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

peachyprice

Valli wrote: »

Do you not know what 'tangible' means then?

hpuse wrote: »

Lets not test literacy skills....rather focus on the title of the thread

That'll be a no then. :rotfl:

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

Lets not test literacy skills....rather focus on the title of the thread

If I say a copycat website trader processes 20-25 items in an application form, would you disagree ?

You're the one claiming an intangible is tangible.

It's not YOUR interpretation of the DSRs here that's relevant; so the fact that you clearly don't understand what you are claiming speaks volumes.

Processing information - no matter how many pieces of data are input, is not providing a tangible good. It's providing a service.

That's how these shysters get around the DSRs and are able to get away with not offering a cancellation policy.

hpuse

If at all they are providing a service - there is defined boundary to it, and it does not commence at the point of sale. That is my point.

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

If at all they are providing a service - there is defined boundary to it, and it does not commence at the point of sale. That is my point.

Thing is not everyone agrees with you there.

The companies providing said service don't agree with you; and hence they are able to keep the money they charge for providing the service. And the DSRs allow them to do this. It's perfectly clear.

Cruel, unfair and immoral - yes
Illegal? - apparently not

hpuse

Let me clarify that for you. DSRs does not allow them to do this.

They make use of DSR so that they allow themselves to keep the money telling by the world that customer does not have cancellation rights since they commence their service at the point of sale.

Valli wrote: »

The companies providing said service don't agree with you;

Really? I have not seen any posters claiming they are representatives here on any of those copycat companies. Have you?

Valli wrote: »

Thing is not everyone agrees with you there.

The companies providing said service don't agree with you; and hence they are able to keep the money they charge for providing the service. And the DSRs allow them to do this. It's perfectly clear.

Cruel, unfair and immoral - yes
Illegal? - apparently not

keyser666

We are working with @GoogleUK to stop unofficial websites overcharging you to pay Congestion Charge. To pay visit http://t.co/W57ifehS71


From the TFL twitter account today

meer53

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 ?

I don't know which chargeback regulations you're reading, but they're not any that i've ever seen. Disputes are not raised for DSR's, they're raised using chargeback procedures.

You patently have NO IDEA how banks disputes departments work so why not pipe down and let people contact the banks themselves to get the CORRECT information ?

Keith 66 - or Hpuse, whoever you are. No, the bank WILL NOT speak directly the the service provider.

And NO, it was truly UNHELPFUL.

hpuse

meer53 wrote: »

You patently have NO IDEA how banks disputes departments work so why not pipe down and let people contact the banks themselves to get the CORRECT information ?

Keith 66 - or Hpuse, whoever you are. No, the bank WILL NOT speak directly the the service provider.

And NO, it was truly UNHELPFUL.

@meer53

HA HA HA HA HA HA, Patentship for lying in this thread has been granted to you.
Yes, banks can and they WILL contact the trader/retailer in a dispute situation. Here is the proof.




http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/customerinfo/otherinformation/documentlibrary/dispute.pdf

Meer53,
"Silence" is one of the most beautiful word and a real mantra that I would recommend to you next time when you are reading this thread.

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

Really? I have not seen any posters claiming they are representatives here on any of those copycat companies. Have you?

The actions of the companies in not automatically refunding transaction fees when customers claim they have been conned, or scammed, or swindled is all the evidence I need. If these companies had any integrity they would refund those customers unhappy with their service. But they don't.

The hide behind the DSR's. We can see that for ourselves.

And that surprises you? How odd!

keyser666

hpuse wrote: »

@meer53

HA HA HA HA HA HA, Patentship for lying in this thread has been granted to you.
Yes, banks can and they WILL contact the trader/retailer in a dispute situation. Here is the proof.




http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/customerinfo/otherinformation/documentlibrary/dispute.pdf

Meer53,
"Silence" is one of the most beautiful word and a real mantra that I would recommend to you next time when you are reading this thread.

If I recall rightly meer works for a bank, so will take his word over yours, infact I would take meers word over yours anyway as they have proved their worth with posts on here unlike yourself