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

meer53

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.

For clarification, all chargebacks for disputed transactions are actioned electronically. The bank initiating the dispute contacts the bank of the service/goods provider. The banks then pass information between themselves to resolve the dispute.

Why should i remain silent when you continue to give completely incorrect and irrelevant advice ? You are constantly offering incorrect advice to other posters on this forum, you are the one who should remain silent.

With regard to the dispute form you have copied, as you will see, there is no tick box for "alleged misleading website" There is a box for "other" but should you happen to tick that one and claim you were misled, you will quickly find that your card issuer will tell you that you do not have grounds for dispute as THERE IS NO CHARGEBACK RIGHT FOR BUYING SOMETHING WITHOUT READING WHAT YOU ARE PAYING FOR FIRST" I'm sure i've mentioned that before ?

meer53

Pollycat wrote: »

Yet again, hpuse has been shown to be totally wrong.
Post # 745 about:

TAD SERVICE - LONDON CONGESTION CHARGE
ASA NON-COMPLAINT: DATED 25-FEB-2014

(Did the organisation get the spelling of 'compliant' wrong or could it have been hpuse? :rotfl:)

and the lack of all but one of these copycat websites on that list just demonstrates that the websites under discussion (passports, driving licences etc) have just got smarter and have ensured their businesses comply with ASA rules.

@ keith-66:
still think the 'advice' given in this thread by hpuse will get your money back?

If the website you used - at the time you entered into the agreement with them - complied with ASA rules, you may find your financial institution dismisses your dispute (as other banks have already done to other claimants).

On a brighter note, I Googled 'passport renewal' yesterday and the top 7 hits were all Gov.UK links and #8 was the link to the Post Office service.

But, on a gloomier note, I've just done the same and only the top 3 were Gov.uk, #4 was a copycat website and #5 was the Post Office.

Nooooo.... Pollycat, you do realise that HPuse is going to claim this is due to their persistence in offering duff info don't you ? :rotfl:

hpuse

meer53 wrote: »

For clarification, all chargebacks for disputed transactions are actioned electronically. The bank initiating the dispute contacts the bank of the service/goods provider. The banks then pass information between themselves to resolve the dispute.

Why should i remain silent when you continue to give completely incorrect and irrelevant advice ? You are constantly offering incorrect advice to other posters on this forum, you are the one who should remain silent.

With regard to the dispute form you have copied, as you will see, there is no tick box for "alleged misleading website" There is a box for "other" but should you happen to tick that one and claim you were misled, you will quickly find that your card issuer will tell you that you do not have grounds for dispute as THERE IS NO CHARGEBACK RIGHT FOR BUYING SOMETHING WITHOUT READING WHAT YOU ARE PAYING FOR FIRST" I'm sure i've mentioned that before ?

Hi Meer53,

Did you know, the link I posted above is for a "dispute" form - not a charge back.

In the dispute resolution process, bank reserves the right to contact the trader/retailer , signed and consented by the customer (as a part of DPA).

Hope that helps.

Thanks,

HPuse.

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

Hi Meer53,

Did you know, the link I posted above is for a "dispute" form - not a charge back.

In the dispute resolution process, bank reserves the right to contact the trader/retailer , signed and consented by the customer (as a part of DPA).

Hope that helps.

Thanks,

HPuse.

So what would the customer have to gain from raising a "dispute" if it isn't their money back?

Are you just advocating that they do it for fun? Perhaps they (you) need a new hobby - crochet perhaps.

hpuse

imoneyop wrote: »

So what would the customer have to gain from raising a "dispute" if it isn't their money back?

Are you just advocating that they do it for fun? Perhaps they (you) need a new hobby - crochet perhaps.

Customer will potentially "save" the money that he lost to copycats..

Now read the URL of this website.
www.moneysavingexpert.com

So, my role here as a poster,is not advocating. All I do is help someone to "save" the lost money.
Have you ever thought about yours, imoneyop ??

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

Customer will potentially "save" the money that he lost to copycats..

How will they "save" money if they aren't raising the "dispute" in the hope of getting a refund as a clawback?

You yourself are now showing what total rubbish the content of your original post is.

hpuse wrote: »

So, my role here as a poster,is not advocating. All I do is help someone to "save" the lost money.
Have you ever thought about yours, imoneyop ??

I'm posting here to give people correct advice - something you seem incapable of doing.

My advice for anyone visiting a website for the first time that asks them for credit card details is to read what they are paying for and check the T&Cs. That is a guaranteed way to save money - if they do that, they won't end up paying for something they don't want/need.

hpuse

imoneyop wrote: »

My advice for anyone visiting a website for the first time that asks them for credit card details is to read what they are paying for and check the T&Cs. That is a guaranteed way to save money - if they do that, they won't end up paying for something they don't want/need.

May I remind you...
Title of this thread reads "Steps to take if you have been ripped-off by a copy-cat government website"

So, any advice is welcome that fits within the above context to a help customer that saves money by showing the right actions and outcomes.

That is what OP is saying.
I guarantee that by reading and following OP, no one will further lose money :-)

Having said that, your advise is really good - but unfortunately it does not fit the context of the thread IMHO.

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

May I remind you...
Title of this thread reads "Steps to take if you have been ripped-off by a copy-cat government website"

So, any advice is welcome that fits within the above context to a help customer that saves money by showing the right actions and outcomes".

In that case - remove the step from your OP that advises people to raise a "dispute" with their bank as it is not "saving" them money, as it has been show numerous times that chargebacks are rejected by the banks as the sites in question are legitimate and clearly state the service they are providing.

meer53

hpuse wrote: »

Hi Meer53,

Did you know, the link I posted above is for a "dispute" form - not a charge back.

In the dispute resolution process, bank reserves the right to contact the trader/retailer , signed and consented by the customer (as a part of DPA).

Hope that helps.

Thanks,

HPuse.

The dispute form is for a "dispute"

The form you have attached is a list of chargeback rights for DISPUTES.

How else do you think banks dispute transactions ? By calling the suppliers ? Dream on. All disputes are raised via the Visa or Mastercard system, not by banks calling the suppliers.

Responses are received electronically, via the same systems.

No, it didn't help. It really is time you stopped commenting on things you know nothing about.

meer53

hpuse wrote: »

May I remind you...
Title of this thread reads "Steps to take if you have been ripped-off by a copy-cat government website"

So, any advice is welcome that fits within the above context to a help customer that saves money by showing the right actions and outcomes.

That is what OP is saying.
I guarantee that by reading and following OP, no one will further lose money :-)

Having said that, your advise is really good - but unfortunately it does not fit the context of the thread IMHO.

You can't guarantee that, i'd change your post if i were you.