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

RosiPossum

I'm about halfway through this thread now, and I wish OP would stop saying "advise" when he means advice, and putting random "words" into "quotation" marks.
It's making for an interesting read!

Disclaimer: I put quotation marks around random words to copy OP, not because I'm stupid.
This disclaimer in no way affects your statutory rights.

meer53

RosiPossum wrote: »

I'm about halfway through this thread now, and I wish OP would stop saying "advise" when he means advice, and putting random "words" into "quotation" marks.
It's making for an interesting read!

Disclaimer: I put quotation marks around random words to copy OP, not because I'm stupid.
This disclaimer in no way affects your statutory rights.

I wouldn't bother with reading the rest of it. It's the same old tripe from the OP as the first half.

LilElvis

RosiPossum wrote: »

I'm about halfway through this thread now, and I wish OP would stop saying "advise" when he means advice, and putting random "words" into "quotation" marks.
It's making for an interesting read!

Disclaimer: I put quotation marks around random words to copy OP, not because I'm stupid.
This disclaimer in no way affects your statutory rights.

I just read every few days when I feel like having a chuckle as it is pretty much guaranteed with this thread. I don't think anyone who has been 'ripped off' will have the energy left to delve through this sludge to get a definitive resolution - not that hpuse has provided one.

meer53

keith-66 wrote: »

Lot of masking attempts going on in this thread.
OP is indeed trying to help someone like me to recover money.

I can also confirm that my credit-card issuer has confirmed the same with regards to dispute resolution process outlined.

Hmmm... phrasing and language sound strangely familiar ?

What's a "masking attempt" when it's at home ?

I'm not taken in.

hpuse

LilElvis wrote: »

I just read every few days when I feel like having a chuckle as it is pretty much guaranteed with this thread. I don't think anyone who has been 'ripped off' will have the energy left to delve through this sludge to get a definitive resolution - not that hpuse has provided one.

Just as you chuckle, I thank you for increasing the post count. Landing page will always be smiling at mines first :-) !

hpuse

keith-66 wrote: »

Lot of masking attempts going on in this thread.
OP is indeed trying to help someone like me to recover money.

I can also confirm that my credit-card issuer has confirmed the same with regards to dispute resolution process outlined.

No! No! No!- I am digging my grave hole for posting gibberish! ...
These were the words of senior poster who worked 17 years in a banks dispute department. God bless!

hpuse

Valli wrote: »

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.

@Valli, are you now convinced that ASA are doing at least something if not "investigation" ?

hpuse

wealdroam wrote: »

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?

By signing the dispute form, card issuer has got the right of authority to contact merchant when there is a dispute.

Pollycat

keith-66 wrote: »

These copycats should not be allowed to continue.
Hope MPs at least get it and fix it right asap by change of law.

pollycat,
I'm not allowed to post links but I can confirm that hpuse's instructions in OP matches with dispute instructions received.

<<sighs>> :wall:

OK, for the last time:
I've been telling you that Hpuse's advice may not work and get you the refund that you presumably want.

Hpuse has also admitted that.

It matter not one jot whether Hpuse's instructions match with your financial institution's instructions.

Even if they match word-for-word, there is no guarantee that you'll get your money back using this method.

Your choice.

hpuse

Pollycat

post #9 dated 15-01-2014, quoting OP says

This post is seriously mis-leading.

Do you think that post is still relevant?
If not would you care to edit and remove the same ?

post#17 dated 15-01-2014 asks

So what are ASA going to do about it?

Do you now understand ASA is doing something about it?
Who is posting gibberish now ?

Once again, if you do not have anything to contribute to the title of this thread stop self-defending rubbish you have posted like above. It will add more intellectual value with silence switched on..