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

meer53

This is from your link Hpuse :

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.

Where does it say "misleading" ?

hpuse

meer53 wrote: »

This is from your link Hpuse :

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.

Where does it say "misleading" ?

@meer53

I suggest you to write a letter to the dispute department you work.

In the letter, clearly request them to to explain how disputes are handled.

They will explain you...lol ! :rotfl:

meer53

hpuse wrote: »

@meer53

I suggest you to write a letter to the dispute department you work.

In the letter, clearly request them to to explain how disputes are handled.

They will explain you...lol ! :rotfl:

Why is it that in every post after someone has shown you how wrong you are (again) you never answer the question ?

Please answer my question.

Where does it say in the Telegraph article that the bank was disputing the transaction because the customer was misled ?

shaun_from_Africa

meer53 wrote: »

Why is it that in every post after someone has shown you how wrong you are (again) you never answer the question ?

I'm still waiting for hpuse to explain how in one post he considers that the "copycat" websites are legal and trading legally

hpuse wrote: »

, I know for a fact that these companies are legal.
But they are also at the 'verge' of breaking the rules, laws and regulations.

but when asked if he knows what legal actually means, he replies with this:

hpuse wrote: »

Great!
There is also another post of mine which details the difference between existing legally as an entity and trading legally. They both are not entirely same.

Correct. Both are not entirely the same, but as you clearly stated that the companies in question are legal and that they are only "at the verge" of breaking the law (ie, not actually breaking it), what do you think these companies are doing wrong?
And remember, for your reply to have any merit, it must take into account the fact that the companies concerned are existing legally and trading legally (which means that they are not breaking any UK laws).

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.

But they are getting the service they paid for and the company can prove that. Also immaterial whether they are unwilling or helping in processing a refund, they are under no obligation to So stop talking 5hit

transient

hpuse wrote: »

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.

They are not defending them, they are merely pointing out where you continue to make untruthful statements you portray as fact

hpuse

Banks are processing refunds.
Copycatism is being tackled at government level...

So the earth you are standing is widening and be soon falling apart meer53.....so if I were you, I think that there is no time better to escape !! :rotfl:

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

Banks are processing refunds.

Where did you get that information from?

Valli

Much amused by long term posters being 'outed' as trolls.

Just for the record just because someone disgrees with you it doesn't make them a troll.

Still I suppose it makes a change from accusing them of working for the companies.

This thread has become a joke now - thanks to the OPs repeated returns to his OP to re-edit and re-edit and to his apparent inability to decide what, exactly, he means. As confusing, in fact, as the sites he purports to despise. And, possibly, an influx of AEs.

Time it was closed, methinks.

gik

I refuse to let hpuse...