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

Pollycat

keith-66 wrote: »

Anyone think is it worth to include ongoing ASA and TS investigation details as well?

I'd do anything that I thought might get me my money back.

Talking of which, have you read my post #629?

Pollycat

So - have you checked if the website you used has a refund policy?

I would advise you to spend a little time reading some of the comments about the usefulness of the first post (by hpuse) before relying on getting your money back using his advice

Again-have you read the posts that tell you about the person who did as you have done I.e. raise a dispute with your bank- only to have the money taken back from him 'cos the website was legal?

I would read that if I were you.

hpuse

keith-66 wrote: »

Dispute form does not mention anything of that sort.
Customer service said to me on Thursady about investigating this in 14 days time.
They have asked me to include all reciepts, letters, email with signed form as OP has pointed out.

@Keith-66
With the dispute form, please make sure you include all letters/email copies carries that carries dates, address and contact personal names from the copycat company(if any).

There must be contact information on:
a) Order payment confirmation (i.e when your payment was processed and confirmation by email )
b) Customer services - reply/responses to your queries

If there are no contact details state that clearly in writing in your letter along with the dispute form.
Also, if you did not receive responses from the company after contacting via email or telephone, state that clearly in writing as well including the dates and time.

PS: In your letter with dispute form, you may also add that it has come to your notice from various media/newspaper that TS and ASA are investigating against these government website copycat practice.

Please note, there are a lot of "deterrent forces" in this forums/thread that will attempt to prove that contacting the bank is a waste of time. I request you not to pay attention to them.

Thanks for AE , it only took 33 pages for that allegation to be born :rotfl:and Im sure there will be more to come!!. I love the respect I am getting here:-)

hpuse

Oh! I forgot to add something in my post above...so I better add that before folks come nipping!

The process described above in post #642 is for helping the bank with dispute resolution process. Not guaranteeing a refund.

Peace to your souls .
You may now continue with your "vital contributions" to increase post count of this thread :rotfl:

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

Oh! I forgot to add something in my post above...so I better add that before folks come nipping!

The process described above in post #642 is for helping the bank with dispute resolution process. Not guaranteeing a refund.

Peace to your souls .
You may now continue with your "vital contributions" to increase post count of this thread :rotfl:

As hpuse admits, his 'steps to take if you have been ripped off by a copy-cat government website' advice isn't guaranteeing a refund.

If you've read the posts I've mentioned (several times) you will have learned what attitude some financial institutions take about these websites - which adds further weight to hpuse's comment that his advice does not guarantee a refund.

Alternatively, you could check to see if the particular website you used offers a refund policy.
If they do, you'll get your money back less an admin fee (usually £8).

hpuse wrote: »

Please note, there are a lot of "deterrent forces" in this forums/thread that will attempt to prove that contacting the bank is a waste of time. I request you not to pay attention to them.

Your choice, Keith-66.

I know that if I'd read some experiences that said they been refunded but then had the money taken from their account once again because the company had acted legitimately or read a news article where someone said their bank wouldn't help, I would be very, very sceptical about taking the advice of the OP.

Hpuse has been very dismissive of some of these posts as he considers them 'one post wonders' and therefore not to be believed.

However, he is happy to assist you (even though you are a newbie) because your posts are not disproving that his 'advice' is flawed.

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

PS: In your letter with dispute form, you may also add that it has come to your notice from various media/newspaper that TS and ASA are investigating against these government website copycat practice.

Please can you provide either references or links to show that clone websites are CURRENTLY under investigation?

Recent media I have seen and heard has merely been to caution consumers AGAINST using clone websites; I haven't seen or heard anything to suggest that they are currently under investigation.

I am aware that they WERE investigated and found not to be illegal.

hpuse

Valli wrote: »

Please can you provide either references or links to show that clone websites are CURRENTLY under investigation?

Recent media I have seen and heard has merely been to caution consumers AGAINST using clone websites; I haven't seen or heard anything to suggest that they are currently under investigation.

I am aware that they WERE investigated and found not to be illegal.

My Lords, most users access digital government services via the major search engines. This user behaviour has been used to inform the design of gov.uk so that government services consistently come at the top of search results. Easy access to and education about the official source of digital government services is the main way the Government protect users from inadvertently using non-official sites. The Government will continue to take action against websites that misrepresent their relationship with government and misuse government logos.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/131121-0001.htm

Just like patience, silence is also a virtue.
Temptation to challenge is acquired by experience..

Valli

The Government will continue to take action against websites that misrepresent their relationship with government and misuse government logos.

Isn't the same as being currently under investigation, though - is it?

That's a HofL discussion about these websites. So not what I asked for!

Having said that I wasn't challenging you - I was asking for a link - and I explained the rationale behind the request.

You are advising a poster to point out that 'these websites are currently being investigated'. All you have shown thus far is that they are being discussed in Parliament.

He can hardly write to his bank and say 'hpuse says these websites are being investigated by the ASA and TS so you may wish to give me my money back' can he?

hpuse

Valli wrote: »

The Government will continue to take action against websites that misrepresent their relationship with government and misuse government logos.

Isn't the same as being currently under investigation, though - is it?

Do you think all investigations undertaken by the government authorities/agencies and its status to date are available in the public domain?

You may feel free to challenge.

Valli

Quote from Hansard http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/131121-0001.htm

The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con): My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I became a victim of a TfL scam on congestion charging some three weeks ago? When I phoned my bank to stop the payment, I was told that it could not be stopped because the money was taken at point of sale. It is quite disgraceful that these people are able to do this. Will my noble friend do all that he can to marginalise the perpetrators of these scams?




Even happening to Peers of the Realm and THEY can't get refunds!