With the government moving to online services and ‘digital by default’, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group (LITRG) wants to see clearer markings used to identify official government websites, to prevent the public from being misled into using unofficial websites that charge for services which are otherwise offered for free or at lower cost
LITRG says the government’s approach has been accompanied by a rise in companies offering additional or similar online services for a fee, such as those that offer facilities for submitting self assessment tax returns.
While these ‘unofficial’ providers may believe they are offering additional value that justifies their charges, the group says members of the public often complain of feeling misled into believing they were dealing with either the official government website or a site endorsed or authorised by the government. It wants a clear, visible ‘kitemark’ displayed next to the official websites in search engine results
Anthony Thomas, LITRG chairman, said: ‘We welcome recent attempts by Google and other search engines, in conjunction with various government departments, to ensure that official sites are more prominent in search results. The launch of the StartatGOV.UK campaign advising people to use GOV.UK to search for government services is another positive development.
'Yet we remain concerned that neither presents a complete solution to the problem for the millions of people who continue to use search engines to find information.
‘Although some of these third party sites include statements confirming they are not part of the government, the use of colours, look and feel of the site and other wording sometimes suggest otherwise. Often they will stop short of copying the official names and logos, making it difficult for government departments to take legal action.
'Indeed, some of these third party sites may genuinely be adding value to the official government services or offering additional services to those offered by government, so whether a site is misleading may not be clear-cut.’
LITRG says that having a kitemark for official online services would make the situation much clearer for users, since they would know immediately whether or not a particular site was the official government one, regardless of whether that particular service retains a separate site outside GOV.UK, what other advertising is on a page or where the site appears in the results.
It would also be easier to challenge unofficial sites which are designed to mimic official government services, since any unauthorised attempts to use the kitemark could be dealt with under copyright rules.
