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

imoneyop

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

What ban is that then? I have just searched for "Passport Renewal" and get the same ads at the top that are usually there.

I was going to post them, but the forum doesn't seem to like it, so you will have to take my word for it or search for yourself.

hpuse wrote: »

Now read your post/assertion :

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

It appears to be for you.

Google do not decide if something is legal/misleading or not. Any decision to block certain keywords is a commercial decision by them, unless the adverts or the thing they are advertising is illegal (which these websites are not).

hpuse

missprise & imoneyop

Get this statement below written straight into your heads(or brains?)

Google has banned all advertisements of passport, driving copycat websites that existed as of 02-March-2014.

What you are seeing ads are for new copycats.Needless to say, OP applies to all copycats.:rotfl:

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

Google has banned all advertisements of passport, driving copycat websites that existed as of 02-March-2014.

But that is not what you said originally is it.

hpuse wrote: »

Action: Google bans copycat website ads

No mention of it just being websites advertising prior to a certain date - you imply that all "copycat website" ads have been banned, when they clearly haven't.

hpuse wrote: »

Needless to say, OP applies to all copycats.:rotfl:

And is still therefore incorrect as the ASA and TS have not deemed all of these sites to be misleading or not complying with regulations.

Whatever Google have decided to do (if they've actually done it - yet again you have not provided a source for your statement, so we have to assume that you just made it up) they have done for commercial reasons and not legislative ones.

hpuse

imoneyop wrote: »

But that is not what you said originally is it.




No mention of it just being websites advertising prior to a certain date - you imply that all "copycat website" ads have been banned, when they clearly haven't.



And is still therefore incorrect as the ASA and TS have not deemed all of these sites to be misleading or not complying with regulations.

Whatever Google have decided to do (if they've actually done it - yet again you have not provided a source for your statement, so we have to assume that you just made it up) they have done for commercial reasons and not legislative ones.

Commercial reasons..all adword accounts closed at the same times..LOL!!
How long you will continue to defend them here ?. Are you not ashamed in front of a world that sees these copycats as evils to the society?

Accept it, Google have shut their doors to the conmen who operated copycat adword accounts.

However some conmen have found another way to sneak in to their ad servers. And for some reason immaturity makes you think google has given license to them again?? :rotfl:.

If you have some pressing reasons to defend copycat existence on google ad servers, admit it NOW, I will stop challenging your posts from now. :A.

hpuse

This has to be a BIG big laugh ....so hear it from me before you start reading ...l last laugh....HA HA HA HA

After several exchanges, his credit card company, Amazon, has agreed to refund the money under a law that protects customers if a service is never received.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10679845/Breakthrough-for-refunds-from-copycat-tax-return-website.html

hpuse

Pollycat, missprice, imanyop - anyone else who still think I should remove my OP ???

My post is a classic example of the a role that ridicule plays in a public forum....to protect and safe guard commercial interests!!!

hpuse

While I'm having a blast ....This thread is soon going to be not much interest for majority of posters here who were behind my back, worthlessly challenging every word of my post persuading to remove OP and assertions...

Come on ... make it live!!. I need the page count to touch 50 !!!

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

This has to be a BIG big laugh ....so hear it from me before you start reading ...l last laugh....HA HA HA HA

After several exchanges, his credit card company, Amazon, has agreed to refund the money under a law that protects customers if a service is never received.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10679845/Breakthrough-for-refunds-from-copycat-tax-return-website.html

Another irrelevant post as the majority of customers paying for the services being discussed in this thread received what they paid for.

Here are a few quotes that you probably ignored as they don't give the story you want to give.

Mr Wadsworth’s success appears to have hinged on cancelling the Taxreturngateway service and filing for self-assessment through official channels, on the same day as he used the website, leaving the copycat firm no opportunity to provide a “service”.

So, the company didn't provide the service.

Credit card providers take responsibility if a purchase costing between £100 and £30,000 is faulty or never arrives. This rule, called Section 75, applies if a service is paid for but never provided.

S75 won't apply to the passport/dvla sites as the amounts are under £100 - so there is no liability on the card provider.

A letter sent by Amazon said: “A credit for the transaction and any related fees will show on your next statement.” Taxreturngateway has 45 days to dispute this decision, it added.

I wonder what will happen in the next 45 days.

imoneyop

hpuse wrote: »

Pollycat, missprice, imanyop - anyone else who still think I should remove my OP ???

Yes as it is still full of inaccuracies and misinformation.

hpuse wrote: »

My post is a classic example of the a role that ridicule plays in a public forum....to protect and safe guard commercial interests!!!

You are certainly doing a good job of ridiculing someone - unfortunately it is yourself.

meer53

hpuse wrote: »

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.

No they don't.

Wrong again.