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

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

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.

You're claiming that they are being investigated yet these investigations, or the fact that they're happening at all is NOT in the public domain?

How can you claim this then?

Yeah. ok hpuse - we'll ALL take YOUR word for it.:rotfl:

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?

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?

There you go @valli - you made me post this.
I would again advise you - silence is probably the best approach here.

Proactively tackling the issue
We’ve commissioned consumer research to get to the bottom of all the different aspects of these sites that might cause confusion. We’re concerned that problems remain, including on sites that might not yet have prompted complaints

Our research will help us understand how people find and use these sites and whether and how they understand they’re a commercial service. We expect to have the results from that in Spring 2014. We’ll then be able to plan any further enforcement work as soon as possible.

http://postimg.org/image/74x5n1zfd/
http://www.asa.org.uk/~/media/Files/ASA/Hot Topics/Copycat websites -Hot topic.ashx

missprice

hpuse wrote: »

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.

Well if it is in the public domain please link to it.

If its not in the public domain how do you know they are being investigated?

hpuse

@Valli
Let me post your next question for you.

Hpuse claims that they are currently being investigated - but he fails to prove it. They are only doing a "research" , righto ?

Valli

So not *exactly* what you claim is going on, then.

This would be because they have already been investigated and found to be operating within the law.

But 'they' are now looking into how many consumers have been adversely affected by these websites by conducting research.

This brings me neatly to my earlier point that, if customers who have been affected by this bring a complaint/complain to their MP then the Government and it's agencies will come to realise there is indeed a problem and may well consider implementing legislation to either curtail their activities or to close them down altogether.

I don't know about YOU hpuse; but I, for one, would like to see them either outlawed completely or for a change in the DSRs to force them to offer refunds within a 7 day cooling-off period.

I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way, either!

I think you'll find we both have equal entitlement to post; it's not your role to police the forum and to tell posters with whom you disagree to 'shut up'.

If you are going to pre-empt what I post, please make it grammatically correct.

hpuse

Let me make this very clear.

Over 90% of the posters that post this thread argue that companies aren't doing anything illegal.

Whilst I respect that argument, I am proud to say that I am in the 10% that will argue that these companies are misleading the consumers and they are using unfair trading terms.

More than anything I am probably in the 5% of posters that shows empathy to a consumer who has lost money to this rip-off trade. Hence they deserve to get their money back
So, I feel proud of myself by posting here.
Now ask yourself this question - do you feel the same?

Valli

In general, these companies are operating within the law. If examples are found where specific instances of law breaking is found then I absolutely believe they must be brought to book!

I do, however, agree with you that these companies do mislead people. They do it by ensuring their websites are top of searches and by using a website format very similar to the 'real thing'. Why it is NOT illegal to 'impersonate' an official .gov site I have no idea. I think it SHOULD be.

Until action is taken, however, people need to be cautious and check what they are buying before they enter their bank details. Action Fraud, for example, cannot act against these websites.

And yes, I feel sorry for people who have lost or wasted their money. But my feeling sorry for them isn't helping anyone, is it?

So MY advice is that these customers, if they feel they have been conned or tricked or scammed, should raise complaints with their MPs until such time as the MPs get around to doing something about it.

A relatively simple amendment to the DSRs, to force all online 'service-providing' companies (AKA clone websites) to allow a 7 day cooling off period would enable ALL future victims to get the refund they want, without recourse to their banks and without initiating chargeback.

And then the clone websites would probably lose so much business they would end up closing down.

I don't feel proud of myself for posting here. I feel disgusted that, despite investigation the Govt. has not yet outlawed these websites. I do hope the owners of these websites are NOT making any contributions to party political funds - or employing any MPs as Directors!

hpuse

Valli wrote: »

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!

You should now be aware that stopping the payment (for e.g a direct debit) is not same as opening a dispute.

Credit networks and banks participating operate real-time.
Payment authorisation happens in a matter of seconds. Conman who operate these websites knows very well that once the customer click "pay now", there is no way for them to get their money back at their will. Hence they will passionately argue(even when their pants are down) that customers are in control so they should read before clicking.

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

You should now be aware that stopping the payment (for e.g a direct debit) is not same as opening a dispute.

Think you need to address your comment to the Earl of Shrewsbury - I quoted his speech to illustrate that even peers of the realm are getting caught out.
Not to suggest how other victims might get a refund.

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

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.

Yes, that may or may not be a requirement of a trading concern, by why would or should the card issuer be interested in that?