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

shaun_from_Africa

hpuse wrote: »

@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.

You can't comment on their policy so why bother providing the link in the first place?
I bet if there was just one of the websites in question on there then you would be commenting on it in just about every single edited post that you make.

As it stands, the ASA website adds nothing what so ever to your argument so rather than admit that you may be wrong, you choose to ignore the very website that you provided.

You may not be able to comment on ASA policy, but you could give an opinion though. Why do you think that the websites in question do not show up on the "name and shame" list?

hpuse wrote: »

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

Yet more rubbish.
The advert was removed because it did not comply (ie, non compliant) with CAP 3.1

01 Compliance
Rules relating to social responsibility;
legality and fair competition. It also spells out that the ASA applies the Code in the spirit, as well as the letter.

http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-broadcast-HTML/Section-1-Compliance.aspx

http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-broadcast-HTML/Section-3-Misleading-advertising.aspx

Sooner or later you might actually get something correct.

annettegottlieb

I found this post a few weeks ago after my husband stupidly used one of the sites to renew his passport. I only had time to read the first few pages, and despite seeing that everyone was poopoo'ing the OP's advice, we decided that we had nothing to lose.

I should first say that with this being a financial site I assumed that the advice given was to enable us to get our money back.

Prior to reading the post, we had already approached the site in question in the hope of getting a refund under the cooling off period and been turned down as they told us that their terms made it clear that there was no cooling off as the service started immediately.

Following hpuse's advice we contacted our bank (Barclays) and spoke to their disputes team. They took a load of details and sent us a form to fill in and return, which we did. After a week, they responded that they had review our dispute and rejected it as the site had provided the service we paid for and made it clear what we were paying for.

On to Trading Standards, who told us virtually the same thing as Barclays, that the site clearly stated the service they were supplying, that they were not affiliated with the official site and that a free alternative was available. At no point did Trading Standards advise us that Small Claims was an option, they in fact made it clear that the site was operating legally and had fulfilled the contract we had with them.

We decided not to bother with the ASA, as we were advised by the CAB that a complaint to them, would be unlikely to be upheld as Trading Standards had stated the site was legitimate.

Having returned and read the continued outpourings of hpuse, it is clear that he really doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, but continues to give false hope to people that they will get their money back.

powerful_Rogue

annettegottlieb wrote: »

I found this post a few weeks ago after my husband stupidly used one of the sites to renew his passport. I only had time to read the first few pages, and despite seeing that everyone was poopoo'ing the OP's advice, we decided that we had nothing to lose.

I should first say that with this being a financial site I assumed that the advice given was to enable us to get our money back.

Prior to reading the post, we had already approached the site in question in the hope of getting a refund under the cooling off period and been turned down as they told us that their terms made it clear that there was no cooling off as the service started immediately.

Following hpuse's advice we contacted our bank (Barclays) and spoke to their disputes team. They took a load of details and sent us a form to fill in and return, which we did. After a week, they responded that they had review our dispute and rejected it as the site had provided the service we paid for and made it clear what we were paying for.

On to Trading Standards, who told us virtually the same thing as Barclays, that the site clearly stated the service they were supplying, that they were not affiliated with the official site and that a free alternative was available. At no point did Trading Standards advise us that Small Claims was an option, they in fact made it clear that the site was operating legally and had fulfilled the contract we had with them.

We decided not to bother with the ASA, as we were advised by the CAB that a complaint to them, would be unlikely to be upheld as Trading Standards had stated the site was legitimate.

Having returned and read the continued outpourings of hpuse, it is clear that he really doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, but continues to give false hope to people that they will get their money back.

Thank you for taking the time to post about your experience.

Hopefully hpuse will take notice that his so called "advice" is incorrect, ineffective and just gives people false hope.

bod1467

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Hopefully hpuse will take notice that his so called "advice" is incorrect, ineffective and just gives people false hope.

A wild hope. hpuse will say that this poster has a hidden agenda, or is an alter ego of someone else refuting his claims, rather than admit he is wrong.

Pollycat

Annette
Sorry to hear that you didn't get a refund.

Sadly, it's not really that much of a surprise to most people posting on this thread but it's unfortunate that you were given false hope by hpuse.

Let's hope he realises that he is not helping anyone with this thread and allows it to die a death.

@ keith-66:
after reading the post from annettegottlieb, are you still confident that following hpuse's advice will get you a refund?
I will (for the final time) suggest you check if the website you used offers refunds.
You may have been more fortunate than Annette as the website she used didn't offer refunds.

meer53

annettegottlieb wrote: »

I found this post a few weeks ago after my husband stupidly used one of the sites to renew his passport. I only had time to read the first few pages, and despite seeing that everyone was poopoo'ing the OP's advice, we decided that we had nothing to lose.

I should first say that with this being a financial site I assumed that the advice given was to enable us to get our money back.

Prior to reading the post, we had already approached the site in question in the hope of getting a refund under the cooling off period and been turned down as they told us that their terms made it clear that there was no cooling off as the service started immediately.

Following hpuse's advice we contacted our bank (Barclays) and spoke to their disputes team. They took a load of details and sent us a form to fill in and return, which we did. After a week, they responded that they had review our dispute and rejected it as the site had provided the service we paid for and made it clear what we were paying for.

On to Trading Standards, who told us virtually the same thing as Barclays, that the site clearly stated the service they were supplying, that they were not affiliated with the official site and that a free alternative was available. At no point did Trading Standards advise us that Small Claims was an option, they in fact made it clear that the site was operating legally and had fulfilled the contract we had with them.

We decided not to bother with the ASA, as we were advised by the CAB that a complaint to them, would be unlikely to be upheld as Trading Standards had stated the site was legitimate.

Having returned and read the continued outpourings of hpuse, it is clear that he really doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, but continues to give false hope to people that they will get their money back.

Someone who can actually confirm that Hpuse needs to amend their OP. Thank you for this post.

Hpuse, do you have any comments ?

peachyprice

Perhaps it really is time for MSE Towers to close this ridiculous misleading thread.

It's nothing but 40 pages of inaccuracy and hypocrisy.

peachyprice

keith-66 wrote: »

Bank may look on misleading aspect of the trade.

They won't, it's not their job to make sure their customers have read what they're paying for before they give out their card details and it's not their job to decide whether a trader it misleading or not.

They're only a bank, not a regulatory body and have no right to make such a judgement call against a company trading within the law.

Oh, didn't hpuse mention that?

shaun_from_Africa

One important fact that you left out

keith-66 wrote: »

Credit card issuers are equally liable to ensure people get what they pay for provided that the goods or services in question cost over £100. It's well known fact that we all have to accept.

hpuse

@aneettegottlieb
Surprise! Surprise! You have made friends here on your first post itself. Normally, folks those who thanked you would love to shout loud to people like you; saying to OPEN your eyes and READ T&Cs before clicking pay now. For some reason that has not happened, may be you had set an agenda for them.

Coming to your post:

I see that your bank has refused dispute. If you got the reason in writing please copy it over here. I would be really interested to see on what basis they rejected your dispute. You said cooling off period does not exist. Banks when administering disputes will certainly look at what you paid for and what you got.

If you had read carefully, step b) is asking you to complain to consumerline, not Trading Standards.
If they(CAB as you say later) really stated the same thing as Barclays, that probably means you called a wrong number? The reason why I say that is , I myself have called consumerline and they had informed me that they are aware of copycat websites operating with terms and conditions, and they expect customer not to read.

annettegottlieb wrote: »

I found this post a few weeks ago after my husband stupidly used one of the sites to renew his passport. I only had time to read the first few pages, and despite seeing that everyone was poopoo'ing the OP's advice, we decided that we had nothing to lose.

I should first say that with this being a financial site I assumed that the advice given was to enable us to get our money back.

Prior to reading the post, we had already approached the site in question in the hope of getting a refund under the cooling off period and been turned down as they told us that their terms made it clear that there was no cooling off as the service started immediately.

Following hpuse's advice we contacted our bank (Barclays) and spoke to their disputes team. They took a load of details and sent us a form to fill in and return, which we did. After a week, they responded that they had review our dispute and rejected it as the site had provided the service we paid for and made it clear what we were paying for.

On to Trading Standards, who told us virtually the same thing as Barclays, that the site clearly stated the service they were supplying, that they were not affiliated with the official site and that a free alternative was available. At no point did Trading Standards advise us that Small Claims was an option, they in fact made it clear that the site was operating legally and had fulfilled the contract we had with them.

We decided not to bother with the ASA, as we were advised by the CAB that a complaint to them, would be unlikely to be upheld as Trading Standards had stated the site was legitimate.

Having returned and read the continued outpourings of hpuse, it is clear that he really doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, but continues to give false hope to people that they will get their money back.