Copycat Websites (Government Services)
Debate between Chris Evans and Eilidh WhitefordWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Evans
I agree with my hon. Friend. I raised the matter with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions last Wednesday. What tends to happen is that people’s personal information is sold to criminal gangs, which then use it for further scams and to rip people off.
Often, as we know, the services I have mentioned are free through official channels. I welcome the extra funding for the National Trading Standards Board that was announced recently, but I have to say that action on the issue has to date been painfully slow. Copycat websites are taking money, through unfair means, from every MP’s constituents, yet in most cases the companies that trick people are doing so legally. It is not just that the sites are able to charge a reviewing and forwarding fee that in most cases is not actually required; many also charge an administration fee, which is not quoted until it is too late to back out of the transaction.
Perhaps most worrying of all, as my hon. Friend said, is the potential for identity theft. The sites collect all sorts of personal data. No one really knows what they do with the information, but there is the potential to sell it to criminal gangs.
In my constituency a gentlemen called Mr Tom Williams was recently tricked into paying an extra £40 for a tax disc. Like many people across the country who have been caught out by such websites, Mr Williams looked at the design of the site, which looked like an official Government site. It ranked highly on search engines, which also suggested that it was an official Government site, and it seemed to be a professional and effective service. Only later did Mr Williams realise that he had paid significantly more than he needed to for his tax disc. His case is not an isolated incident.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I have had constituents caught by precisely the same DVLA scam. Like him, I have been frustrated by the slow pace of change and the almost complacent attitude of the Office of Fair Trading to the implications of this issue.
Chris Evans
I absolutely agree. The worst aspect of the DVLA scam is that people need a tax disc. It worries me that, as we move away from the traditional tax disc to a system of paying by direct debit, people could perhaps be scammed monthly, and pay over the odds every single month, because websites will be getting residual income every time.
Research conducted by Ipsos MORI for the Advertising Standards Agency found that the features that are important to people in deciding whether a site is official include the general design, the look and feel, the text describing the service and—perhaps most tellingly—the presence of a professional logo. Most, if not all, copycat websites are designed to look as much as possible like Government sites. They use text that describes services that sound official and many have logos that make them look like they are representing the Government.
On Sunday I checked one such site, europeanhealthcard. org.uk. It carries a picture of a European health insurance card front and centre, and describes itself as “a registered institution” that guarantees
“genuine service and complete secrecy about your personal information”.
It promises
“a full and comprehensive review of your application and forwarding within the mentioned time-period”
and states that it will
“make sure that all your details are filled in properly, without any typographical mistakes”
and ensure that
“all the necessary information is presented in the application form for a speedy delivery.”
However, hidden in the terms and conditions of the site, it is made clear that the company is unable to do anything to ensure a “speedy delivery” and that it will not accept any liability if data are spoiled.
In effect, the company promises a service that it is unable to deliver. It promises to help with people’s applications and to keep their data safe, but its terms and conditions make it clear that none of that is guaranteed. Even in the event that personal health information is lost or misplaced, the company claims that it has absolutely no liability. It is fair to say that if a website charges for a free Government service, such as the European health insurance card, but does not guarantee anything it claims to be able to do, it is not offering a fair price. That site is just one example of websites designed to have the look and feel of Government sites; they promise a professional, effective service for a fair price but, when looked into, provide anything but that.
I could give examples of many more websites that act in that manner and make every effort allowed within the law to trick people out of money. What is more telling is the silence of such companies. Many do not have contact numbers available online and are registered to post office boxes. As for those who do list contact numbers, my staff have contacted them but so far have faced a wall of silence, and have been unable to speak to anyone involved with corporate affairs. They have never been allowed past the operator. That is not just our experience. When newspapers have launched investigations, they have found it impossible to get in contact with the operators of copycat websites. It seems that, when faced with scrutiny, the companies that run such sites shut them down. I invite anyone running any of those companies who wishes to defend themselves to get in contact with me personally. I am more than happy to hear what they have to say.
We need concrete action to tackle copycat websites, to deal not just with their presence online but with the companies and people behind them. Since receiving extra funding six months ago, Trading Standards has taken action against a small number of copycat websites and has posted a new web page with guidance. But Ipsos MORI research for the Advertising Standards Agency has shown that people with the lowest levels of online literacy are the most at risk of being tricked by the sites. An online guide will do little to help those people avoid paying over the odds for Government services.
I welcome the decision by Google, working in conjunction with the Government, not to take advertising from a website once it has been identified as a copycat. That is a step in the right direction, as most of the websites pay for adverts that are often placed above the official Government website in search results. However, it takes time to work out whether sites paying for such adverts are indeed copycat websites. As we know, the internet moves far more quickly than Government or, indeed, society.
Although the regulatory agencies try to keep people safe from copycat websites, their actions are limited by the law. I accept that no regulation should make it difficult for legitimate companies to operate, but can anyone really claim that the tactics pursued by copycat websites are anything less than unfair? I fear we are heading towards the same situation that we faced with nuisance calls, when it took years for relevant legislation to be updated.
Earlier this year, amendment 69 to the Consumer Rights Bill would have made it unfair behaviour for a consumer to be mis-sold a service on what they believed was an official site. At the time, the Government argued that the amendment was not necessary—that they were working with search engines and regulatory agencies and that that would stop misleading websites. Since then, five people have been arrested in connection with copycat websites, and 25 sites have been shut down. Those figures are woefully low.
In January this year, The Mail on Sunday reported that a trading standards investigation and enforcement manager had told it that it was “extremely difficult” for trading standards to take action against most copycat websites. The investigation found that many people who ran copycat websites used multiple addresses and registered offices to confound trading standards. Even when the people behind schemes are identified and caught, most are found to have done nothing against the law.
It is time for the Government to look again at the legislation on copycat websites. Although trading standards staff are working to the best of their capacity to tackle these websites, they are dealing with a fast-moving world, and once one website is shut down, another is set up almost immediately under another name. While progress is slow, the least digitally engaged—often older and more vulnerable people—are being tricked into spending more of their hard-earned money than necessary. That cannot be allowed to continue.
I would like to see a three-pronged attack on copycat websites. First, there should be prevention. Transport for London already writes to anyone who has paid the congestion charge through a third-party website informing them that they have done so, and it is also consulting on a proposal to ban payment of the congestion charge through such websites. That is a good idea, which the Government should take on board. In addition, when someone is reminded by letter that they need to renew their TV licence or car tax, they should be alerted to the existence of copycat websites and directed to sites with addresses that end in .gov.uk.
Secondly, there should be regulation. When people are stung by copycat websites, there should be only one agency that they can complain to. At the moment, it can be one of three: the Advertising Standards Authority, trading standards or the Office of Fair Trading. There should one number and one website.
Thirdly, there should be legislation. The Government should look again at the Consumer Rights Bill and the amendment that I mentioned. Where someone believes that they are using an official website, but they are being tricked, there should be some remedy in law and some way for them to be compensated for their loss.
Much has been done in this area, but there is still much more to do. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on these proposals and finally put a stop to people being ripped off online.