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

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Wish I had stayed in last night instead of going out with BoPsie. Missed hose misleading us all agin.

Back to google on Monday.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

gik wrote: »

3. What age are you?
4. Does the bill payer know?
5. Who are you?
6. Are you real?

7. Are you on half term holiday?

keyser666

hpuse wrote: »

Answers
1. not the UK
2. Being a Grade A !!!!
3. 5
4. Nope
5. A Grade a !!!! as mentioned earlier
6. Yes, a Real Grade A !!!!


:rotfl:

1. not the UK
2. Being a Grade A !!!!
3. 5
4. Nope
5. A Grade a !!!! as mentioned earlier
6. Yes, a Real Grade A !!!!

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

Yes,misleading.
That is the exactly what these dodgy copycat government websites are doing.

They are "legally" misleading where as london2012 dodgy websites illegally mislead.
Does that make any difference? Would you still like to deny that as a fact?

While I would agree that these 'dodgy copycat sites are misleading' the ticket seller was trading illegally.
Unfortunately the websites referred to in this thread (and other threads) are, for the moment at least, trading legally.

So yes, it does make a difference.

Hence the ticket sellers were prosecuted; the owners of these websites won't be, unless and until they actually break a law.

hpuse

Valli wrote: »

While I would agree that these 'dodgy copycat sites are misleading' the ticket seller was trading illegally.
Unfortunately the websites referred to in this thread (and other threads) are, for the moment at least, trading legally.

So yes, it does make a difference.

Hence the ticket sellers were prosecuted; the owners of these websites won't be, unless and until they actually break a law.

Please understand this. If a trader is "misleading", it doesn't matter whether their status quo is legal or illegal.

From the records, below a "disclaimer" that existed for a dodgy London 2012 dodgy ticket selling site.



Words from official enforcement order :

...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

bod1467

You're still trying to justify comparing apples with oranges.

keyser666

hpuse wrote: »

Please understand this. If a trader is "misleading", it doesn't matter whether their status quo is legal or illegal.

From the records, below a "disclaimer" that existed for a dodgy London 2012 dodgy ticket selling site.



Words from official enforcement order :

The 2012 ticket sites and the original post are not comparable, it was illegal to sell 2012 tickets anyway.

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

Please understand this. If a trader is "misleading", it doesn't matter whether their status quo is legal or illegal.

From the records, below a "disclaimer" that existed for a dodgy London 2012 dodgy ticket selling site.



Words from official enforcement order :

Oh for goodness sake - the misleading that the Olympic ticket sellers was doing was misleading the public into thinking they were buying 'official' tickets from a legitimate source. Well the tickets bought/sold were not OFFICIAL tickets.

In the case of these websites the misleading is offering a service that may or may not be needed to ensure that the customer gets his document.

They are not PRODUCING the documents themselves; they are 'guiding' consumers into obtaining it and charging 'handsomely' for the 'guidance' they provide. So when the consumer gets his driving licence, or passport or whatever he has bought an official document that is exactly what he wanted.

BUT he has paid well over the going price for the item he wanted in the first place.

In other words IT'S NOT THE SAME ISSUE!

The more I read the drivel you post the less I am surprised that so many people happily google 'passport', click on the 'top link', enter a LOT of personal information into an unverified website and then merrily pop their credit/debit card details in! They only complain when they realise they have paid out double what they needed to!

Instead of 'advising' people on how to get their money back why not divert your efforts into advising people how to use the internet safely?

hpuse

Valli wrote: »

They are not PRODUCING the documents themselves; they are 'guiding' consumers into obtaining it and charging 'handsomely' for the 'guidance' they provide. So when the consumer gets his driving licence, or passport or whatever he has bought an official document that is exactly what he wanted.

Ah! Here comes a new "service name"; Application guidance service!
So, according to you, is guidance given 1-to-1 or for all consumer filing for a real application. Hold on, does that make usage of word 'guidance' itself slightly misleading here ?

Valli wrote: »

Instead of 'advising' people on how to get their money back why not divert your efforts into advising people how to use the internet safely?

Please do not 'advise' me what to do here.
I am indeed advising people to to fight for their case and get their money back. Misleading by these copycat websites is an undeniable fact, it is in the public domain and authorities are aware and they are considering the case as we debate here.

Also note, dis-allowing cancellation under Distant Selling regulation with a website of this nature is potentially unfair trading.

So basically, these websites can be proved as if they are set up as a 'trap'. It is not my job to that, it is the authorities.

So mileading + unfair = cases for Shutting down, just as what happened to London2012 dodgy ticket selling.

Olympic ticket touting was made illegal in 2011. However, enforcement authority will still consider how those sales were targeted and achieved, which is by misleading consumers. That is exactly what these government copycat sites are also doing.

keyser666

hpuse wrote: »

Ah! Here comes a new "service name"; Application guidance service!
So, according to you, is guidance given 1-to-1 or for all consumer filing for a real application. Hold on, does that make usage of word 'guidance' itself slightly misleading here ?



Please do not 'advise' me what to do here.
I am indeed advising people to to fight for their case and get their money back. Misleading by these copycat websites is an undeniable fact, it is in the public domain and authorities are aware and they are considering the case as we debate here.

Also note, dis-allowing cancellation under Distant Selling regulation with a website of this nature is potentially unfair trading.

So basically, these websites can be proved as if they are set up as a 'trap'. It is not my job to that, it is the authorities.

So mileading + unfair = cases for Shutting down, just as what happened to London2012 dodgy ticket selling.

Olympic ticket touting was made illegal in 2011. However, enforcement authority will still consider how those sales were targeted and achieved, which is by misleading consumers. That is exactly what these government copycat sites are also doing.

I will give you a bit of advice FVCK OFF