Xann Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 Renewing UK driving licence. Redirected for payment. Payment via Redsys/Santander Merchant: DVLA (ESPAÑA) Is that right? Santander did take over a lot of banking here. Are DVLA payments administered in Spain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted June 23, 2019 Author Share Posted June 23, 2019 Interesting. Misleading first option in search engine. It's a service, a sly one too. Cheeky, but not illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted June 23, 2019 Administrator Share Posted June 23, 2019 With only bullet points it's hard to comment. Sounds like fraud though (specifically obtaining a money transfer by deception). I'm not sure this goes in the Tech Room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted June 23, 2019 Author Share Posted June 23, 2019 1 minute ago, limpid said: I'm not sure this goes in the Tech Room. Nearly dropped it in OT General Chat, but supposed it was IT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted June 23, 2019 Administrator Share Posted June 23, 2019 Just now, Xann said: Nearly dropped it in OT General Chat, but supposed it was IT? It would definitely be off topic in the general thread because I think it's about something specific. I still don't know what it's about though. Did you click a sponsored link by mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted June 23, 2019 Author Share Posted June 23, 2019 26 minutes ago, limpid said: I still don't know what it's about though. Did you click a sponsored link by mistake? Yarp - It exactly matched the search string, which the .GOV really didn't - Which I guess is the angle? It's .co.uk, so I've moaned at them. If I don't like the answer? I'll forward it to the ICO to add to their naughty score, even if it's technically legal? Learned a few things today. Already knew I was a div 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykeyb Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 I have a mate who had similar thing when renewing his passport. The charge was for checking it and not renewing. He complained to his credit card company who basically said it was his fault and there was nothing he could do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted June 25, 2019 Administrator Share Posted June 25, 2019 5 hours ago, mykeyb said: I have a mate who had similar thing when renewing his passport. The charge was for checking it and not renewing. He complained to his credit card company who basically said it was his fault and there was nothing he could do. Just because the credit card company said "tough" makes no difference to the legality. Either it was deceptive or it wasn't. Trading standards might be interested. Personally, I don't click on Google search results with "Ad" next to them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykeyb Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 2 hours ago, limpid said: Just because the credit card company said "tough" makes no difference to the legality. Either it was deceptive or it wasn't. Trading standards might be interested. Personally, I don't click on Google search results with "Ad" next to them. Deceptive? Well he is intelligent and it came top of the Google search so it's a paid ad. He might have used a debit card, cannot remember to be honest but I am pretty sure that he got nowhere with his complaint to bank/CC and I think he complained to the company direct. In answer I think it's deceptive an meant to be so but not sure how trading standards would tackle it if they are offering the service they advertise however deceptively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted June 26, 2019 Administrator Share Posted June 26, 2019 8 hours ago, mykeyb said: Deceptive? Well he is intelligent and it came top of the Google search so it's a paid ad. He might have used a debit card, cannot remember to be honest but I am pretty sure that he got nowhere with his complaint to bank/CC and I think he complained to the company direct. In answer I think it's deceptive an meant to be so but not sure how trading standards would tackle it if they are offering the service they advertise however deceptively. Obtaining a money transfer by deception is an offence under the Theft Act. Does your mate have legal advice bundled with an insurance offering? A quick chat with a solicitor will inform whether there is a case to be answered (which could be brought via the Small Claims process}. They probably know they'd lose, but people tend to be embarrassed that they were conned. Ads are clearly marked in Google search results - if this was marked as an "ad" on something you wouldn't expect to be advertised then I think that alone would be an adequate defence on their part as they had paid to put their link at the top of the results to offer their service. It's not like anyone is hiding that they are offering a paid service. It's really down to whether your mate is happy to write off the amount. Or perhaps consider it a learning exercise to be aware when you click an ad in search results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted June 26, 2019 Author Share Posted June 26, 2019 2 hours ago, limpid said: Ads are clearly marked in Google search results - if this was marked as an "ad" on something you wouldn't expect to be advertised then I think that alone would be an adequate defence on their part as they had paid to put their link at the top of the results to offer their service. It's not like anyone is hiding that they are offering a paid service. You can see from the payment details above that they're trying to make out that they're the DVLA. The site is actually better to navigate, and it wasn't a scattershot of synonyms that caught he attention of the search. The options were clear and concise. Obviously a lot of searches will net a con or three, Google will have difficulties policing everything. Though I DID expect Google to be sharper on business related to official documentation. Lesson learned there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted June 26, 2019 Moderator Share Posted June 26, 2019 3 hours ago, Xann said: I DID expect Google to... That's where you maybe went wrong. Don't trust the buggers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted June 26, 2019 Administrator Share Posted June 26, 2019 1 hour ago, blandy said: That's where you maybe went wrong. Don't trust the buggers. They do at least make clear when a search result is an Ad. Going by the posters on this thread, they don't think it's unlawful - so why would Google do anything either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted June 26, 2019 Moderator Share Posted June 26, 2019 1 hour ago, limpid said: why would Google do anything either? Exactly my point. Laissez faire tech companies - Facebook, Google etc....."why should we raise a finger, unless we're made to act. we're just gonna take the money from the ads, thanks all the same. Fat dumb and happy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted June 26, 2019 Administrator Share Posted June 26, 2019 41 minutes ago, blandy said: Exactly my point. Laissez faire tech companies - Facebook, Google etc....."why should we raise a finger, unless we're made to act. we're just gonna take the money from the ads, thanks all the same. Fat dumb and happy" Is that your point? People can't be bothered to take action when someone acts illegally therefore Google or Facebook should protect them from themselves? Isn't that government's job? Google are probably culpable in this too. I'm not sure that putting a tiny little text indicator of "Ad" is enough to say that they aren't part of the deception. But unless a case is brought, nothing will change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted June 26, 2019 Moderator Share Posted June 26, 2019 1 hour ago, limpid said: Is that your point? ...Google are probably culpable in this too. I'm not sure that putting a tiny little text indicator of "Ad" is enough to say that they aren't part of the deception. But unless a case is brought, nothing will change. The second line is my point, Simon. Don't trust them, because exactly as we've both said, unless forced by law, they won't look after their users interests. They sell advertising and people's data to make their money. Clamping down on exploitation of people works against their bottom line, so unless compelled, they'll do now't. With all of them in different ways, legally avoiding tax by setting up in Luxembourg, or Ireland or wherever, or hosting dodgy links, material, videos, whatever, they do harm as well as make out lives, mostly easier or more shiny. Facebook, Google, Apple, Samsung, Twitter and all the rest - they're all at it one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted June 26, 2019 Administrator Share Posted June 26, 2019 2 minutes ago, blandy said: The second line is my point, Simon. Don't trust them, because exactly as we've both said, unless forced by law, they won't look after their users interests. They sell advertising and people's data to make their money. Clamping down on exploitation of people works against their bottom line, so unless compelled, they'll do now't. With all of them in different ways, legally avoiding tax by setting up in Luxembourg, or Ireland or wherever, or hosting dodgy links, material, videos, whatever, they do harm as well as make out lives, mostly easier or more shiny. Facebook, Google, Apple, Samsung, Twitter and all the rest - they're all at it one way or another. But unless someone forces the posters here to do something about it, then neither will they. I guess I don't get the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted June 26, 2019 Moderator Share Posted June 26, 2019 1 minute ago, limpid said: But unless someone forces the posters here to do something about it, then neither will they. I guess I don't get the difference. The difference for me is that Google (in this example) make money from it, and the posters lose money from it. They lose the money because they trust (I think) Google to come up with the "right" answer to their search. Yes "caveat emptor" but google could if they so wished put the Government genuine site at the top of the results. They choose not to, for money. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted June 26, 2019 Administrator Share Posted June 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, blandy said: The difference for me is that Google (in this example) make money from it, and the posters lose money from it. They lose the money because they trust (I think) Google to come up with the "right" answer to their search. Yes "caveat emptor" but google could if they so wished put the Government genuine site at the top of the results. They choose not to, for money. Ah, gotcha. Just the money angle then. I don't want a government run (or manipulated) search engine so it's got to be funded somehow. When something is given to you for free, you are the product. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted June 26, 2019 Moderator Share Posted June 26, 2019 3 hours ago, limpid said: When something is given to you for free, you are the product. Amen, Brother 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts