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

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

My point is - which you appear to have totally misunderstood - that if the website offers a refund, you simply request it.
You do not have to fight your case to stand a chance of getting your money back.

So - you are wrong!

I will happily repeat this 100 times to you till you understand.

When a customer gets his money back, without fighting - then it is NOT called a rip-off.
Now "read" "read" "read" the title of this thread one last time "please" "please" pleasee......:T

transient

hpuse wrote: »

I will happily repeat this 100 times to you till you understand.

When a customer gets his money back - then it is NOT called a rip-off.
Now "read" "read" "read" the title of this thread one last time "please" "please" pleasee......:T

But what when the company during the dispute shows the bank their evidence and the bank debits your account again?


Also why haven't you contacted your MP if you want to help?

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

I will happily repeat this 100 times to you till you understand.

When a customer gets his money back, without fighting - then it is NOT called a rip-off.
Now "read" "read" "read" the title of this thread one last time "please" "please" pleasee......:T

And I will happily keep coming back to you 100 times until you get my point.

I have read the title of this thread - numerous times.

You titled this thread 'Steps to take if you have been ripped-off by a copy-cat government website'

Please take special notice of your phrase 'ripped off'.

You advise someone (under 'step 1') to request a refund.
So - according to your post #692 - if they get a refund merely by asking (i.e. not 'fighting'), they have not been ripped off.

So - if as you say - this thread is only for people who have been ripped off, why is there reference in your OP to requesting a refund and what to do about complaining if you did manage to get a refund?

hpuse wrote: »

Here are some steps to follow if anyone ended up paying money 'by not reading t&c mistake' to any of the websites mentioned in this thread. Please do the following.

As a first step :

Write/e-mail to the company requesting a full refund. Clearly tell them you are not happy purchasing their mis-represented and potentially misleading service offered online. Mention very clearly that you will be filing a dispute of this transaction with the bank unless a refund is issued within 7 days. Please keep copies of all emails and replies received. Give them 7 days to reply or refund. If a refund did not happen, then proceed to second step.

If you did manage to get a refund, please still make a complaint see below section b) and c)

So your post #692 has just proved that the words in your OP are nonsense.

You've managed to confuse yourself about the actual reason for starting your thread in the first place.

hpuse

transient wrote: »

But what when the company during the dispute shows the bank their evidence and the bank debits your account again?


Also why haven't you contacted your MP if you want to help?

Only "evidence" they have is :

a) Customer details
b) last 4 digits of the his/her creditcard
c) date and time of transaction authorisation
d) Their 'assets' to rip-off, ; i.e HTML files containing terms and conditions

Hold on, transient, are you sure that the company will show "evidence" during a dispute?:rotfl:

bod1467

hpuse wrote: »

Hold on, transient, are you sure that the company will show "evidence" during a dispute?:rotfl:

Erm ... YES. As has already been proven in this thread.

Selective reading again hpuse?

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

So - if as you say - this thread is only for people who have been ripped off, why is there reference in your OP to requesting a refund and what to do about complaining if you did manage to get a refund?

I am starting to get frustrated and this is my last and final attempt, pollycat.

A banks or credit card companies and dispute department works like this. They expect the customer to contact the merchant directly and resolve the matter before opening a dispute..

If the consumer haven't done so - they will simply ask them to do so first..

The dispute really starts when step a) is over and consumer has waited for 7 days. This means refund has not arrived or a reply justifying why the trader is not giving a refund . In the mean time, consumer is expected to collect enough justification and evidences to strengthen their side of arguments. Bank will also look into the traders side of argument.

After a dispute is raised. Banks have a supreme authority in decision making. As I said, this is done based on evidences the consumer collects and files along other investigation outcomes from the Bank's end.

The above is the process followed for Online/CNP (Card not present) transactions.

Was that helpful ?

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

Only "evidence" they have is :

a) Customer details
b) last 4 digits of the his/her creditcard
c) date and time of transaction authorisation
d) Their 'assets' to rip-off, ; i.e HTML files containing terms and conditions

Hpuse, you have missed one very important item off that list:

e) confirmation that the 'victim' has ticked a box agreeing to the terms displayed.

And once the rogue company can show that, then any reason for a successful chargeback vanishes.

hpuse wrote: »

Hold on, transient, are you sure that the company will show "evidence" during a dispute?

Of course they will.

As you yourself have just told us:

hpuse wrote: »

Bank will also look into the traders side of argument.

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

I am starting to get frustrated and this is my last and final attempt, pollycat.

A banks or credit card companies and dispute department works like this. They expect the customer to contact the merchant directly and resolve the matter before opening a dispute..

If the consumer haven't done so - they will simply ask them to do so first..

The dispute really starts when step a) is over and consumer has waited for 7 days. This means refund has not arrived or a reply justifying why the trader is not giving a refund . In the mean time, consumer is expected to collect enough justification and evidences to strengthen their side of arguments. Bank will also look into the traders side of argument.

After a dispute is raised. Banks have a supreme authority in decision making. As I said, this is done based on evidences the consumer collects and files along other investigation outcomes from the Bank's end.

The above is the process followed for Online/CNP (Card not present) transactions.

Was that helpful ?

Actually, I'm really pleased to hear you're getting frustrated.
I really do hope that you're a man of your word and the above post will be your last and final post.
That will mean that you'll stop posting erroneous information and poor advice.

No, your post wasn't helpful - pretty much on a par with all your other posts on this thread.

My point had nothing to do with a financial institution's dispute process so you have wasted your time trying to explain how it works.

My point was to do with your totally incorrect wording about 'having to fight your case to stand a chance of getting your money back'.

That was further compounded by your later post:

hpuse wrote: »

When a customer gets his money back, without fighting - then it is NOT called a rip-off.

which is a direct contradiction of the wording in your OP.

Don't bother posting another load of tosh in answer to a point I've not made or in answer to a question I've not asked.

hpuse

@wealdroam; Point right. So that means I have to add f) as well.

e) confirmation that the 'victim' has ticked a box agreeing to the terms displayed.

f) Looking at terms and displayed, the bank will be in a postion to make an informed decision about the unfair trading practice applied - which disallows the consumer to cancel within 7 days of distant selling. Bank will consider the nature of the trading and why they would really want an exemption from DSR or not to service this consumer. Plainly speaking, rip-off starts there.

Put it simply, banks have more powers that OFT to sort this out at a single consumer level.

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

Actually, I'm really pleased to hear you're getting frustrated.
I really do hope that you're a man of your word and the above post will be your last and final post.
That will mean that you'll stop posting erroneous information and poor advice.

No, your post wasn't helpful - pretty much on a par with all your other posts on this thread.

My point had nothing to do with a financial institution's dispute process so you have wasted your time trying to explain how it works.

My point was to do with your totally incorrect wording about 'having to fight your case to stand a chance of getting your money back'.

That was further compounded by your later post:

which is a direct contradiction of the wording in your OP.

Don't bother posting another load of tosh in answer to a point I've not made or in answer to a question I've not asked.

I am going to click ingore on Pollycat from now on simply becuase do not have time to respond.