Complaint Review: WCCL Network

My wife received a parking ticket from the City of Westminster that she thought was unfair. She wanted to get the ticket reversed - legally - and asked for my help. I did a Google search and found the http://www.beatparkingticket.co.uk/ website. The site promised, in a big green box, "Try out the secrets inside this guide for a whole three months, ABSOLUTELY RISK-FREE! If the guide doesn't help you to successfully appeal at least ONE ticket during that time, or if you're not thrilled in any way, just return it after that period and we'll refund every penny you paid. NO QUESTIONS ASKED."

What did I have to lose?

I paid for the guide (via PayPal). Initially I had some problems even receiving the guide --- a PDF file. Alan, at MyHelpHub.com, was of assistance in this regard. Finally received the PDF file, but then couldn't open it --- password protected. Again Alan to the rescue.

When I finally opened and read the PDF file it was, in my opinion, fairly useless. It contained nothing more than you'd find doing a Google search. And some of the statements in the guide are just not supported (as far as I could tell) by relevant Acts or regulations.

For example, the guide indicates (page 17 and 18) that a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) must contain the make and colour of the vehicle, the date and time when the contravention occurred, and the date and time when the ticket was issued, and must be signed by the parking attendant. The PCN my wife received does not comply with this list: make and colour of vehicle not shown, PCN not signed.

How could the City of Westminster not know this?

The guide does not give the citation for this list of requirements. I spent half an hour searching the various road traffic acts and regulations looking for this list, but couldn't find it. I pointed Alan to this and even to a link for The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007. He did not address this point.

Instead he said that I must wait three months (but not more than four) for my refund. "Ah, ha!" I thought. That's the business plan. In my view they produce something that is poorly written but keeps them out of trouble with Trading Standards, and then they hold on to customers' money for three months.

I discovered, from Alan, that you can't have a refund until three months have passed --- according to Alan "this helps to cut back on fraudulent refund requests, and also allows a reasonable amount of time for someone to use the guide to successfully appeal at least one parking ticket."

So you need to request the refund after three months, but within four months.

So the WCCL Network has the interest-free use of your money for three months. And I'm sure a surprising percentage of people just forget to re-request the refund after three months, but before four months. I was determined not to be one of these people, so carefully logged this in my Outlook calendar.

Once the three months had passed I was back on the MyHelpHub website (half expecting it to no longer be there) --- and asked Alan for my refund.

Alan replied by saying "I hope life is treating you well!"

And he said, "of course, I'd be very happy to refund you - no problem at all! :) However, can I kindly ask that you send to myself copies of the letters you sent to your local force, alongside the replies they sent to you? This helps us build a better product, and validate your refund request. Sorry for the inconvenience, and I really appreciate your time on this!"

Huh?

What's with the "no questions asked?"

Why would I be the least bit interested in helping them to "build a better product?" In my estimation their guide is rubbish, and the only way it could be improved would be to start over, from scratch, and write a decent guide with relevant citations.

I have again written to Alan via MyHelpHub.com. In the meantime I did a prowl for the WCCL Network and I found this website. How depressing that I didn't find this before I placed my order?

I must say, in Alan's defence, that he does reply promptly, and his replies do not seem to be pre-packaged.

If their business model is to hold money for three months, and hope that a percentage of customers will not request a refund during the three-to-four month window, then that's fine. I guess. But by now not giving me my refund they are starting to cross the line between sharp business practices and ones which might well be illegal.

In his "Official Rebuttal" Karl Moore makes the point, "We also *always* honour any refund guarantees made on our sites. The idea that we don't is simply crazy. If any site promised a refund in such open terms as ourselves, the credit card company would simply reverse the transaction. Simple. So would SWREG. Or PayPal. And before long, our accounts would be suspended."

Here's a Catch-22. You can only open a dispute with PayPal within 45 days of the original transaction. So by making customers wait three months, WCCL is safely past the PayPal threshold for complaints.

So the fact that PayPal hasn't suspended the WCCL account --- at least not yet --- means nothing.

I have taken Karl up on his offer to deal with my refund request personally. I've sent him an e-mail, with his name in the body of the message to bypass his spam filter. And I've provided him with the details of my transaction -- PayPal receipt CC11259915-CO12624466-MHH9730. It will be interesting to see if Karl responds, as he says (above) that he will. And interesting to see if he issues the "no questions asked" refund that I've requested.

I will, of course, post an update here.

Craig ****
Worcester
United Kingdom