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

powerful_Rogue

hpuse wrote: »

I agree, a 1.2 million subscriber organisation registered as a charity funded by the consumer may not be always correct !!.

But, hold on, what makes you think these 10+ copy cat websites are always doing the "correct thing" with their DSR exemption clauses...that doesn't add up, or does it?

:rotfl:I give you an example of where Which? have incorrect information and you still have to argue! Here, have a look through this thread and then come back and tell me everything Which? publish is correct!

As for the DSR, if you offer a service that will start immediately, you can ask the buyer to waive their rights so the service will start. This is mentioned in detail in the T&C's that you have to agree you have read before you can purchase. Completely legal, unless you can show me otherwise.

wealdroam

dannny wrote: »

Once again, heres the ASA ruling

Show me where the current site has fixed these problems.

https://www.passportxxx.co.uk/

:rotfl:

Dannny, please don't mention that link unnecessarily.

All that does is push the site higher up any search results list, thus ensuring even more people click on it.

meer53

hpuse wrote: »

Some posts deosn't deserve a reply, that was one of the them. More over that was personal opinion ..."banks cannot disupute a transaction", which is laughable. Of course, banks cannot and will not dispute a transaction it is "consumers" rights to dispute.

What the poster has failed to take note is, dispute here is not about a "transaction" it is all about "misrepresentation" of a service and a financial loss as a result of that..

PS: poweful_Rouge, now please click thanks to me, I did a favour to you by replying on your request... :-)

Wrong. It is not personal opinion. Where a person has paid for a service, where the terms and conditions are stated, and that service has been provided, any dispute with a bank will fail.

If the website says they are not affiliated with the official organisation, then it is consumer choice to provide card details to make payment. No-one forces them.

Consumers contact banks to dispute transactions under Visa Chargeback Regulations. There has to be a transaction to dispute, whether chargeback or Section 75.

You keep spouting "misrepresentation", if a consumer can prove this and the transaction is on a credit card and over £100, they can ask the card issuer to look at a Section 75 claim. If there is no "misrepresenation" there is no claim. If a website has a disclaimer, it's going to be nigh on impossible to prove "misrepresentation"

There are adequate systems already in place via card issuers to deal with transactions like this.

I think you should pipe down, you don't really know what you're on about.

robatwork

Glossing over the sanctimonious demeanour of the OP I do find one part of that homepage "deliberately" misleading. It shows
How to apply for your Passport
1 2 3

To me that is a set of steps that is familiar to most who use the internet - click 1 then 2 then 3.


Of course their aim is to get you to click 1 and not go straight to 3 which is the Gov website where you will <sharp intake of breath> "incur HM Passport Office fees." Doesn't say "you will incur our fees and HM Passport Office fees" on step 1.


Of course anyone careful should and would read it and know what they are doing. But this website is trying it on too.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

And the most important rule. Check pocket, before getting card out.

wantmemoney

hpuse wrote:

Clearly tell them you are not happy purchasing their mis-represented and potentially misleading service

peachyprice wrote:

There is no misrepresentation. All of these websites state clearly on their opening page that they are not the official sites and that you can get the same service from the official site..........

The top 3 sponsored links from google:

https://www.passport-uk.co.uk/

To be fair hpuse does refer to the 'service' being misleading.
That would include a clear and accurate description of the service (or goods) and a clear and accurate pricing of that service.

peachyprice wrote:

Originally Posted by hpuse View Post
There is no misrepresentation if their website clearly states "personal information handling for an online application service" on the tin.
So that makes them an "online service that exists for another online" service, which is misrepresentation.

In your opinion. Clearly though not the opinion of Trading Standards or ASA.

@peachyprice but the ASA did decide the service was misleading. It's clearly there in the adjudication of the web site you referred to. How/why on earth did you miss it?

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/12/IQ-Channels-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_242630.aspx

ASA Adjudication on IQ Channels Ltd
IQ Channels Ltd t/a passport-uk.co.uk

Date: 4 December 2013

Background
Three issues were investigated, of which all three were Upheld.

Assessment
1. Upheld

The ASA noted that the ad did not make any reference to HMPO, or include any claims that the site was "official". We considered, however, that it was not clear that the link led to a passport application checking service, rather than to the official government passport application website. Therefore, we concluded that the ad was misleading and in breach of the Code.

On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).

2. Upheld

We noted that the home page included the heading "Welcome to the UK Passport application assistance service" and a paragraph which set out the nature of the service. We also noted that towards the bottom of the home page there was a table entitled "Services offered by us that the Government site does not provide" which compared the services offered by HMPO and Passport-UK. We were concerned, however, that that information was included in the body copy of the ad and users had to scroll down the page before they were presented with a full explanation of the service. In addition, we noted that bold headline text at the top of the page stated "Complete your passport application online ..." and was accompanied by a number of "Apply now" buttons. We considered that a number of consumers, particularly those who had clicked through from a sponsored link, might have accessed the application form without reading the text further down the home page, and would therefore be unaware of the true nature of the service. Because of that, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

On that point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).

3. Upheld

We noted that under the heading "How to apply for your Passport" the prices "£69" and "£79" were quoted for Passport-UK's "1. Basic Analysis and Sending facility" and "2. Quick and Instant facility" respectively. We also noted that the third option, "HM Passport Office website" was accompanied by the text "You will incur HM Passport Office fees". The table comparing HMPO and Passport-UK also stated that the "Administration Fee" for Passport-UK's service was "£69-£79", whereas HMPO's was "Free of charge". We considered, however, given the lack of clarity throughout the site with regard to the service being offered, that that fee information did not make clear that the cost was solely for a checking service and that consumers would have to pay an additional fee for their passport to HMPO. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.

On that point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.17 (Prices).

I personally believe that seeking refunds through the Small Claims Court might also be the way to go.

DaveTheMus

hpuse, have you ever used one of these copy-cat sites?

Pollycat

dannny wrote: »

Once again, heres the ASA ruling

Show me where the current site has fixed these problems.

Pollycat wrote: »

You've already been shown.

<<sighs>>

:wall:

dannny wrote: »

!!!!!!

:rotfl:

Pollycat

robatwork wrote: »

Of course anyone careful should and would read it and know what they are doing. But this website is trying it on too.

There's actually a number of these websites, not just for passports but also:
EHIC
ESTA
Driving test application
Driving licence renewal
Tax return

There may be websites for other things too.

The law is allowing these companies to 'try it on'.

timbo58

The ASA are also not 'toothless' as other posters have implied.
For a purely online business they can be downright dangerous if the business chooses to ignore them.

For starters the ASA give strict & tight deadlines for replies and remedial actions to be carried out.
They do not even need proof of the accusation if it is a 'personal' (and not business) complaint about a business.
Repeated complaints to the asa can easily tie up a business with replies/actions to be taken.
If that business needs a website rejigging etc that can take a great deal of time especially if the business doesn't employ it's own web designers/developers, obviously also at their own cost.

The final and most damaging penalty is the fact the ASA can actually get a website removed from search engines if they fail to comply with the asa's rulings, that could seriously damage a business very quickly.

I am no fan of the asa, but they DO have teeth and will use them.

I would suggest that anyone who still maintains the websites mentioned are misleading put a complaint into the ASA.