an attempt to try to find something to get you out of the hole that you have dug yourself in to.

Shaun from Africa
in the circumstances we are discussing you could have stopped after 'point one' (although I do wholeheartedly agree with your 'point five').

peachyprice

hpuse wrote: »

LOL! This is not a restaurant business or Chinese seller selling forfeited goods.
Search for enforcement concordat for online trading, that might help.

If you don't find any documents, I'm sure you will come back here...

Oh dear lord, won't someone take Google away from Hpuse.

missprice

peachyprice wrote: »

Oh dear lord, won't someone take Google away from Hpuse.

Won't someone think of the children. :beer:

Hpuse, its counterfeit not forfeited

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

peachyprice wrote: »

Oh dear lord, won't someone take Google away from Hpuse.

Pains me to say, I blame the BBC and the late Ian McNaught-Davis for giving computer things to the masses.

hpuse

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

So you've managed to find a phrase and are now trying to use that phrase to back up your extremely weak (ie, non existent) argument without apparently understanding what exactly it is.

Point one.
What relevance does any sort of enforcement have when you have clearly admitted " I know for a fact that these companies are legal"?

Point two.
The enforcement concordat is simply a set of non legally binding guidelines as to the procedures that should be taken when carrying out physical enforcement of a breech of legislation.

Point three.
As stated above, the EC are the procedures followed for enforcement.
This physical enforcement only takes place as a last resort when all other attempts to get a trader to change their practices has failed. (ie, by letter to the registered offices).

Point four.
None of what the EC has stated disagrees in the slightest with my earlier post about how enforcement is actually carried out.- First by giving advice, then a warning and finally, a visit by TS or the OFT.

Point five.
With every post you are making hpuse, it is clear that you do not have the slightest clue about what you are trying to argue about and you are simply using Google in an attempt to try to find something to get you out of the hole that you have dug yourself in to.

you missed something.

Point zero

Enforcement works differently based on the nature of trading activity.

If you are trying to prove I know nothing, then you probably need another 10K posts?

transient

hpuse wrote: »

you missed something.

Point zero

Enforcement works differently based on the nature of trading activity.

If you are trying to prove I know nothing, then you probably need another 10K posts?

So you answer with something totally irrelevant. EC is nothing to do with this

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

hpuse wrote: »

If you are trying to prove I know nothing, then you probably need another 10K posts?

OP, someone once told me why I never got what i wanted in a meeting. It was because although what i said was good, I packed it with people who would vote against me.

OP, you are in that room.

Now, if you do find something that most in this part of the parish do not know, then please enlighten us. until then, please consider answering my simple question.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

OP, have you got your money back yet?

It is a simple [STRIKE]Yes [/STRIKE]or No .