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

hpuse

RosiPossum wrote: »

Hpuse,
What would a consumer do to show that they had been misled?

All the customer has to prove is

a) Did not receive the service he paid for
b) Trader was unwilling to help or refund the money.

Reason for a) & b) is being mislead during the sales/ads stages. Leave it to authorities to sort that out, it is not a customers or banks problem.

meer53

hpuse wrote: »

All the customer has to prove is

a) Did not receive the service he paid for
b) Trader was unwilling to help or refund the money.

Reason for a) & b) is being mislead during the sales/ads stages. Leave it to authorities to sort that out, it is not a customers or banks problem.

You've changed your tune somewhat :eek:

Your OP strongly advised customers to go to their bank for help in getting a refund !

Make your mind up :rotfl:

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

a) Did not receive the service he paid for

This is the only situation where your advice actually has a chance of working. If the customer paid for a service and did not recieve it then if the company won't refund, the banks should do.

However, in the vast majority of cases, the customer will have got what they paid for.

hpuse wrote: »

b) Trader was unwilling to help or refund the money.

Unless point a) applies then any refund from the trader is down to goodwill.

transient

hpuse wrote: »

All the customer has to prove is

a) Did not receive the service he paid for
b) Trader was unwilling to help or refund the money.

Reason for a) & b) is being mislead during the sales/ads stages. Leave it to authorities to sort that out, it is not a customers or banks problem.

Wow 45 pages he has had in saying it is down to the banks and disputes sections, you havent a clue hpuse have you, just make it up as you go along. When you find out others are right then you say no more about it and find something else to argue about

hpuse

meer53 wrote: »

[/B]

You've changed your tune somewhat :eek:

Your OP strongly advised customers to go to their bank for help in getting a refund !

Make your mind up :rotfl:

Make up what?

Yes, OP very strongly advises to enter a dispute with the bank.
This is because the customer did not get what he paid for at the point of sale. Point of sale (i.e website) has an advertisement that says "application for a passport". That is the misleading bit. Gosh!...Is it till difficult for you to understand ?

meer53

hpuse wrote: »

Make up what?

Yes, OP very strongly advises to enter a dispute with the bank.
This is because the customer did not get what he paid for at the point of sale. Point of sale (i.e website) has an advertisement that says "application for a passport". That is the misleading bit. Gosh!...Is it till difficult for you to understand ?

So... let me get this straight...you say that this is not the banks problem, but you advise consumers to go to their bank for help ?

I'll say it again ....... THERE IS NO CHARGBACK RIGHT FOR BEING MISLED (I'll be in the Guiness Book of Records soon)

Gosh ! You really do need help.

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

Point of sale (i.e website) has an advertisement that says "application for a passport". That is the misleading bit.

The ASA and TS would appear to disagree that it is misleading as the websites haven't all been shut down and aren't all appearing on the list of non-compliant websites that was posted before - some were asked to amend their advertising to ensure they are compliant and have done so.

hpuse

transient wrote: »

Wow 45 pages he has had in saying it is down to the banks and disputes sections, you havent a clue hpuse have you, just make it up as you go along. When you find out others are right then you say no more about it and find something else to argue about

Transient, banks authorise transactions on behalf of customer.
It is customers money - not banks money!

If the money authorised did not yield, they are equally responsible.
Is that difficult for you to understand?

Now go back and read OP.

Banks do take into account re: misleading factor. Misleading was on the advertisement that lured customer into buying. If there was no advertisement, then there was no sale.

hpuse

imoneyop wrote: »

The ASA and TS would appear to disagree that it is misleading as the websites haven't all been shut down and aren't all appearing on the list of non-compliant websites that was posted before - some were asked to amend their advertising to ensure they are compliant and have done so.

Fact: ASA and TS are government agencies
News : Google UK work with government agencies to tackle copycat websites

Action: Google bans copycat website ads

Now read your post/assertion :

The ASA and TS would appear to disagree that it is misleading as the websites haven't all been shut down and

Question : Are all the above difficult to understand, imoneyop??

missprice

hpuse wrote: »

Fact: ASA and TS are government agencies
News : Google UK work with government agencies to tackle copycat websites

Action: Google bans copycat website ads

Now read your post/assertion :

Question : Are all the above difficult to understand, imoneyop??

Google has not banned the ads, they are still there as was told to you yesterday.