Yet Another Land Registry Scammer

CKhalvashi

As above, they're obviously a legitimate company as they have provided you what you paid for.

I can't have a complaint against Tesco (other supermarkets are available) because a tin of beans are more expensive than Aldi (again, other supermarkets are available). This is effectively what you are doing.

naedanger

user1977 said:

planckfund said:

you're not getting it --- actually they are attempting to misrepresent themselves as being mcdonalds themselves supplying you with their burgers  - when in fact they are buying them as third parties and selling them on with a markup-----this means that you will not have a contractual relationship with MdDonalds and, for example, if you get food poisoning, you will not be able to sue McDonalds because they never sold you anything, only rinky dinky morally-challenged Stephen Olliver.. This is misrepresentation.  

I can't see how you're disadvantaged in that way - the information they're providing is genuinely from the Land Registry, and it makes no difference to the Land Registry's warranty whether that info is gained via a third party or not.

Did you read his post? They were tricked into paying £79 for something that was available for £3.

I think the technical term is "passing off" and in my view it doesn't say much for the goverment's commitment to consumer protection that they are permitting companies do it to the government's own websites.

CKhalvashi

naedanger said:

user1977 said:

planckfund said:

you're not getting it --- actually they are attempting to misrepresent themselves as being mcdonalds themselves supplying you with their burgers  - when in fact they are buying them as third parties and selling them on with a markup-----this means that you will not have a contractual relationship with MdDonalds and, for example, if you get food poisoning, you will not be able to sue McDonalds because they never sold you anything, only rinky dinky morally-challenged Stephen Olliver.. This is misrepresentation.  

I can't see how you're disadvantaged in that way - the information they're providing is genuinely from the Land Registry, and it makes no difference to the Land Registry's warranty whether that info is gained via a third party or not.

Did you read his post? They were tricked into paying £79 for something that was available for £3.

I think the technical term is "passing off" and in my view it doesn't say much for the goverment's commitment to consumer protection that they are permitting companies do it to the government's own websites.

They weren't though. The OP said themselves that the website states it's a limited company, who will check the application and send it to the LR on behalf of the OP. This is what OP has paid £76 for them to do.

Is it any different in reality to the Post Office 'check and send' service I used for my passport application about 6 years ago before everything went online? They had a quick browse of the form and sent my form to HMPO for IIRC £11, as they were paid to do.

user1977

naedanger said:

user1977 said:

planckfund said:

you're not getting it --- actually they are attempting to misrepresent themselves as being mcdonalds themselves supplying you with their burgers  - when in fact they are buying them as third parties and selling them on with a markup-----this means that you will not have a contractual relationship with MdDonalds and, for example, if you get food poisoning, you will not be able to sue McDonalds because they never sold you anything, only rinky dinky morally-challenged Stephen Olliver.. This is misrepresentation.  

I can't see how you're disadvantaged in that way - the information they're providing is genuinely from the Land Registry, and it makes no difference to the Land Registry's warranty whether that info is gained via a third party or not.

Did you read his post? They were tricked into paying £79 for something that was available for £3.

Yes, I was replying to the OP's concern about the quality of the item supplied rather than the fact it's overpriced. They're still getting an identical product. 

naedanger

user1977 said:

naedanger said:

user1977 said:

planckfund said:

you're not getting it --- actually they are attempting to misrepresent themselves as being mcdonalds themselves supplying you with their burgers  - when in fact they are buying them as third parties and selling them on with a markup-----this means that you will not have a contractual relationship with MdDonalds and, for example, if you get food poisoning, you will not be able to sue McDonalds because they never sold you anything, only rinky dinky morally-challenged Stephen Olliver.. This is misrepresentation.  

I can't see how you're disadvantaged in that way - the information they're providing is genuinely from the Land Registry, and it makes no difference to the Land Registry's warranty whether that info is gained via a third party or not.

Did you read his post? They were tricked into paying £79 for something that was available for £3.

Yes, I was replying to the OP's concern about the quality of the item supplied rather than the fact it's overpriced. They're still getting an identical product. 

So you were just ignoring the first half of his post on the markup and misrepretation. 

naedanger

CKhalvashi said:

naedanger said:

user1977 said:

planckfund said:

you're not getting it --- actually they are attempting to misrepresent themselves as being mcdonalds themselves supplying you with their burgers  - when in fact they are buying them as third parties and selling them on with a markup-----this means that you will not have a contractual relationship with MdDonalds and, for example, if you get food poisoning, you will not be able to sue McDonalds because they never sold you anything, only rinky dinky morally-challenged Stephen Olliver.. This is misrepresentation.  

I can't see how you're disadvantaged in that way - the information they're providing is genuinely from the Land Registry, and it makes no difference to the Land Registry's warranty whether that info is gained via a third party or not.

Did you read his post? They were tricked into paying £79 for something that was available for £3.

I think the technical term is "passing off" and in my view it doesn't say much for the goverment's commitment to consumer protection that they are permitting companies do it to the government's own websites.

They weren't though. The OP said themselves that the website states it's a limited company, who will check the application and send it to the LR on behalf of the OP. This is what OP has paid £76 for them to do.

Is it any different in reality to the Post Office 'check and send' service I used for my passport application about 6 years ago before everything went online? They had a quick browse of the form and sent my form to HMPO for IIRC £11, as they were paid to do.

Do you honestly believe that? The post office is actually providing a useful service and you knew exactly what you were paying and what you got in return.

Do you really, honestly think this company isn't relying on the bulk of their clients not realising they are just an expensive middleman?

74jax

The website clearly states :

Our Services

Our online services are available to the general public, commercial, professional and public organisations throughout the day and night, 7 days a week. We aim to provide a fluid and simple process, leading the way with online property document provision, to help streamline conveyancing processes and make access to property title documents more simple for the property professional or home owner. We are an independent supplier of conveyancing searches and are not affiliated with the UK Government or HM Land Registry.

This is in exactly the same size text as the rest of the page.  

In the middle of the first page, not tucked away at the bottom, you have to read this to move below to read what all the plans give you. 

To me it's perfectly clear they are offering a service and you pay for that service. 

babyblade41

oops someone has been a silly billy !!!

mcpitman

planckfund said:

you're not getting it --- actually they are attempting to misrepresent themselves as being mcdonalds themselves supplying you with their burgers  - when in fact they are buying them as third parties and selling them on with a markup-----this means that you will not have a contractual relationship with MdDonalds and, for example, if you get food poisoning, you will not be able to sue McDonalds because they never sold you anything, only rinky dinky morally-challenged Stephen Olliver.. This is misrepresentation.  

Could I introduce you to Just Eats, Uber Eats and Deliveroo?

They will bring you a Mcdonalds meal for a small charge, slightly more than the main store will charge.

The experience you have had is no different to the PPI firms that were knocking about, charging fools for something they can do themselves.

jimbog

When I was in Morocco I felt really pleased with myself in haggling a market trader down to £5 from £15 for a statue. Lo and behold didn't my partner come back later from the same market having got it for £3. I had been ripped off! I was mad but what really had changed? I got the statue for the price I was originally very happy with