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

shaun_from_Africa

zaax wrote: »

One of the main culprits is Google they are quite happily taking the offending companied money and putting the ‘adverts’ at the top of the search page.

And they are also marking these websites as adverts:
"Ads related to passports/passport renewal etc"
and putting them in a yellowish coloured box.

Of course Google will take companies money in exchange for adverts as they are a business.

hpuse

Valli wrote: »

Selling dodgy tickets isn't the same thing.

Your choice of words (and those you make up) does not help your posts; your words and meanings are as woolly as the websites you purport to despise.

It's not my words - it was trading standards, the enforcement authority who shut down dodgy London2012 ticket sellers. You could check that for yourself.

Most of those people got money back from their banks too. They too had "disclaimers" in bold saying they are not affiliated with BOA.

Exile_geordie

hpuse wrote: »

It's not my words - it was trading standards, the enforcement authority who shut down dodgy London2012 ticket sellers. You could check that for yourself.

Most of those people got money back from their banks too. They too had "disclaimers" in bold saying they are not affiliated with BOA.

Dodgy ticket selling websites are not the same as websites offering you a service - be it passport/driving license/new brain(you should go for that one) - You still havent answered Shauns question about EC either.

do you do this because you know youre talking tat?

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

It's not my words - it was trading standards, the enforcement authority who shut down dodgy London2012 ticket sellers. You could check that for yourself.

Most of those people got money back from their banks too. They too had "disclaimers" in bold saying they are not affiliated with BOA.

Because there was a law passed that made it illegal for those dodgy 2012 ticket sellers to be selling the tickets.

No such law exists to prevent these legitimate websites providing their services.

Back to Google hpuse and try again.

hpuse

imoneyop wrote: »

No such law exists to prevent these legitimate websites providing their services.

And your definition for "legitimate" is ???

- trading legitimate
- acting reasonable
- responding to service needs
- customer centric ?

Which one would you pick ??

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

imoneyop wrote: »

Back to Google hpuse and try again.

Please, do not encourage him to use google, everyone knows he cannot see the difference between an advert for a service and a government website!

Exile_geordie

hpuse wrote: »

And your definition for "legitimate" is ???

- trading legitimate
- acting reasonable
- responding to service needs
- customer centric ?

Which one would you pick ??

Do you actually understand how to write in English at all or do you just pluck words out of thin air and put them together?

This is more and more like the Chewbacca defense. (SP fans )

shaun_from_Africa

hpuse wrote: »

It's not my words - it was trading standards, the enforcement authority who shut down dodgy London2012 ticket sellers.

And why were those ticket sellers shut down?

For the simple reason that they were breaking the law by selling tickets for the Olympics:

(1)A person commits an offence if he sells an Olympic ticket—
(a)in a public place or in the course of a business, and
(b)otherwise than in accordance with a written authorisation issued by the London Organising Committee.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/12/section/31

hpuse wrote: »

And your definition for "legitimate" is ???

- trading legitimate
- acting reasonable
- responding to service needs
- customer centric ?

Which one would you pick ??

Which one would you pick?
After all,

hpuse wrote: »

I know for a fact that these companies are legal.

hpuse

This is the best I have had from this forum

MOTTO

If a company is legal - that means they are legitimate !! :rotfl:

This is what you call shovelling......???

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

And your definition for "legitimate" is ???

- trading legitimate
- acting reasonable
- responding to service needs
- customer centric ?

Which one would you pick ??

I'll go for the dictionary definition rather than the ones that your addled brain seems to be making up.

conforming to the law or to rules:

which these sites clearly are doing - unless you are aware of some law that they are not conforming to?