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

Truepat

While I am generally in the camp that there is an onus on people to inform themselves there is a general rule that nobody can legislate for stupidity.

What they should do is force the sites to place a disclaimer on a high contrast background so that it appears on the page when viewed at a resolution 1024x768.

Until then people have to take responsibility for their own mistakes.

hpuse

meer53 wrote: »

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.

@meer53

Next time when you start replying to my post please "read" and understand the difference between a "dispute", a "chargeback" and circumstances that lead to issue of a "refund" into customers account.

In this instance of copy-cat websites trading online, the account holder is the authority that initiates a dispute.

Now read my post#1. No where in the post I am using the word charge back. I know its easy for people to jump into conclusion reading the title, but hey, that is exactly what is happening with these copy-cat government websites too..

I certainly understand the 'agony' that is coming out form various posters for the poor chap who lost £69 for "not reading". All my post#1 is doing to help him attempt to recover the same. It does not guarantee a refund, that is why it says "steps to take", as you read it...

Please understand and keep your "emotions" out while reading my post. Otherwise its pointless replying to yours and majority of others postings, they are nothing but ramblings....

Re: Misrepresentation, Atleast understand this much. It does not go away simply by using "disclaimers".
Service represented here is not for a "passport application". They are simply authorised to handle personal informaiton for a fee of £69 on top of passport fee.

gb12345

hpuse wrote: »

In this instance of copy-cat websites trading online, the account holder is the authority that initiates a dispute.

Yet more garbage.

On what basis is the account holder initiating the "dispute" and if they aren't hoping to get a chargeback, what is the point in initiating a "dispute"?

hpuse

gb12345 wrote: »

Yet more garbage.

On what basis is the account holder initiating the "dispute" and if they aren't hoping to get a chargeback, what is the point in initiating a "dispute"?

So basically your 'non-garbaged' 'views' says a consumer is not allowed to keep even "hopes" for a service that was misrepresented and bought online?

Oh no, I can't believe I am typing a reply for "this". Do you plan to bring more fun on a friday here:rotfl:

gb12345

hpuse wrote: »

So basically your 'non-garbaged' 'views' says a consumer is not allowed to keep even "hopes" for a service that was misrepresented and bought online?

And now we're back on the misrepresentation crap - what was misrepresented?

Have you raised a dispute with your bank for the money that you lost to one of these sites?

Here is a comment from another thread from someone who did

chiefnoobie wrote: »

I phoned up retail dispute and they said that they are a legit company but they deal with hundreds of complaints from them every week.

No dispute raised for him.

RuthnJasper

It's beyond me why people fall for these sites. I've looked at quite a few and they do seem to state pretty clearly what they are and are not. Maybe it's just me...:o

Can't believe this thread has run to five pages either; how many times does the OP have to be told that he is wrong?! :wall::wall:

Moreover; are dannny and hpuse one and the same person...? :think:

Slowhand

RuthnJasper wrote: »

It's beyond me why people fall for these sites. I've looked at quite a few and they do seem to state pretty clearly what they are and are not. Maybe it's just me...:o

Some will not take personal responsibility for their own mistakes. The blame will always lie elsewhere. These sites as a whole are clear on what they offer from what I can see. Overpriced I accept...but they are not unique in that in the market place.

Slowhand

hpuse wrote: »

So basically your 'non-garbaged' 'views' says a consumer is not allowed to keep even "hopes" for a service that was misrepresented and bought online?

Oh no, I can't believe I am typing a reply for "this". Do you plan to bring more fun on a friday here:rotfl:

Are you planning any more nonsensical posts? Like this for example? :-

hpuse wrote: »

....It's very difficult to get that message get into people head, and they will happing ever repeat "read" "read", always "read" mantra here.:D

Have you not embarrassed yourself enough?

hpuse

Slowhand wrote: »

Are you planning any more nonsensical posts? Like this for example? :-



Have you not embarrassed yourself enough?

Why bother reading and replying if they are 'non-sensical':rotfl:

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

Why bother reading...

So we're back to reading.

Hpuse it is always a good idea to read things before deciding what action to take.

I thought you had got that message... apparently not.