Sounds like fraud to me. Charge for something similar to what you're already billing and hope people don't notice.
Around where I live, courts decide differently based on the nature of the enterprise. If a company gets an invoice and pays up, they basically agreed to the charge. That's because companies are expected to understand and check invoices. For private individuals, if they pay an invoice and only later realize that they didn't in fact wanted to pay, the contract that came into being based on their payment can be annulled. And in some cases it leads to charges of fraud. That's not to say that companies can't be illegally defrauded, just that the bars are higher.
In the .uk case, this means companies would have to make sure they didn't pay. But consumers could in fact claim they were tricked and demand restitution even after paying. I don't know how such cases are handled in the UK however.
In any case: Transfer your .co.uk to a reputable registrar. Don't do business with outfits who pull shit like this.
Don't forget to complain about their transfer out fee first. After years of 123-reg marketing "never any transfer out fees" they silently introduced one about 5 years ago. Then seemed surprised when the internet was unimpressed.
Who do people recommend for alternative UK/global registrars? Security is high up my list of priorities, and Cloudflare looks great, but doesn't offer .co.uk domains currently.
I'm pissed at Sky (UK broadband provider) because they started charging us for a service I never used and cannot use and never agreed to (Free Weekend Talk - I don't even have a non-mobile phone!) - it used to be free then all of a sudden it wasn't and there was an "opt out" and it was charged automatically by direct debit and my bank cannot help because (presumably) they "notified" me. It's a small amount (and thus harder to notice on the monthly bank account balance) but I wonder what would happen if they offered medical insurance (which, again, I don't need), first for free and then they changed it to £500/month and "notified" me (but usually I disregard these kinds of letters because they're not important, just spam).
Well, I'm really angry at my bank. I'm probably switching to one of the new, digital ones, either Monzo or Starling. Old incompetent banks are the best advertisement the newcomers could ever get.
Your bank most certainly can help - the Direct Debit Guarantee is very clear that "If an error is made in the payment of your Direct Debit, by the organisation or your bank or building society, you are entitled to a full and immediate refund of the amount paid from your bank or building society" - it doesn't matter if the bank believe Sky notified you, they are the ones bound by the guarantee to refund. That doesn't stop Sky from sending you a separate bill for the service, but your bank MUST refund immediately if you ask them.
Be persistant, and if they still refuse, use the secret magic words: "So is that the banks final stance on this request, or is there another level you need to escalate my complaint to before I can contact the ombudsman?"
They will likely get away with it, despite straddling a number of dark patterns ranging from 'sneaking it into the basket' to 'forced continuity'. They will probably get a slap on the wrist by claiming that they did inform the user at sign-up to opt-out etc. and display some faux remorse. The tactics are tried and perfected and not so dissimilar from the range of dirty tricks deployed by GoDaddy; which is hardly surprising considering that both registrars accused of shady practices, share the same parent.
I agree that there is no need to use immoral registrars these days ─ Gandi has a section, which advises on upfront costs of creation, renewal etc. and is also one of the most reputable registrars in the business.
> But, rather than seek to persuade their customers why they should pay for two .uk domains instead of one, they have simply stuck those domains on auto-renew.
None of the .uk tld's that were registered on my behalf are set to auto-renew (and I have quite a few .co.uk - and thus .uk - domains too).
Reading past the El Reg's hyperbolic writing style, I suspect what's actually happening here is they were set to not auto-renew unless the customer started altering the settings of the .uk tld. Since I left them alone, they'll just expire. It's still a frustrating anti-pattern and worth reporting on but not the literal scam El Reg are reporting it as.
Did you read the comment section? There're examples therein of people confirming the practice, as too at least one person on HN here.
El Reg's house style is very much love it or loathe it, but I think it's unfair to accuse them of being misrepresentative. The Reg has been one of my daily go-to websites since the early 00s purely because I find it trustworthy and not wont to sit in the pockets of the industry it reports on.
There wasn't any other comments when I typed mine.
> El Reg's house style is very much love it or loathe it, but I think it's unfair to accuse them of being misrepresentative.
Why? They have been on other occasions and their writing style is intentionally designed to be exaggerative.
> The Reg has been one of my daily go-to websites since the early 00s purely because I find it trustworthy and not wont to sit in the pockets of the industry it reports on.
I've found in their effort not to "sit in the pockets of the industry" they're bias has shifted too far to the other side where they too quick to pass judgement. Combined with their inflammatory tones, it creates a feeling reminiscent of those armchair critics that claim everything is shit while failing to appreciate the detail of the problem.
That's curious. I'd read the Register article before it was posted here and there were comments to that effect - did you too read it before it was posted on HN?
Their writing style is intended to be a bit tabloid in its reading, sure, but i've always figured that's to make otherwise dry reading a bit more engaging. The sum of their analysis is essentially on point. Their cousin, The Inquirer, by contrast is probably less 'exaggerative' as you put, it but is painful to wade through.
As I say - it's a love it or loathe it rag but I don't see them as being overly negative, except where due. I suppose the tone does encourage armchair critics in the comments sections, but then their comments section is second only to HN, I feel, for worthwhile input from people who Know Their Shit.
> That's curious. I'd read the Register article before it was posted here and there were comments to that effect - did you too read it before it was posted on HN?
Sorry, I was talking about HN comments. To be honest I didn't even realise El Reg had a comments section (though I wouldn't have read them anyway - HN is the only site's comments I read)
> As I say - it's a love it or loathe it rag but I don't see them as being overly negative, except where due.
Their comments regarding OpenSSL weren't. Back when Heartbleed was announced El Reg were heavily critical (as many people were) but they then ratchet up the tone by recommending people use other, largely unproven, cryptography libraries. They've also reported other vulnerabilities as being disastrous - using the same language as they did for Heardbleed and ShellShock - but for vulnerabilities that are purely theoretical and extremely difficult, impractical or even out of scope for 99.999% of consumer devices. El Reg have often been amongst the worst for misrepresenting the real world implications for vulnerability announcements and that's entirely down to the tabloid nature of their reporting.
Even if they're not on auto-renew they will start sending you scary emails 90 days before expiry, warning about loss of service etc. Unless you're really sure what you're doing you're not going to ignore those.
This affair is also bad for any people who would actually like to use .uk domain names: in many cases where the current owner of foo.co.uk doesn't want foo.uk it's effectively increased the period for which the name is reserved from five to seven years (or more if the current owner drops the ball and lets the scummy registrars get away with the autorenew).
I have a .me.uk domain, and I'd like the .uk. I attempted to register it, and I was charged, but then refunded a few days later. It's currently pointing to a 123-Reg parking page.
As much as I dislike 123-reg, they weren't the only ones who did the 'auto-registration' thing. I don't feel like dropping my registrar in it but they did the same (only it was at the end of the .uk reservation period - I gained 2 domain names, both of which ought to belong to clients of mine). I haven't ever checked if they set them to auto-renew in fairness, my account settings are to NEVER auto-renew so I suspect they followed that.
The problem is that (like many non-profits) it's being run by people who see the world the way for-profit companies do, and think that it's their job to maximise their surplus rather than act as stewards of the .uk namespace.
So you see the chairman's statement in the annual report saying
« In addition to pursuing organic growth, we have a prudent approach to possible acquisitions and investments that will accelerate our strategy and lay the foundations for future growth. »
even though there's nothing in the company's official objectives that says growth is an aim.
We were told that because we had a .co.uk domain with 123-reg, we would get a .uk domain for free for two years. I think there was an option to opt-out but we got the domain.
So clearly emails didn't go out to all customers, customer didn't read the emails or forgot about them.
123-Reg would send a 30 days to renewal email and 7 days to renewal email, maybe they were not sent this time?
31 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 13.8 ms ] threadAround where I live, courts decide differently based on the nature of the enterprise. If a company gets an invoice and pays up, they basically agreed to the charge. That's because companies are expected to understand and check invoices. For private individuals, if they pay an invoice and only later realize that they didn't in fact wanted to pay, the contract that came into being based on their payment can be annulled. And in some cases it leads to charges of fraud. That's not to say that companies can't be illegally defrauded, just that the bars are higher.
In the .uk case, this means companies would have to make sure they didn't pay. But consumers could in fact claim they were tricked and demand restitution even after paying. I don't know how such cases are handled in the UK however.
In any case: Transfer your .co.uk to a reputable registrar. Don't do business with outfits who pull shit like this.
[0] https://www.gandi.net/en/no-bullshit
I was checking on OVH website if they do .co.uk (they do) and found out they also do .uk
https://www.ovh.co.uk/domains/dotuk.xml
It will take a while longer before major companies want to use the .uk domain in preference to the .co.uk.
I'm pissed at Sky (UK broadband provider) because they started charging us for a service I never used and cannot use and never agreed to (Free Weekend Talk - I don't even have a non-mobile phone!) - it used to be free then all of a sudden it wasn't and there was an "opt out" and it was charged automatically by direct debit and my bank cannot help because (presumably) they "notified" me. It's a small amount (and thus harder to notice on the monthly bank account balance) but I wonder what would happen if they offered medical insurance (which, again, I don't need), first for free and then they changed it to £500/month and "notified" me (but usually I disregard these kinds of letters because they're not important, just spam).
Well, I'm really angry at my bank. I'm probably switching to one of the new, digital ones, either Monzo or Starling. Old incompetent banks are the best advertisement the newcomers could ever get.
Be persistant, and if they still refuse, use the secret magic words: "So is that the banks final stance on this request, or is there another level you need to escalate my complaint to before I can contact the ombudsman?"
I agree that there is no need to use immoral registrars these days ─ Gandi has a section, which advises on upfront costs of creation, renewal etc. and is also one of the most reputable registrars in the business.
https://www.gandi.net/en/domain/tld
None of the .uk tld's that were registered on my behalf are set to auto-renew (and I have quite a few .co.uk - and thus .uk - domains too).
Reading past the El Reg's hyperbolic writing style, I suspect what's actually happening here is they were set to not auto-renew unless the customer started altering the settings of the .uk tld. Since I left them alone, they'll just expire. It's still a frustrating anti-pattern and worth reporting on but not the literal scam El Reg are reporting it as.
El Reg's house style is very much love it or loathe it, but I think it's unfair to accuse them of being misrepresentative. The Reg has been one of my daily go-to websites since the early 00s purely because I find it trustworthy and not wont to sit in the pockets of the industry it reports on.
There wasn't any other comments when I typed mine.
> El Reg's house style is very much love it or loathe it, but I think it's unfair to accuse them of being misrepresentative.
Why? They have been on other occasions and their writing style is intentionally designed to be exaggerative.
> The Reg has been one of my daily go-to websites since the early 00s purely because I find it trustworthy and not wont to sit in the pockets of the industry it reports on.
I've found in their effort not to "sit in the pockets of the industry" they're bias has shifted too far to the other side where they too quick to pass judgement. Combined with their inflammatory tones, it creates a feeling reminiscent of those armchair critics that claim everything is shit while failing to appreciate the detail of the problem.
Their writing style is intended to be a bit tabloid in its reading, sure, but i've always figured that's to make otherwise dry reading a bit more engaging. The sum of their analysis is essentially on point. Their cousin, The Inquirer, by contrast is probably less 'exaggerative' as you put, it but is painful to wade through.
As I say - it's a love it or loathe it rag but I don't see them as being overly negative, except where due. I suppose the tone does encourage armchair critics in the comments sections, but then their comments section is second only to HN, I feel, for worthwhile input from people who Know Their Shit.
Sorry, I was talking about HN comments. To be honest I didn't even realise El Reg had a comments section (though I wouldn't have read them anyway - HN is the only site's comments I read)
> As I say - it's a love it or loathe it rag but I don't see them as being overly negative, except where due.
Their comments regarding OpenSSL weren't. Back when Heartbleed was announced El Reg were heavily critical (as many people were) but they then ratchet up the tone by recommending people use other, largely unproven, cryptography libraries. They've also reported other vulnerabilities as being disastrous - using the same language as they did for Heardbleed and ShellShock - but for vulnerabilities that are purely theoretical and extremely difficult, impractical or even out of scope for 99.999% of consumer devices. El Reg have often been amongst the worst for misrepresenting the real world implications for vulnerability announcements and that's entirely down to the tabloid nature of their reporting.
And ICANT should clampdown of some of the dodgy stuff they allow crappy registrars.
I have a .me.uk domain, and I'd like the .uk. I attempted to register it, and I was charged, but then refunded a few days later. It's currently pointing to a 123-Reg parking page.
The problem is that (like many non-profits) it's being run by people who see the world the way for-profit companies do, and think that it's their job to maximise their surplus rather than act as stewards of the .uk namespace.
So you see the chairman's statement in the annual report saying « In addition to pursuing organic growth, we have a prudent approach to possible acquisitions and investments that will accelerate our strategy and lay the foundations for future growth. »
even though there's nothing in the company's official objectives that says growth is an aim.
So clearly emails didn't go out to all customers, customer didn't read the emails or forgot about them.
123-Reg would send a 30 days to renewal email and 7 days to renewal email, maybe they were not sent this time?