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

hpuse

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

One important fact that you left out

I would be interested to find out from keith-66 whether the dispute form had a title "do not raise a dispute if the transaction amount is less than 100".
@Keith-66, could you please respond ?

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

I would be interested to find out from keith-66 whether the dispute form had a title "do not raise a dispute if the transaction amount is less than 100".
@Keith-66, could you please respond ?

Hpuse, do you understand anything about Section 75 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974?

Can I respectfully suggest you read MSE's guidance on that:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases

Keith-66 told us:

keith-66 wrote: »

Credit card issuers are equally liable to ensure people get what they pay for. It's well known fact that we all have to accept.

He is clearly not talking about chargebacks... or rather, if he is talking about chargebacks, then he has got it wrong.

Anyway, even if the credit card company were "equally liable to ensure people get what they pay for", it seems pretty clear to me that people are actually getting what they paid for.
I.e. the provision of a form filling service.

shaun_from_Africa

hpuse wrote: »

I would be interested to find out from keith-66 whether the dispute form had a title "do not raise a dispute if the transaction amount is less than 100".
@Keith-66, could you please respond ?

Keith-66 stated "Credit card issuers are equally liable to ensure people get what they pay for".
Equal liability for credit card issuers is explained by the financial ombudsman thus:

credit cards - equal liability under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

For section 75 to apply, certain conditions must be met. Most credit card purchases will be covered, but:

the cash price of the goods or services must be more than £100 and not more than £30,000; and

By the way hpuse, any comment about your ridiculous earlier post, or yet again are you going to post misleading and incorrect rubbish and then ignore any posts asking you either admit that you were wrong or to prove that you were correct?

If you've forgotten which ridiculous and incorrect post, it was the one where you stated:

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/201...o-horsemeat-ad

The ASA ruling on this advert stated
"On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation)."

You do know what "breached" means don't you? It means that it didn't comply with the required rules or guidelines.

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/9/Tesco-Stores-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_224880.aspx

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

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.

And what is the likelihood of the small claims court finding in the customer's favour, when the site can prove that they were legitimate, and not misleading and the customer agreed to the payment by ticking the little box?

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

@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.

Why would anyone need to tell her to open her eyes? She didn't use the site - her husband did and she appears to admit how stupid he was. Had he personally signed up to post his story then you would have derided him for being another one post wonder. It is good to see an existing member of the site proving what people have been saying for weeks, that your advice does not work and will not get a refund for the customer.

Isn't it now time admit you haven't got a clue what you are talking about, that your advice is unlikely to get the required result for the customer and to delete your OP?

hpuse wrote: »

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.

I think she made it perfectly clear why they refused the dispute. Perhaps you failed to read that part of her post. Here it is again for you

"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."

So, Barclays feel that the site was not misrepresenting itself or misleading the customer and that everything was above board and a legitimate service had been paid for and provided.

hpuse wrote: »

If you had read carefully, step b) is asking you to complain to consumerline, not Trading Standards.

You've edited your OP so many times to "correct" errors, who knows what it said when she read it, but currently it says

"Call the appropriate trading standards consumer advise line of the region you reside."

Another bit of incorrect advice that may have resulted in someone calling the wrong place, or perhaps they were just following your naming convention?

hpuse wrote: »

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.

So, they are aware of these sites - did they also tell you that these sites are operating within the law as it currently stands? Did you happen to mention the disclaimers that these sites have on them detailing their status and what service they are providing? Hardly hiding things in the small print of T&Cs that people might miss is it?

peachyprice

keith-66 wrote: »

Credit card issuers are equally liable to ensure people get what they pay for. It's well known fact that we all have to accept.

OP in my opinion has capitalised on the above. Fair enough if it helps to get money back. All I want is my money back.

Yes, you are correct, which is exactly why you will fail. You did get what you paid for.

Once again, it is not up to your bank to deprive a company of income when they are operating legally.

Pollycat

Hpuse's monumental arrogance about the correctness of his original post after Annette's post is beyond belief - although I shouldn't really be surprised at all.

keith-66 wrote: »

Credit card issuers are equally liable to ensure people get what they pay for. It's well known fact that we all have to accept.

OP in my opinion has capitalised on the above. Fair enough if it helps to get money back. All I want is my money back.

Well - good luck with that, matey, if you're so determined to stick with hpuse's advice. :rotfl:

Exile_geordie

keith-66 wrote: »

Had you enclosed letters/emails along with dispute form?
In my case I had only one response from the scumbags after taking money.

In my opinion OP' steps/method may or may not work. Bank may look on misleading aspect of the trade.
I am still waiting for my bank's response.
There was nothing wrong in trying getting your money back anyways.

But as has been pointed out hpuse they wont because it is not misleading, unless you didnt read the experience posted above by one member of this forum and the pages of advice saying the same thing for the last week or so?

Pollycat

Exile_geordie wrote: »

But as has been pointed out hpuse they wont because it is not misleading, unless you didnt read the experience posted above by one member of this forum and the pages of advice saying the same thing for the last week or so?

I don't think he did.

He was obviously dazzled by hpuse's eloquence and mastery of the English language after reading the original post. :rotfl:

bod1467

bod1467 wrote: »

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.

hpuse wrote: »

@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.

Bingo!

Maybe I should do the Euromillions on Friday?