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

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

hpuse wrote: »

@BoP
Yes, I know my efforts here to help people are vetoed, but as I mentioned earlier OP still stand taller than some other posters ego. In days to come it will get interesting and Pollycat will be there to anchor it as always..:rotfl:

I take that as a no, OP has not got there money back.

If it is going to get interesting, I shall chuck anotehr log on the fire, and take my socks off, so I can keep my feet warm.

As for your Olympic analogy. These websites were not authorised to sell tickets, and were correctly shut down.

Must try harder.

Exile_geordie

hpuse wrote: »

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......???

The only person round here shovelling anything is you.

Failing to answer questions, constantly getting things wrong, contradicting what you first posted, being a plank, and so on and so forth

shaun_from_Africa

Well hpuse, as you are such a big fan of Google, why not do a Google search for the definition of legitimate?

These are the first definitions given from the first four website results that appear (and unlike the information that you post, have not been modified in any way).

conforming to the law or to rules.

Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.

allowed according to rules or laws

according to law; lawful: the property's legitimate owner.

So what is your definition of "legitimate" then?

George_Michael

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.

So let me get this right.
In an attempt to bolster your argument, you are comparing traders who were acting in contravention of the law by selling items that they had no legal right to sell to businesses who are providing a legal service? (a legal service as confirmed by trading standards, the OFT and yourself).

Why not go even further and provide a link to people who have been convicted of murder. After all, this would have about the same relevance as illegal ticket sellers.

Pollycat

Changing the subject slightly and looking for opinions from clued-up posters (Hpuse - you need not respond :rotfl:):

If you had used a website that didn't offer a refund (as we know some do) and you'd written to them to tell them you were taking them to court and got this response:

We will be defending our position in full and will provide the relevant evidence which shows how clear our service is stated on our homepage and throughout the website, we will also provide screenshot evidence of the terms and conditions and the no refund policy which you had agreed to before proceeding and then submitting your application with ourselves.

what would your next step be?

They sound pretty bullish about going to court but of course they may be bluffing.

bod1467

Is that a cut-n-paste from an actual reply? If yes then I find the space between a and greed to be ironic.

Pollycat

Bod - now edited.

It was a cut-and-paste from another thread that had some words running together. I put spaces in and managed to come up with - as you say - an ironic meaning.

So - what is your opinion of that reply from one of these companies?

imoneyop

Pollycat wrote: »

what would your next step be?

They sound pretty bullish about going to court but of course they may be bluffing.

The driving licence thread?

For me it would depend on whether at the time I used the site, it was before or after they made the changes they appear to have been told to. They are probably bullish, because they are now convinced that the site is legitimate and they will win.

Also, there is no precidence in small claims, so just because someone claims that they took them to court and won - means nothing for another individual's chances of getting the same verdict.

Of course, all of the above is irrelevant as for me it would never have gone to court as I would have followed hpuse's advice and raised a dispute with my bank :cool:.

hpuse

London 2012 dodgy tickets sites were taken down for the exact reason - misleading. As I said earlier, enforcement was easy.

To be exact: this is the wordings used by the judge, search-n-nourish yourself if you do not believe me::rotfl:

The conduct of these web sites was misleading, and that had consumers known the true position, they would not have proceeded to purchase any Olympic tickets from these sites

ASA has already issued a few cases for misleading.

PS: These ticketing site also had legal "disclaimers" stating they are not affiliated with Olympic Assosiation or do not represent official ticketing sales.

Anyone here to bet, how long these "legal" copycats would stay?
I would say a maximum of 12 months, :T

peachyprice

hpuse wrote: »

London 2012 dodgy tickets sites were taken down for the exact reason - misleading.

No they weren't. They were taken down because it was illegal for Olympic tickets to be sold by anyone other than the official site. It wasn't misleading, it was downright illegal.