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

hpuse

peachyprice wrote: »

Let's get this straight, you admit that the only way anyone following your advice is going to get any money back from their bank is by relying on the trader not replying to the request for evidence from their bank?

@peachy, et all

Let me put that words in another format for you.

If the trader relies on the consumer NOT to read T&C's to get away with sale,
Why can't the consumer rely on the trader NOT to open up, READ and respond to chargeback defence request letter from the bank.

Would you say that is 'unfair' to the trader? :rotfl:

powerful_Rogue

hpuse wrote: »

@peachy, et all

Let me put that words in another format for you.

If the trader relies on the consumer NOT to read T&C's to get away with sale,
Why can't the consumer rely on the trader NOT to open up, READ and respond to chargeback defence request letter from the bank.

Would you say that is 'unfair' to the trader? :rotfl:

You keep talking about customers not reading the t&c's (despite them confirming they have before they can make the purchase), but its more about people not reading what they are buying at all.



How much more obvious could it be?! Again, hpuse, is the above misleading?

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

@peachy, et all

Let me put that words in another format for you.

If the trader relies on the consumer NOT to read T&C's to get away with sale,
Why can't the consumer rely on the trader NOT to open up, READ and respond to chargeback defence request letter from the bank.

Would you say that is 'unfair' to the trader? :rotfl:

Of course the allegedly wronged consumer can rely on the trader to not produce a defence against a chargeback.

Of course the rogue trader will submit a defence against the chargeback claim.
They would be silly not to... and one thing is for sure... they are not silly.

hpuse

wealdroam wrote: »

That's a very good question you are asking RosiPossum.

If fact, I'm pretty sure that falls under Hpuse's self imposed remit:


I am sure that when Hpuse sees it he will answer that fully.

Let me answer that for you:

Bank will give an opportunity to the consumer to prove that he did not get the service he paid for.

One of the key reason for the above is he purchased a service that is misleading by nature. Nature of this misleading trade is already in the public domain and with authorities - which may or may not be considered by the bank. I can't comment on that.

hpuse

wealdroam wrote: »

Of course the allegedly wronged consumer can rely on the trader to not produce a defence against a chargeback.

Of course the rogue trader will submit a defence against the chargeback claim.
They would be silly not to... and one thing is for sure... they are not silly.

@wealdroam

Hope you don't mind me adopting you own style in questioning your assertion:

Of course the rogue trader will submit a defence against the chargeback claim.

Could you please prove and refer the above comment that can be verified from a source?

peachyprice

hpuse wrote: »

@peachy, et all

Let me put that words in another format for you.

If the trader relies on the consumer NOT to read T&C's to get away with sale,
Why can't the consumer rely on the trader NOT to open up, READ and respond to chargeback defence request letter from the bank.

Would you say that is 'unfair' to the trader? :rotfl:

So you do admit that the only chance anyone has is IF (and it's a big IF) a trader doesn't respond to a chargeback information request, if it weren't so pathetic it would be hilarious.

You do realise that the only reason these people are in business is to make money, so why on earth do you think that they would ignore something that is going to lose them money?

Oh, and yet another thing you forgot to mention, even if by some slim chance they don't respond to a request for information and one of your followers does manage to get a chargeback, as soon as the trader realises the money has been taken from their account they can have it reversed.

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

@wealdroam

Hope you don't mind me adopting you own style in questioning your assertion:

Could you please prove and refer the above comment that can be verified from a source?

Can you not understand that if one of these rogue traders is accused of wrong doing, then they are going to defend themselves?

just read a few of the posts here where people have had chargeback requests declined.
They were almost certainly declined because the rogue trader pointed out that they had done nothing illegal.

RosiPossum

hpuse wrote: »

Let me answer that for you:

Bank will give an opportunity to the consumer to prove that he did not get the service he paid for.

One of the key reason for the above is he purchased a service that is misleading by nature. Nature of this misleading trade is already in the public domain and with authorities - which may or may not be considered by the bank. I can't comment on that.

That didn't answer the question at all.
What can the consumer show that proves they were mislead, other than saying I clicked on the first button I saw rather than read the part of the site that is plain to see?

Even the official site has information to read before clicking apply, so you can see if there is anything precluding you from using their online service.

hpuse

wealdroam wrote: »

Can you not understand that if one of these rogue traders is accused of wrong doing, then they are going to defend themselves?

just read a few of the posts here where people have had chargeback requests declined.
They were almost certainly declined because the rogue trader pointed out that they had done nothing illegal.

@wealdrom
You still did not answer the question, can you prove your assertion that trader will always respond to bank's letters.

Let me give you a tip : A seasoned rogue trader-conman will always be reluctant to put something in writing.

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

@wealdrom
You still did not answer the question, can you prove your assertion that trader will always respond to bank's letters.

Let me give you a tip : A seasoned rogue trader-conman will always be reluctant to put something in writing.

Shame that nobody is dealing with a rogue trader conman then.

These are legal businesses, operating within the law and not 'conning' people out of money. Rather, they have a cunning business model whereby they provide a form-filling 'service'.

Now we KNOW that not all the customers who buy the service may not realise what they are buying but they are NOT dealing with conmen.

This is why Action Fraud aren't interested.
This is why Trading Standards aren't interested.