We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Warning issued to motorists over copycat DVLA websites that charge a premium for services
Options
Comments
-
boobyd said:Pollycat said:TooManyPoints said:Well, if I ran an organisation where >70% of its income came from a compulsory subscription (where the payment of said sum was "encouraged" by the threat of criminal sanctions) who may or may not use its services, I don't think I'd be too concerned about where the other 30% came from. However, we digress somewhat.OK.If you don't agree with the BBC about removing posts because of the company you believe they are, how do you feel about MSE having the same stance?Guy Anker, MSE assistant editor recommends people report these posts - not just to Google but to Trading Standards too::If you have unwittingly paid for services you could have got for free or for less via official sources it's worth complaining to the company to see if it will provide you a refund. It's worth doing this as soon as you can in case it offers a cooling off period to cancel penalty-free.You can also report the incident to Trading Standards by calling the Citizens Advice consumer helpline on 03454 04 05 06, as well as to Google if you spotted an advert for the copycat site on the search engine - just use its online reporting tool.
It's been agreed they are shysters not scammers.
No one has said they act illegally ,so what do you report for?
They operate within the law? DVLA have warned about them but haven't said they are breaking the law.
Reporting on Google gives 4 options,the closet would be misrepresentation?FTR:I'm not the one saying they should be reported.The BBC and MSE (and one poster on this or another similar thread) are all saying these websites should be reported.0 -
The BBC and MSE (and one poster on this or another similar thread) are all saying these websites should be reported.
But the question remains, to whom and what for? There are lots of "rip-offs" all over the place (and that's all these sites are) covering all sorts of goods and services. People must assume responsibility for their own choices and actions. If you have a DL to renew among the first things to do is to find out, from the DVLA, how much it costs to do so via their channels. If you see the service offered somewhere else for four or five times the price and pay it, why should anybody protect you from making that choice? There's little difference in principle between this service and that offered by the Post Office to check your passport application. The only substantial difference is the premium charged. Are you suggesting that should be "reported" as well?
Nobody is being deceived; nobody is being charged a sum they don't agree to. It's clever marketing, that's all. The "victims" are the architects of their own downfall for not doing some very basic, elementary research which you should do before parting with any cash for anything unusual.2 -
TooManyPoints said:The BBC and MSE (and one poster on this or another similar thread) are all saying these websites should be reported.
But the question remains, to whom and what for? There are lots of "rip-offs" all over the place (and that's all these sites are) covering all sorts of goods and services. People must assume responsibility for their own choices and actions. If you have a DL to renew among the first things to do is to find out, from the DVLA, how much it costs to do so via their channels. If you see the service offered somewhere else for four or five times the price and pay it, why should anybody protect you from making that choice? There's little difference in principle between this service and that offered by the Post Office to check your passport application. The only substantial difference is the premium charged. Are you suggesting that should be "reported" as well?
Nobody is being deceived; nobody is being charged a sum they don't agree to. It's clever marketing, that's all. The "victims" are the architects of their own downfall for not doing some very basic, elementary research which you should do before parting with any cash for anything unusual.Sorry.I can't answer that question.Maybe address it to the people who are saying that these websites should be reported.FTR:I'm not suggesting anything about reporting these companies.In fact on another thread I was pretty clear that I wouldn't report these companies:Pollycat said:Regarding reporting, I would need to be 100% sure that a service wasn't value-add before I reported it, on the same basis as I wouldn't report anyone I suspected of benefit fraud. I would need to be 100% sure.Without looking at each website that pops up before GOV.UK to see exactly what they offer for the fee they charge, I can't say if they offer a value-add service or not.Perhaps DVLA should be doing that and getting the clever engineers at Google to remove them.I'm merely highlighting what the BBC and MSE say.I don't think I can make my position any clearer.1 -
Pollycat
I'm not questioning your position or comments.
The sites are legal, whilst reporting might highlight the issue nothing will change unless the DVLA etc do something
Eg On the envelope have in BOLD use GOV. UK, on the letter itself the same,
If after that then if the copy sites still get business then "you can lead a horse to water" but........
0 -
Pollycat said:TooManyPoints said:According to the BBC article, Google don't always close them:
Why should anybody close them? They are advertising a service, they make it clear they are not associated with the DVLA in any way and they make their fees perfectly clear. They are not deceiving anybody, they are not doing anything illegal and I would say there is nothing immoral in what they are doing. There is no basis for their forced closure whatsoever.
The BBC certainly think Google should close them.0 -
boobyd said:
The sites are legal, whilst reporting might highlight the issue nothing will change unless the DVLA etc do something
Eg On the envelope have in BOLD use GOV. UK, on the letter itself the same,
If after that then if the copy sites still get business then "you can lead a horse to water" but........
1 -
user1977 said:Pollycat said:TooManyPoints said:According to the BBC article, Google don't always close them:
Why should anybody close them? They are advertising a service, they make it clear they are not associated with the DVLA in any way and they make their fees perfectly clear. They are not deceiving anybody, they are not doing anything illegal and I would say there is nothing immoral in what they are doing. There is no basis for their forced closure whatsoever.
The BBC certainly think Google should close them.My mistake. I didn't mean closing down the companies.I should have said 'removed the ads'.0 -
Pollycat said:TooManyPoints said:According to the BBC article, Google don't always close them:
Why should anybody close them? They are advertising a service, they make it clear they are not associated with the DVLA in any way and they make their fees perfectly clear. They are not deceiving anybody, they are not doing anything illegal and I would say there is nothing immoral in what they are doing. There is no basis for their forced closure whatsoever.
The BBC certainly think Google should close them.
Nice moral high ground stance they have.Life in the slow lane1 -
AdrianC said:boobyd said:
The sites are legal, whilst reporting might highlight the issue nothing will change unless the DVLA etc do something
Eg On the envelope have in BOLD use GOV. UK, on the letter itself the same,
If after that then if the copy sites still get business then "you can lead a horse to water" but........0 -
born_again said:Pollycat said:TooManyPoints said:According to the BBC article, Google don't always close them:
Why should anybody close them? They are advertising a service, they make it clear they are not associated with the DVLA in any way and they make their fees perfectly clear. They are not deceiving anybody, they are not doing anything illegal and I would say there is nothing immoral in what they are doing. There is no basis for their forced closure whatsoever.
The BBC certainly think Google should close them.
Nice moral high ground stance they have.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards