Avoid Passport Shyster Sites

Pollycat

naganalf wrote: »

Regulation 7(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:T:j

OK.
So maybe you'd like to take people through the steps you took to get your money back under this regulation.

You did get your money back, didn't you.....?

Do you have a link to the above regulation, btw?

zagfles

Pollycat wrote: »

OK.
So maybe you'd like to take people through the steps you took to get your money back under this regulation.

You did get your money back, didn't you.....?

Do you have a link to the above regulation, btw?

Google is your friend (unless you're a shyster site :rotfl:)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2083/regulation/7/made

Pollycat

OK then:

7. (1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language.
(2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under regulation 12.

So explain how stating smack in the middle of the home page - twice - that the company has no affiliation with HMPO is not expressed in plain, intelligible language.

Is it possible to legislate against stupidity?

zagfles

Pollycat wrote: »

OK then:

So explain how stating smack in the middle of the home page - twice - that the company has no affiliation with HMPO is not expressed in plain, intelligible language.

Is it possible to legislate against stupidity?

It's possible to legislate against people taking advantage of "stupidity" as you put it. Or putting it in a more PC way, people with learning difficulties, people with alzheimers, or people just being careless.

Ask yourself why these sites no longer appear when you do a google search. Why is that? If there is nothing wrong with them? If they're provide a genuine value added service? Surely the demand for the value-add is still there?

What percentage of people who used these sites do you think deliberately used them because they wanted the "value added" service they provide? As opposed to those who used them thinking they were the official site? That's what matters. Not pointing out "the wording on the site is blah blah, how could you not see that, aren't you stupid.. etc".

If the vast majority of people using them have been misled into thinking they are the official site, it become irrelavent as to why, except to people who want to look down their noses at them and sneer. I'm sure people said similar things about the Reader's Digest draw. Should have read the small print etc blah blah http://www.thinkjessica.com/jessicas-story.htm

Meanwhile, for the PP, see Martin's guide on the main site http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/copycat-websites

Pollycat

zagfles wrote: »

It's possible to legislate against people taking advantage of "stupidity" as you put it. Or putting it in a more PC way, people with learning difficulties, people with alzheimers, or people just being careless.

Would be interested to know how many of those people who used these websites - the ones that had a clear disclaimer that they weren't affiliated to the official website - were in any of the categories above.
My guess is that most were just too lazy or in too much of a rush to read things properly.
These people will also be the ones complaining that they ordered the wrong item or booked a flight to the wrong airport etc etc.

Ask yourself why these sites no longer appear when you do a google search. Why is that? If there is nothing wrong with them? If they're provide a genuine value added service? Surely the demand for the value-add is still there?

Because the government stepped in and asked/demanded that Google stop displaying these ads at the top of a search.....?
Nanny state anyone?

What percentage of people who used these sites do you think deliberately used them because they wanted the "value added" service they provide? As opposed to those who used them thinking they were the official site? That's what matters. Not pointing out "the wording on the site is blah blah, how could you not see that, aren't you stupid.. etc".

If I had used one of these websites, I would be kicking myself for not being careful enough.

If the vast majority of people using them have been misled into thinking they are the official site, it become irrelavent as to why, except to people who want to look down their noses at them and sneer. I'm sure people said similar things about the Reader's Digest draw. Should have read the small print etc blah blah http://www.thinkjessica.com/jessicas-story.htm

I'm still struggling to see how you can be 'misled into thinking they are the official site' when there are disclaimers and a link to the official website.
I'm not looking down my nose or sneering at them.
On other similar threads - when people have held their hands up and said 'Whoops! I messed up' - I've offered advice on how to get a refund (if the website offers it).

Very sad story about Jessica but hardly a comparison to what we're discussing here.
Her family tried - on many occasions - to stop her responding to scam letters but she refused to listen and even threatened to disown them.

And I've not said anyone should read 'the small print'.
These disclaimers are writ large.

Meanwhile, for the PP, see Martin's guide on the main site http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/copycat-websites

The guide makes it clear that these websites are not illegal - it refers to them as 'shyster'.

We can't call them scams, because scams are illegal. These sites aren't technically unlawful, though we think they should be. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) says it's not illegal for firms to charge for reviewing and forwarding services.

Which is why I posted this in response to naganalf:

Pollycat wrote: »

Is it really a scam if you say they are legally charging you?

These websites have learned that they need to be up-front that they are not affiliated to the official body - in this case HM Passport Office.
The link you've provided takes you to a page that states - at least twice - that they are not affiliated with HMPO.
They even provide a link to the official website and a comparison of the 'additional services' they offer.

How did you miss this?

Response in the body of your quote.

zagfles

Pollycat wrote: »

Originally Posted by zagfles
It's possible to legislate against people taking advantage of "stupidity" as you put it. Or putting it in a more PC way, people with learning difficulties, people with alzheimers, or people just being careless.

Would be interested to know how many of those people who used these websites - the ones that had a clear disclaimer that they weren't affiliated to the official website - were in any of the categories above.
You used the term "stupidity". You realise that "stupid" is a non PC synonym for "learning difficulties"? Like "cripple" or "flid" is a non-PC term for disabled?
My guess is that most were just too lazy or in too much of a rush to read things properly.
These people will also be the ones complaining that they ordered the wrong item or booked a flight to the wrong airport etc etc.
Ask yourself why these sites no longer appear when you do a google search. Why is that? If there is nothing wrong with them? If they're provide a genuine value added service? Surely the demand for the value-add is still there?

Because the government stepped in and asked/demanded that Google stop displaying these ads at the top of a search.....?
Nanny state anyone? Oh diddums. Don't you like it? Why not? Why do you care about whether these shyster sites exist or not, or appear in a google search? I can understand people ranting about "nanny state" when it prevents them doing something they want to do, like smoking cannabis, or forces them to do something they don't want to, like wear a helmet on a motorbike, or imposes rules on companies selling products/services supposedly to protect the customer but which reduces consumer choice, like preventing them moving a pension without advice, or the proposed ban on alcohol sales at under 50p per unit.

But anyone who wants to use a "value added" or shyster site still can. All "nanny state" has done is stepped in to hopefully make sure people don't mistakenly use such a site. What exactly is wrong with that?


What percentage of people who used these sites do you think deliberately used them because they wanted the "value added" service they provide? As opposed to those who used them thinking they were the official site? That's what matters. Not pointing out "the wording on the site is blah blah, how could you not see that, aren't you stupid.. etc".

If I had used one of these websites, I would be kicking myself for not being careful enough.

If the vast majority of people using them have been misled into thinking they are the official site, it become irrelavent as to why, except to people who want to look down their noses at them and sneer. I'm sure people said similar things about the Reader's Digest draw. Should have read the small print etc blah blah http://www.thinkjessica.com/jessicas-story.htm

I'm still struggling to see how you can be 'misled into thinking they are the official site' when there are disclaimers and a link to the official website.
I'm not looking down my nose or sneering at them.

On other similar threads - when people have held their hands up and said 'Whoops! I messed up' - I've offered advice on how to get a refund (if the website offers it).

Very sad story about Jessica but hardly a comparison to what we're discussing here.Oh really? I bet exactly the same people would have leapt to Reader's Digest's defence as post on that sad thread in the PVW board.
Her family tried - on many occasions - to stop her responding to scam letters but she refused to listen and even threatened to disown them.

And I've not said anyone should read 'the small print'.
These disclaimers are writ large.Try googling "invisible gorilla". If you know it's there, it's blatently obvious. If you don't you miss it. Half the people tested with the "invisible gorilla" test don't see what's right there in front of them.

Meanwhile, for the PP, see Martin's guide on the main site http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/fam...pycat-websites

The guide makes it clear that these websites are not illegal - it refers to them as 'shyster'.
Nor were Reader's Digest doing anything illegal.

Quote:
We can't call them scams, because scams are illegal. These sites aren't technically unlawful, though we think they should be. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) says it's not illegal for firms to charge for reviewing and forwarding services.
Yes. And? Google have done nothing illegal by removing them from the search :cool:

Which is why I posted this in response to naganalf:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pollycat

Is it really a scam if you say they are legally charging you?

These websites have learned that they need to be up-front that they are not affiliated to the official body - in this case HM Passport Office.
The link you've provided takes you to a page that states - at least twice - that they are not affiliated with HMPO.
They even provide a link to the official website and a comparison of the 'additional services' they offer.

How did you miss this?

The same way as people miss the gorilla.

Pollycat

You used the term "stupidity". You realise that "stupid" is a non PC synonym for "learning difficulties"? Like "cripple" or "flid" is a non-PC term for disabled?

I don't believe it is a non-non PC synonym for "learning difficulties".

I used it in the context that the dictionary defines it.
If you choose to read something else into it.......


If I'm referring to anyone with learning disabilities, I'll use that term or specific term e.g. dyslexic.

Oh diddums. Don't you like it? Why not? Why do you care about whether these shyster sites exist or not, or appear in a google search? I can understand people ranting about "nanny state" when it prevents them doing something they want to do, like smoking cannabis, or forces them to do something they don't want to, like wear a helmet on a motorbike, or imposes rules on companies selling products/services supposedly to protect the customer but which reduces consumer choice, like preventing them moving a pension without advice, or the proposed ban on alcohol sales at under 50p per unit.

Are you incapable of responding without being sarcastic or rude?
If you aren't, then there's no point continuing with this because I believe in the points I've made and presumably so do you so there is no way we are going to meet in the middle.
I don't care if these shyster (and it's good that you at least have used the right term, unlike naganalf) sites exist or appear in a Google search.

I'm just asking how come posters like naganalf missed 2 statements about non-affiliation and a button that takes you to the official website.

But anyone who wants to use a "value added" or shyster site still can. All "nanny state" has done is stepped in to hopefully make sure people don't mistakenly use such a site. What exactly is wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with that.
I was just answering your question about why the sites are no longer appearing at the top of a Google search.
I didn't realise you didn't expect an answer to that question.

Oh really? I bet exactly the same people would have leapt to Reader's Digest's defence as post on that sad thread in the PVW board.

I've no idea what you mean by this.

Using the Jessica/Reader's Digest story as an analogy is like comparing apples and elephants (or in your case, apples and gorillas).

Try googling "invisible gorilla". If you know it's there, it's blatently obvious. If you don't you miss it. Half the people tested with the "invisible gorilla" test don't see what's right there in front of them

I have no idea what the relevance of this is in relation to this thread.

Nor were Reader's Digest doing anything illegal.

As above, Reader's Digest has nothing at all to do with the websites discussed in this thread.

Yes. And? Google have done nothing illegal by removing them from the search :cool:

Did I say they had?

zagfles

Pollycat wrote: »

I don't believe it is a non-non PC synonym for "learning difficulties".

I used it in the context that the dictionary defines it.
If you choose to read something else into it.......


If I'm referring to anyone with learning disabilities, I'll use that term or specific term e.g. dyslexic.

"Learning difficulties" doesn't usually mean a specific disability like dyslexia. It can simply mean low IQ, lacking intelligence, just like "stupid" is defined.

Are you incapable of responding without being sarcastic or rude?

:rotfl:This from the person who implies other posters are "stupid"!!

If you aren't, then there's no point continuing with this because I believe in the points I've made and presumably so do you so there is no way we are going to meet in the middle.

Well, good way of backing out if you can't answer my points. You really can't see the connection between Jessica's Reader's Digest experience and shyster sites. You can't see the connection between people missing a dirty great gorilla in the middle of the screen to people missing a few words on a website.

Oh well. Good idea to leave now then I'd say. Ta ta.

Pollycat

zagfles wrote: »

Oh well. Good idea to leave now then I'd say. Ta ta.

ta ta.

I'll be back to comment when somebody else claims they've been had by a scam website (unlike a shyster website) and has missed several warnings that the website is not affiliated to the official website - not to mention missed the link to the official website.


As for comparing missing a 'dirty great gorilla' in the middle of a screen (an experiment as I understand it) to missing something on a screen when you are spending your own money - :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


I don't think you understand analogies.

bigbill1968

WelshDaf wrote: »

[EMAIL="complaints@britishpassportservices.org.uk"]complaints@britishpassportservices.org.uk[/EMAIL].

I filled in their application form in a panic (as I thought I would be unable to go on my holiday that I've booked for the 19th of August)

Just wondering if you managed to resolve the situation with british passport services or did you just ignore them??