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

peachyprice

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.

But these aren't rogue traders or con men, they're trading quite legitimately so have nothing to lose by responding. Something else you fail to mention.

wealdroam

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.

Despite saying you were going to answer the question, you have made no attempt to do so.

Let me remind you.
The question was:

RosiPossum wrote: »

...how is the consumer going to show that they were misled?

Your attempt at a reply just raises another question.
How does the consumer prove that he did not get the service he paid for?

Please don't avoid these important points Hpuse.
You have already told us you role is to help these consumers.

meer53

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:

Bit of a moot point really, because there aren't going to be any chargebacks. THERE IS NO CHARGEBACK RIGHT FOR BEING MISLED.

The banks will advise people who have used these websites that they can't help them.

How many more times do we have to say this ?

Pollycat

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:

Now that hpuse has introduced the above nonsense into the discussion, here's something that blows his stupid idea that the trader will not respond to any 'chargeback defence request letter' into outer space:

This is a reply from one of these companies received by a poster on another thread after she wrote and told them she would be taking them to court:

We will be defending our position in full and will provide the relevant evidence which shows how clear our service is stated on our homepage and throughout the website, we will also provide screenshot evidence of the terms and conditions and the no refund policy which you had agreed to before proceeding and then submitting your application with ourselves.

If a company is so bullish as to reply in that vein, is hpuse really so deluded to believe that they will not refute any chargeback claim? :rotfl:

This is the thread I took the quote from:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64688425#Comment_64688425

Unlike hpuse, I am happy to show the source of my quotes.

bod1467

This thread is going round in circles - it's time for it to be laid to rest.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Another rip off Hpuse could get stuck in the mud in!!!!

lovesgshp wrote: »

Wish mine only cost £72.50. Had a UK passport for about 50 years, but because I now live in Italy, it costs £128.00, plus £19.86 for courier fees to renew. We have just renewed 2 in the last few years.
They have just changed from Paris renewal centre to the UK, but price has not gone down.

These rip offs are everywhere!!

And it is up to £154.

And it is on the UK Government website

https://www.gov.uk/overseas-passports/y/italy/renewing_new/adult

Another rip off government website!!

Pollycat

bod1467 wrote: »

This thread is going round in circles - it's time for it to be laid to rest.

It might be going round in circles but at least anyone reading further than the first post should be able to realise that the information posted by hpuse is unlikely to be helpful.

gik

There should be a limit to how much you can edit a post, whether it's by time or number. The OP has been edited multiple times yet still is hotchpotch of nonsense.

RosiPossum

hpuse wrote: »

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

Yet you're not answering mine? What can the consumer show the bank that would show they were misled?

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

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

No, I can't prove they will defend themselves.

It is simply not possible, not with my crystal ball anyway, to prove future events will happen.

But I can be reasonably sure they will... for the reasons I have already stated.

The post by Pollycat at 08:08am reinforces that view.