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

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

It is indeed very difficult to create 15 separate threads to address each of them individually for their copycatism and trading nature.

But you aren't addressing any of them as none of these sites rely on information being hidden in T&Cs - they all clearly state that they are not the official site, what service they provide and that that service may be available for free elsewhere.

If you have proof that a particular site is not doing this and is misrepresenting itself as the official site or misleading people about what it is providing, have you reported that site to the relevant people?????

hpuse

imoneyop wrote: »

In that case, why did you state that the services aren't as described. Let me remind you what you said, in case the lack of available space has resulted in some other random thought forcing it out of your mind.



Looks pretty clear to me - you are stating that the reason for a chargeback will be that these sites are not providing the service that they say they will - where is your proof to back up this statement?

Relax. It is plain dead simple.
If a consumer thinks he got a service in turn what he paid for, then he will not open a dispute.

If he thinks he got ripped-off, then he can open a dispute.
OP addresses only those consumers.
It is a trader's job (not mines!) to prove that they did provide the service based on what they said on the tin in a dispute situation. If they do not provide evidence - then they stand to lose the dispute.
Is that clear.

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

It is a trader's job (not mines!) to prove that they did provide the service based on what they said on the tin in a dispute situation. If they do not provide evidence - then they stand to lose the dispute.
Is that clear.

Actually, hpuse, that is very clear to me.

Unfortunately, you omit to mention that these websites can and do provide evidence that they provided the service and so the dispute either fails or if the money has been refunded, they take it back again.

powerful_Rogue

hpuse wrote: »

Relax. It is plain dead simple.
If a consumer thinks he got a service in turn what he paid for, then he will not open a dispute.

If he thinks he got ripped-off, then he can open a dispute.
OP addresses only those consumers.
It is a trader's job (not mines!) to prove that they did provide the service based on what they said on the tin in a dispute situation. If they do not provide evidence - then they stand to lose the dispute.
Is that clear.

It dosent matter what the customer thinks, its to do with facts.

If they paid for the check and send service and got the check and send service, then the contract is complete.

All the trader will say is:
"We provide a check and send service. Please look at our website where we advertise in plain English what we provide. Please also look at our terms and conditions which the customer confirmed he/she read before paying for the service."

I think i must be on hpuse's ignore list as he seems to be ignoring all the points im making and questions im asking!

transient

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.

Wow, so you go from giving incorrect advise giving people false hope in getting their money back to actually advising them now to spend more money on a case they cannot win.

hpuse

transient wrote: »

Wow, so you go from giving incorrect advise giving people false hope in getting their money back to actually advising them now to spend more money on a case they cannot win.

Could you submit some evidence to your claim. i.e you say they cannot win if they took them to small claims ?

powerful_Rogue

hpuse wrote: »

Could you submit some evidence to your claim. i.e you say they cannot win if they took them to small claims ?

Balance of probabilities.

Customer did not read what they purchased.
Customer agreed to say they read the terms and conditions which the didnt.
Company is very upfront with the service they offer and costs (as per my picture a few posts above)
Company is legal and compliant with all UK laws.

Balance of probabilities in my opinion based on the above will go in favour of the company.

hpuse

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

It dosent matter what the customer thinks, its to do with facts.

If they paid for the check and send service and got the check and send service, then the contract is complete.

No, you are not ignored- you have a special place in this forum :-)

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

It dosent matter what the customer thinks, its to do with facts.

Completely agree with you there, PR.
In a dispute situation banks will have collated facts on their tables from both sides.
If the trader does not submit 'facts' or prove their side of facts- then they stand to lose out.

Re: T&Cs quoted by you on the particular site - please contact "wantmemoney" and request him to remove from the list.
He is the creator of the other thread. I don't think it makes sense for all of us to address each individual copycats in operation here. Hope you agree.
Have to sign off... see ya later in the evening.

shaun_from_Africa

hpuse wrote: »

I am still struggling to find where in the article it mention horse meat ad is non-complaint? As you correctly said, it is adjudicated as 'misleading', not non-complaint.

Here is the full ASA ruling on the advert.

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

On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

The ad "breached" the rules for advertising.
As I stated before, do you know what "breached" actually means?
It means that it did not comply with the laid down rules, therefore it was non compliant.

non·com·liance (nŏn′kəm-plī′əns)
n.
Failure or refusal to comply.

Do you get it now?
It breached the rules, therefore it was non-compliant with ASA requirements.
It's not rocket science. All you need to do is to be able to understand the meanings of two different words.

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

Relax. It is plain dead simple.
If a consumer thinks he got a service in turn what he paid for, then he will not open a dispute.

If he thinks he got ripped-off, then he can open a dispute.
OP addresses only those consumers.

Your OP clearly indicates that if you have used certain websites then you have been ripped-off.

Here is the first part of your OP

hpuse wrote: »

Here are some steps to follow if anyone ended up paying money 'by not reading t&c mistake' to any of the websites mentioned in this thread. Please do the following.

Here is the list of sites in the thread that you link to

UK-passport.net
Passport-uk.co.uk/
passports-uk.co.uk
Passportdirect.org.uk
Drivinglicence.uk.com
Drivinglicenceapplications.org.uk
Driving-licence-application.co.uk
Drivinglicences.org.uk
Europeanhealthcard.org.uk/apply-ehic-card-e111.org.uk
Nhs-e111-ehic.org.uk
Ehic-uk.org
Europeanhealth.org.uk
Landregistryservices.com
Land-reg.co.uk
Paylondoncongestion.co.uk
Paylondoncongestion.com
Taxreturngateway.com

Do you have evidence that the websites in that list rely on a customer not reading the T&Cs to buy something they don't want and do not clearly state what they are or offer?