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

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

@wealdroam

I have pasted a name and shame section on non-compliance

Yes, I saw that in posts #744 and #749.

As a result of that, I asked you why there appeared to be none of the rogue sites under discussion on that list.
(refresh your memory by re-reading post #751)
You appear not to be able to answer that.

You also told us in post#749 "You can search the entire history there."
I can't find it, and as you cannot/will not explain, I can only assume that this is another mistake of yours.

transient

Has hpuse edit the OP again changing some fundemental things? Like saying "do not ask for a refund" and the like?

meer53

hpuse wrote: »

Folks - Gotta go...See you later !

Have fun:

Thats just how i imagined you'd look.

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

a) Call the bank or credit card company and tell them you would like open a complaint in reference to a transaction. Please do not ask them for a refund, it is likely to be refused. You have to start a dispute process and do the necessary paper works. You also have to show evidences to the bank to consider your case individually. By presenting evidences, it will help the bank to realise the conning nature of this copycat website trade. Please make sure you are speaking with the banks dispute department.
Give all the details of the transactions including date/time, website name and personal/email address and correspondences received when complained to the company(first step).

Bank will ask for copies all correspondences you have had with the company. You will also have to sign a dispute form which you can email or post it back to the dispute department.

In your email/cover letter with the dispute form, please add that you have strong reason to believe that these websites are designed to rip-off customers with terms and conditions for not reading while clicking. You may also add that it has come to your notice from various media/newspaper articles that Trading Standards and Advertising Standards Authority are investigating against these government website copycat practice. Please send this to them by post or email and make sure they have received. Give them 14 days to investigate and respond.

I see the OP has been edited again recently, but is still incorrect.

So hpuse, a direct answer to a direct question please. You say "Give them 14 days to investigate and respond." - what should the customer do if their bank/card company does not respond within the 14 days they have decided to allow them?

hpuse

imoneyop wrote: »

I see the OP has been edited again recently, but is still incorrect.

So hpuse, a direct answer to a direct question please. You say "Give them 14 days to investigate and respond." - what should the customer do if their bank/card company does not respond within the 14 days they have decided to allow them?

Sure. Here is the direct answer.
Read step b).
All doors never shut at the same time. :-)
If you are happy with my answer please do not click thanks!

hpuse

wealdroam wrote: »

Yes, I saw that in posts #744 and #749.

As a result of that, I asked you why there appeared to be none of the rogue sites under discussion on that list.
(refresh your memory by re-reading post #751)
You appear not to be able to answer that.

You also told us in post#749 "You can search the entire history there."
I can't find it, and as you cannot/will not explain, I can only assume that this is another mistake of yours.

@wealdrom, I don't work for ASA. So I can't comment on their naming and shaming policy on non-compliance. For example, after how many warnings a business will find its place in the shaming table before they use their enforcement.

However, I can comment this much.
If an advertisement is compliant, that still does not mean it is not misleading.

I have dug out a perfect example, that is compliant, yet misleading. This was in the public domain and press last year if you recall.
Here is the link : http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/sep/04/tesco-horsemeat-ad

Hope that satisfies your quench for challenging my posts, as always....

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

Sure. Here is the direct answer.
Read step b).

So if the bank don't reply in 14 days, you recommend complaining to TS? How will that help the customer "save" money?

What would be the customer's aim in following your steps?

What is the likelihood that they will achieve that aim if they follow your steps?

hpuse

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Why do you constantly modify what you have posted? (even your original post gets changed on a regular basis).

Is it due to the number of errors that you make?

I am sorry if my edits has caused you inconvenience.
I will make sure I will try not to repeat the same.

I will continue to edit OP to make it helpful and relevant and 'contextual'.

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

I am sorry if my edits has caused you inconvenience.
I will make sure I will try not to repeat the same.

I will continue to edit OP to make it helpful and relevant and 'contextual'.

Well, I can understand you wanting to do that because as it stood on 15th Jan 2014 it was the biggest load of old tosh I'd ever read. :rotfl:

Sadly, it's not much better now.

hpuse

imoneyop wrote: »

So if the bank don't reply in 14 days, you recommend complaining to TS? How will that help the customer "save" money?

What would be the customer's aim in following your steps?

What is the likelihood that they will achieve that aim if they follow your steps?

Normal circumstances, bank will come to a decision on dispute in 14 days.
Whether it is favourable or not, my next step, i.e step b) still gives hopes.

When complaining to TS, they will explain to the consumer that there is an option to go to small claims court and recover the money. That is why I said not all door shut at the same time in front of a consumer. Consumer has rights, understand it and respect it.