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

hpuse

imoneyop wrote: »

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.

Simple.
I will remove it if you show that a consumer has no rights of dispute.

Here is my proof of right (from citibank dispute form)

Goods/services not as described

The goods/services I have received are different from what was ordered or described. Please detail what was expected and what was actually received

I would suggest the following
Please bring a proof with you on your next post. Proof has to clearly show that raising a dispute is irrelevant and not valid when a consumer purchased a misleading service. Upon that I will remove.

RosiPossum

They do exactly what they describe. Because the consumer didn't read the description, doesn't mean it's different.

It's the guarantee that people will not lose money that you should delete. You can't guarantee that.

hpuse

meer53 wrote: »

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

Hello Meer53 :-)

I don't think there is a reason yet for me to change the post.

Since it is an OP, the post will appear first and always be read first.
That makes me really proud :-)

hpuse

If anyone lost money to copycats, I really just want people to read and action OP.

No thanks to clicking "thanks".

That will put me in a different club here in this forum, which I hate to be in :-)

meer53

hpuse wrote: »

Simple.
I will remove it if you show that a consumer has no rights of dispute.

Here is my proof of right (from citibank dispute form)

I would suggest the following
Please bring a proof with you on your next post. Proof has to clearly show that raising a dispute is irrelevant and not valid when a consumer purchased a misleading service. Upon that I will remove.

Consumers have rights to raise disputes.

You have included a dispute form that states all the standard chargeback rights for card disputes. NOWHERE on that form does it state you can dispute a payment for being "MISLED"

Raising a dispute is not irrelevant. Under the correct circumstances. Being "MISLED" by a website is not a valid reason for a dispute.

Now, you show me, where on your form does it state that you can raise a dispute for this scenario ?

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

Proof has to clearly show that raising a dispute is irrelevant and not valid when a consumer purchased a misleading service. Upon that I will remove.

Firstly, the "dispute" will fail because the sites in question are not providing a misleading service - as has been shown by the fact that there appear to be no current ASA warnings about non-complience for any of the passport, driving licence, NHS service sites.

This is backed up by the numerous posts (that you choose to ignore because they show your advice to be incorrect) where people have failed to get a chargeback (or a successful "dispute") as the banks have deemed the service provided by the website legitimate and not misleading.

I look forward to seeing the change to your OP to reflect the fact you now recognise the advice to be incorrect and worthless.

hpuse

imoneyop wrote: »

Firstly, the "dispute" will fail because the sites in question are not providing a misleading service - as has been shown by the fact that there appear to be no current ASA warnings about non-complience for any of the passport, driving licence, NHS service sites.

This is backed up by the numerous posts (that you choose to ignore because they show your advice to be incorrect) where people have failed to get a chargeback (or a successful "dispute") as the banks have deemed the service provided by the website legitimate and not misleading.

I look forward to seeing the change to your OP to reflect the fact you now recognise the advice to be incorrect and worthless.

Awww :-( You disappoint me imoneyop
Where is the official proof that customer loses rights of dispute when purchasing the misleading service?

Please bring it fast, I will change OP as soon as I receive it.

The more you delay it, the longer it will be seen by the world. Search engines nowadays are very fast with their crawlers and index updates.

Fyi, Google is already in the process of removing the copycats from their indexes and adservers...

So, I guess copycat website days are counted, do you think so too?

shaun_from_Africa

hpuse wrote: »

Awww :-( You disappoint me imoneyop
Where is the official proof that customer loses rights of dispute when purchasing the misleading service?

What misleading service?

You are the only person who states that they are misleading.
The ASA certainly don't think this (as clearly shown by the link to their website that you provided).
You posted this link and once it was pointed out to you that there is no mention of any of the passport/driving licence websites on the ASA website, you seem to have gone extremely quite on that particular subject.

Why is that?

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

Awww :-( You disappoint me imoneyop
Where is the official proof that customer loses rights of dispute when purchasing the misleading service?

Where is your proof that the customer has purchased a misleading service? Time and time again you use the word misleading, yet the ASA seem happy that the sites are clearly stating the service they provide.

hpuse wrote: »

Fyi, Google is already in the process of removing the copycats from their indexes and adservers...

Which proves nothing about the legitimacy of the adverts or sites in question. Google used to allow Amazon affiliates to advertise - they no longer do, probably because Amazon complained. Perhaps the UK Government has complained about these legitimate adverts.

hpuse wrote: »

So, I guess copycat website days are counted, do you think so too?

Hopefully yes.

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

Fyi, Google is already in the process of removing the copycats from their indexes and adservers...

I guess there's no chance of you providing proof to back up this statement.......