BBC Watchdog

Vauxhall Insignia

Elham Rizi — Thu, 03 May 2012 19:00:00 +0000

One of Vauxhall's top-selling cars, The Insignia, was launched in 2008 and crowned European Car of the Year just one year later.

However, if you're unlucky, the car could lose power while you are steering, flammable fluid could leak into your engine and, according to some experts, your car could even burst into flames. Chris Hollins reports...

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

Martin Webb bought his new Vauxhall Insignia in April 2010. By May 2011, the £21,000 vehicle's engine had caught fire when Martin was driving to Dorset for a weekend away. He was only notified when a car pulled alongside him and told him that there were flames coming out the back of the car. Martin and his wife got out of the car just as the fire had taken hold. He explains: "There were two or maybe even three large bangs which could have been the tyres because a lot of the car was actually melted to the pavement. If the fire brigade had been two more minutes, there would have been nothing left."

Although Martin and his wife were badly shaken, neither were hurt. The car, on the other hand, was a write-off. So what was it that caused Martin's Insignia to burst into flames so dramatically? He says the reason given by Vauxhall over the phone was that the pipe on the power steering had come off and the fluid had dropped onto the diesel particulate filter and ignited, as the diesel particulate filter gets very hot.

Vauxhall later commissioned a forensic report. It didn't find the exact cause of the fire, but said that it was fluid based. It ruled out fuel or oil, and it also appeared to support the theory that power assisted steering fluid had escaped, causing the blaze. The report identified staining on the heat shield of the diesel particulate filter - the device that removes soot from the exhaust.

Car expert, John Dabek explains that power steering fluid is an hydraulic oil, and like any oil it is combustible: "Power steering fluid is delivered under pressure through the pipework that this is located quite close to the exhaust system. If this was to fail, fluid could find its way into the exhaust system. Depending on how hot that part of the exhaust system gets, you run a risk of this vehicle catching fire."

As Martin's car was a diesel, it means that if there was any leakage of hydraulic oil, pressurised from this pipe then it could find its way on to the exhaust system which contains the diesel particulate filter - which according to John Dabek is arguably the hottest part of the exhaust system, which means the effects of that could be quite serious indeed.

Vauxhall now say their own investigations have ruled out this possibility, and that no fault was found with the high pressure hose or fittings, but they also say the cause of the fire remains unknown.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vauxhall have also identified a fault in some other Insignia models, which according to some experts, could result in fire.

And how do we know that? We got our hands on what Vauxhall refers to as a 'Technical Service Bulletin'. It's a document that Vauxhall distributes internally to mechanics when something has gone wrong with one of their vehicles and a part needs replacing. The report that we have, which is dated October 2011, refers to the pipe that carries the power steering fluid and it's pretty clear: the power steering pressure pipe might crack/leak. The remedy? Replace the Power Steering Pressure Pipe and Clip. The cause? Insufficient design.

So what could be the consequences of failing to remedy this 'insufficient design'? According to John Dabek, there's a potential situation where you can have a failure of a power steering pipe under pressure, meaning that drivers could lose power assistance to their steering, which is could be quite serious. There is also the potential for power assisted steering fluid to spray onto the hot part of the exhaust, the diesel particulate filter, that can cause smoke - and in the worst case, could cause a fire.

However, Vauxhall say that if power steering fluid does escape from a pipe, it will leak out slowly, rather than be sprayed across the engine. But how reassuring is that?

Automotive engineer, Mark Brown, explains: "This fluid is highly flammable, and its presence on the engine in any form is dangerous. A leak once started can, and usually does, worsen of its own volition owing to the nature of the reason the leak starts in the first place - so even a slow leak presents a serious fire hazard."

Vauxhall says the fault affects 6,900 vehicles, all manufactured in Germany between 2009 and 2010, and they told us it cannot state categorically that no fluid would, under any circumstances, come into contact with a part of the engine where a fire could potentially result. But: it's recalled none of the affected vehicles. Instead, the fault is being fixed only when owners put them in for service.

Mark Brown highlights that there are two potential hazards here caused by one fault; the first is the leakage of power steering fluid that could lead to a loss of power steering assistance which may or may not be rapid or sudden depending on the level of leakage. The second is the fact that because there is a significant risk of fire from the leakage of any power steering fluid which is flammable, this makes it a safety issue which needs to be sorted immediately. "If they don't," states Mark, "they're leaving owners in danger."

John Dabek also flags up that Vauxhall have known about this for some time: "They've not been proactive. In fact, they've been putting it right on the quiet when the vehicles have been in for servicing. That's not good enough. They should find the vehicles affected, bring them in by issuing a recall and then getting them properly sorted."

COMPANY RESPONSE

Martin Webb's vehicle is not in the range of vehicles is impacted by the service action. There is no evidence of a connection between the fire and the power steering system service action.

Vauxhall has no record of the content of the alleged telephone call to Mr Webb. The initial response to Mr Webb following an inspection of his complete vehicle was that there could have been a potential low pressure fluid leak but this was not necessarily directed at the steering system. Subsequent expert inspection of individual components, including the high pressure hose, concluded that there was no fault with the high pressure hose or fittings. The cause of this fire remains unknown.

Vauxhall takes every incident of a vehicle fire very seriously; each case is thoroughly investigated together with specialists and insurance companies to determine the root cause and consequently, ensure the continuing safety of its vehicles. This is a complicated task, many individual root causes are possible - customer misuse, incorrect vehicle repair, electrical systems, fuel systems, mechanical friction or other external influences.

Vauxhall currently have a Service Action in effect in the UK on 6,900 Insignia Diesel Vehicles built in Model Years 2009 and 2010. The service action was to deal with a slow leak from the power steering pipe joint and is not safety related either in terms of rapid loss of steering assistance or fire. There are no instances where the slow leak has resulted in a vehicle fire. The decision to handle this as a service update minimises the inconvenience to customers. The service action refers only to diesel-engined vehicles, petrol-engined vehicles are not affected.

None of the vehicles within the service action range that has been inspected has either exhibited a leak or shown other than a slow leak of fluid even though the system is pressurised. There is also no evidence that movement of or within the engine has caused the leak to worsen or spread.
Vauxhall cannot state categorically that no fluid would, under any circumstances, come into contact with a part of the engine where a fire could potentially result.

Should fluid leak from the joint specified in the service action, it would do so slowly. The reservoir containing the fluid (under atmospheric pressure) is relatively large and any persistent leak from this reservoir would become evident - either on the ground or at the point of the vehicle being serviced. Power assistance would only be lost when the reservoir is empty. Even at this point the driver would only lose assistance and not steering control. Evidence of loss of assistance would be most noticeable at parking speeds and up to 15-20mph. Above this speed the steering would be 'heavier', akin to a manually steered car without power assisted steering.

To date c63% (of a total of 6,900) of the vehicles in the range have been reworked with the new pipe.
If customers have any concerns about their vehicle, Vauxhall is always happy to arrange for an inspection at a local Vauxhall retailer. Customers who may wish to ascertain whether their Insignia is the subject of the service action should contact their local retailer who can advise if their vehicle is within the range and if so, whether or not it has already been reworked.

Vauxhall Customer Care telephone number: 0844 369 0112

Vauxhall retailer locations can be found at: www.vauxhall.co.uk/tools/vauxhall-locate-dealer.html

Martin Lewis' Savings Tips...

Elham Rizi — Thu, 03 May 2012 18:45:00 +0000

At the start of May 2012, the Nat-West increased mortgage repayments, despite Bank of England rates remaining stuck at their lowest-ever level: 0.5%. At the same time, the Nat-West and other banks have been slashing interest for savers. In fact, new research shows that those with savings accounts and ISAs are losing out on an incredible £13billion each year. Martin Lewis reports.

He needs no introduction, but Martin Lewis does have bags of savings advice. Martin explains: "the fact is that in this day and age you can't just put your money in the bank, leave it sitting there and expect to earn a decent interest rate. The only way to do it is to become an aggressive saver."

But, before you can do that, you need to find out what rate you're on, and with so many different accounts and interest rates, it's not always that easy. Martin Lewis was on hand to offer up advice to some Watchdog viewers.

Case 1 is inventor and entrepreneur Mark Searles. He's currently designing a new product to provide power assistance to bicycles. In 2001 Mark invested his money in an online 'e-savings' account with Nationwide. That gave him around 5% interest - a healthy £6000 per year. But in the tax year ending 2010 that dropped to just £600 - and he's only just found out about the reduced rate. He was sent messages over a period of two to three weeks and it took a total of two weeks before he received the interest breakdown. That breakdown revealed that his interest had gone from around 5% to just 0.45% per year.

Mark explains: "I trusted Nationwide as the largest building society to keep the rate competitive and also to keep me informed. Nationwide effectively earned an income lending out £180,000 of my money, whilst paying me almost nothing in return."

Martin Lewis explains that banks make it difficult for us to find out what we are actually earning. "Why isn't it printed on every statement?" Martin asks. "Even on online accounts, many will make you click on a link and then lists a whole range of different accounts - how do you know exactly which one is yours? Well, they won't make it easy because they don't want us to leave. Don't let them off the hook: pick up your phones and ask them. And if it's not good enough, leave."

Case 2 is retired gardening enthusiast David Windebank, who wishes he'd left Lloyds TSB early. He put his money into their 'Reward Savings Account' back in 2001. David found his rate had dropped to just 0.5% and despite investing thousands of pounds over the year, it only earned him £11.40. Lloyds said he could open a "new" account with a bonus rate of 1.6%. Trouble is, that rate lasts just 12 months, after which it plummets to a mere 0.1%. David comments: "I would have thought that loyalty would have counted for something, they would look after my money and give me better interest each time."

Martin explains that David appears to have fallen victim to what he likes to call the 'Suck. Slap. Flog' technique: banks like to such people in with headline rates of interest, then they slap the rate down so we still think that we are earning well, but we aren't and at the same time they flog an altogether new account with a similar sounding name so you may catch it in the best buy tables and thing 'fantastic' but you'd be wrong. Martin's advice? Get them, set them up while the bonus rates are there, then diarise to ditch and switch when it ends.

Cash ISAs are usually seen as a better deal for savers because they provide tax free savings, but they're just as vulnerable to having their interest rates slashed.

Case 3: DIY and car enthusiast Alan Emsley from Cheshire is a loyal customer of Natwest. He had his Natwest ISA for six years, but shortly after paying in this year's maximum allowance, they gave him some very un-helpful news: they were dropping the interest rate from what it was at 3.01% to 2.70% for the year. Alan felt that they should have given notification of change before the new tax year came into play.

Martin explains that whether it's a cash ISA from this year or 10 years ago, never think that when the money is in there, it's a done deal. You have a right to transfer your ISA. Now don't do this by withdrawing the cash because then it's not a cash ISA anymore and you will lose your tax status. What you need to do is find the best paying new provider that accepts transfers and ask them to move the money across for you. Then your cash ISA will be in an account that pays better than your previous one.

So the advice is clear. If your bank or building society has cut the rate on your savings, look for a better deal. Those deals are there to be had.

COMPANY RESPONSES

Nationwide spokesperson said:

Mr Searles has previously complained to the Society and we have written back to him at the time to address his concerns. He has made a number of points to both ourselves and Watchdog, which I will address in turn below.

Mr Searles is unhappy with the rate paid on his savings account during 2009. At the start of 2009 Bank of England Base Rate fell to its current historic low of 0.50%. Interest rates we pay on variable rate savings accounts are related to the Bank of England Base Rate, and we are unable to sustain rates at the previous levels seen when the Bank of England Base Rate was much higher. We need to manage the business in a prudent and sustainable way for all of our members and unfortunately this means that we have had to change savings rates in accordance with reductions in the Bank of England Base Rate.

The nature of online accounts such as e-Savings are that they are opened and managed online. Whilst Mr Searles may not have the time to visit the branch, he is a regular user of the online bank, and therefore can access all savings rates from the site before he signs in. Mr Searles has complained to Watchdog that the interest rates are not indicated clearly online, but as you can see from the link below the link to find savings interest rates is clearly shown on the right hand side of the main savings page on nationwide.co.uk.

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/savings/default.htm

Having said that, we are always looking to improve the service we offer our members and in November 2010, we introduced our 7 Savings Promises, and Promise number 6 states:

"We will contact you every year detailing our range of savings accounts, so you know about any new accounts we have launched. We will send you an annual savings statement showing the rate you are receiving, and we will always have our latest rates available at nationwide.co.uk."

The new statement sent to Mr Searles in November 2011 that clearly indicates the rates he was receiving on all his savings accounts.

In our last letter to Mr Searles dated 27 October 2011, we apologised for the fact that the levels of service he received were not at our usual high standards and as a gesture of goodwill we offered him £75 compensation. Mr Searles has chosen not to accept this compensation. The Society also outlined his rights to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service if he remained unhappy and they would independently investigate his concerns, but no complaint has been received.

A spokesperson for RBS said:

'We're sorry if Mr Emsley feels disappointed regarding the change to his Cash ISA. This product does have a variable interest rate and has remained unaltered since 2009. We regularly review all savings products and occasionally do have to alter the rates offered, however all affected customers are contacted in advance of any changes being made. If Mr Emsley chooses to move his ISA elsewhere he will be able to transfer to another ISA provider without losing the tax-free status. These rate changes were deliberately introduced during the ISA season, precisely so customers were able to look at all ISAs offered when the most competitive rates of the year are available.'

'It's important that customers keep track of their savings. To help do this we've started printing interest rates on paper statements and will be extending this online during 2012. We also have a free savings goal tool which helps customers monitor their funds online, and just last week launched a free budgeting tool allowing customers to easily keep track of their funds. We provide detailed product guides in branches and online, as well as contacting customers every year to invite them in for a personal savings review. We strongly recommend savers take advantage of these tools, to ensure they really are making the most of their money.'

A Lloyds TSB spokesperson said:

Lloyds TSB always encourages its customers to regularly review their savings rates and we are transparent in ensuring customers can easily find their current interest rate by publishing these online and on statements.

We communicate any downward changes in rates as we recognise that savers want to get the best return possible on their money.

Across our range, Lloyds TSB offers competitive products both with and without bonus rates, as there is strong customer demand for bonus accounts. We are upfront about any changes to the rate, and we write to customers at the end of their bonus or fixed period to explain that their rate has changed, so they are always in control.

Rogue Traders: Smartproof

Elham Rizi — Thu, 03 May 2012 18:30:00 +0000

Based in Leeds, Smartproof is the trading name of Smartcoat Ltd and is not to be confused with companies of a similar name. Smartproof offers renovations and coatings for roofs - in fact "total roofing solutions".

Gordon Aldred from Wakefield took them up on this. He was told it would cost himapproximately £11,000 for a new roof. Instead SmartProof offered to refurbish and coat his roof. He was told the coating would help preserve it and would also help the heating bills and prolong the life of the roof.

They said it would cost him £5000, but only if they could start 4 days later - thereby depriving Gordon of his 7 day cooling off period. As soon as they signed up him up, they took £2,500. They had already finished the first stage of work when Gordon's daughter Judy found out the cost of a complete re-roof would be considerably less than £5,000. Judy cancelled the job to prevent Smartproof taking any more of her dad's money.

Overcharging is one thing, but what about their workmanship? Following a cold call, Margaret Keir was offered the same roof treatment. Up until that point, Margaret had had no problems with her roof. She was told that it would take one day to clean the roof and one day to apply the coating. Unfortunately for Margaret, her roof now looks shoddy, and is in an even worse state than it appears. Just six days after Smartproof had worked on her roof, Margaret awoke in the morning to find her whole bathroom was like a shower. Smartproof sent five people out on the five occasions and it was still flooding two weeks later. Margaret explains: "They have reduced the life of my roof and I would need to have it totally replaced now within the next 10 years."

Chartered Surveyor, Barry Cross assessed Margaret's roof and concluded that it was a "pretty poor job." Some customers have informed Rogue Traders that they had been told that the whole Smartproof service had been approved by Watchdog. It's not - we don't do endorsements. The company have denied using the Watchdog name.

In fact, from what we've heard from Gordon and Margaret, Smartproof would have a tough time persuading anyone to give them the thumbs up. We set up a house with small cameras, and had our actress, Pauline, ready and waiting. However, before we called Smartproof out to work, we got Barry to assess the roof. He concluded that the roof was in pretty good condition and just needed some basic maintenance. As for cost, the absolute top charge should be £500 and for that the roof should last another 35 years.

Smartproof salesman Adrian Pickles arrived at the house. He claimed that the waterproof coating had eroded in the weather and had actually disappeared from Pauline's roof in 1980, meaning that her roof tiles were "totally saturated". Barry, however, deems this "absolute rubbish". Adrian went on to claim that "when properties get to around 45 years old with this type of tile, people then start re-roofing." Again, Barry rubbishes Adrian's claim as "absolute nonsense". Adrian warned that if Val were to ignore it, she will be re-roofing to the cost of £10,750. Barry states that it would be "nowhere near that amount".

Adrian explained that the process was actually brought over from Denmark and is "preventative maintenance", in that "the coating system physically soaks in to the tile, it's the equivalent to six inches of rockwool insulation so you are going to retain heat in your building, obviously depending on the all the insulation you've already got. But it's been proven to reduce heat loss by up to 25%." Although Adrian went on to say that this insulation claim is not something they push in this country, the company doesn't follow suit. They publish on their advertising that customers will save 25% on energy bills. Seeing as our house is already fully insulated, that's nonsense.

Adrian explained the process to Pauline: firstly the roof is cleaned, and if any of the ridge tiles were loose, they would be removed, re-cemented and re-bedded. If any of those tiles are damaged, they are replaced. They then check every single tile on the roof, and if anything is cracked, broken or missing, it is replaced. He also claimed that Smartproof that will re-point the roof, inspect all the lead-work, re-set, repair and seal it and then apply a fungicidal wash. Later, Smartpoof will return on a dry day to apply the coating system.
It all sounds impressive, but remember: our expert Barry reckons the roof just needs some basic maintenance which will add another 35 years to Pauline's roof. As for the coating - it might look nice, and may even give the roof a few more years, but as a whole new roof would cost around £4,000, you wouldn't want to spend more than about £750 on this. Adrian's quote? £4,672. Barry's conclusion? "Unbelievable, extortionate." However, Adrian is prepared to negotiate, offering Pauline the whole service for £2,575 - still about five times more than she needed to spend on the roof. Pauline told Adrian she needed to think about it, but Adrian was keen to get an answer and said he would call her in an hour for a decision about whether or not she could afford to pay for it.

We booked in the job and Adrian dropped the price again - to £2,380. He said it would take two full days and tells us we should expect a surveyor. We accepted this and paid a deposit of £500. The roofers, Danny and Mark, arrived before the surveyor.

Danny and Mark explained to Pauline that they were going to jet wash the roof and then treat it with an anti-fungal treatment. Barry observed that they were setting up for the jet washing equipment without having done any pre-survey work; when Pauline queried where the surveyor was, she was told that he would come after the work had started. Barry observed that they hadn't done a check in the roof space: "We know that the underfelt is torn so there is a distinct possibility that water will now come through the roof and cause damage inside the roof space - let's hope that doesn't happen."

In the meantime, there was a distinct possibility that Danny and Mark would cause damage to themselves, as they did not take adequate health and safety precautions when standing on the ridge of the roof.

When they finished jet washing, Mark told Pauline that they were going to repoint the roof. According to Barry Cross, in order to do the pointing properly, Mark would have to re-bed the tiles because they will have come loose: "All he is doing now is filling in where there are gaps; that's not good enough because the mortar will fall out again after a short while. He's actually smoothing out the mortar with his hand - that's not the way to point ridge tiles on the roof."

After doing this, Danny collected £940 from Pauline and both Danny and Mark headed off - just 2 hours and 50 minutes after they had arrived - supposedly to do a full day's work. It was time to inspect the loft and see if they had caused any damage; after all, there was no survey conducted and we had holes in our underfelt, which could have let water in.
However, just as we were about to carry out our own inspection, the surveyor arrived - after the work had been completed. It was a quick visit and didn't include a loft inspection when it should have. It was Barry's turn to check it out; he concluded that the water and some of the debris from the roof had actually come through the torn underfelt and had deposited all over the insulation. "Can you imagine if there had been no insulation in this roof? It could easily have damaged the ceiling. This company didn't know that because they didn't check, and that really is unacceptable."

Almost two weeks later, Phase Two was about to begin - however, Danny and Mark were off to a bad start as they threw tiles from the roof onto the lawn. They were also walking across the roof where they could break more tiles, were carrying tiles on their shoulders and they didn't even have a roof ladder in place. Where Adrian Pickles had said that they would go around all of the flashing and re-set it, in actuality they were painting the flashing but not actually doing anything to it - despite what had been promised.

At least Mark replaced some of the broken tiles, and Danny seemed to be making good progress with spraying the first coat. However, Barry observed that one of the duo was repairing a broken tile by pushing mortar into the crack with his fingers, thereby concealing the breakage of the tile, meaning that the repair wouldn't last.

Yet Mark ploughed on, and told Pauline that the first coat was pretty much completed, so it was on to the second coat. Barry observed that the second coat that was being applied was very light and there was no attention to the detail: "This coating is supposed to have thermal properties and I think it is self-evident that such a thin coating of paint is hardly going to create any significant difference."

After 2.5 hours of work, Mark informed Pauline that the work was completed and asked her to pay the balance. This means that the entire so-called two-day job has actually lasted just 5 hours and 20 minutes. The total price? £2,380. But what did we get for our money? Barry concluded that it was a "pretty poor job all round" and instead of the roof renovation that they had promised, they simply "put a coat of paint on and done some rudimentary works which don't fit the bill at all" and reveals that Pauline ended up with more broken tiles than she started with. They also caused damage on the inside of the roof because no one checked inside the roof before they started work.

We wanted to ask salesman Adrian Pickles why he told us all those lies... and why the company didn't deliver on all his big promises. Pauline took Adrian over to meet her neighbour - who was actually Matt dressed up as a woman. When Matt put the allegations to Adrian, he said that he would pass Matt's details over to head office.

COMPANY RESPONSE

We put all our allegations to the company and they've apologised. They say their workers have let their customers down and also damaged their reputation. They say in all the cases featured they've offered to put right the damage and to refund if customers still aren't happy, including us. They say they encourage sales staff to adopt a soft sell approach.

They say they carry out work for thousands of happy customers each year. They insist the lifespan of a roof like ours is 60 years. They stand by the benefits of Smartproof. They say it's far cheaper than paying for a new roof, and the price is competitive. They say the insulation benefits are backed up by independent and respected research but have withdrawn the claim the product will save 25% on energy bills.

The roofing contractors that worked on the cases featured no longer work for Smartproof.

Royal Mail: Do they always deliver?

Elham Rizi — Thu, 03 May 2012 18:15:00 +0000

The price of a First Class Stamp went up by nearly a third in May 2012 to 60 pence. Second Class stamps also went up to 50 pence. But as the costs increase, so do the number of complaints. What service are we getting for our money? Ricky Boleto reports.

It may be one of the oldest services of its kind in the world, but like the most modern go-ahead companies, the Royal Mail has a "vision" - and it's a big one: "To be demonstrably the best and most postal service in the world." If only Royal Mail always lived up to that promise...

Take those 'first class' deliveries - the one's we're now paying 30% more for. Does a first class stamp ensure your letters will arrive within one working day? Or two? Well, no. Ask solicitor Laurence Harris, who complained about the delays affecting his company's mail. He felt that a lot of his company's post was not getting delivered, or it was two or three weeks late. Lawrence explained: "This has caused our clients a great amount of stress and ourselves likewise."

Lawrence spoke to the Royal Mail complaints department and was informed that the delivery time for the first class post was, as far as the post office was concerned, delivery within 15 working days.

But here's the proof: the Royal Mail's terms and conditions - which say they won't offer compensation for a delayed first-class letter, unless it still hasn't arrived 15 working days after the due date. So if the 60p first class stamp doesn't offer enough of a guarantee for you, you could always pay more on a Royal Mail service that promises extra reassurance.

Craig Taylor took advantage of that service in March this year - but it was a decision that would cost him dearly. He booked a trip to China and sent his passport off in the post to the Chinese visa centre in order to apply to get into the country. He sent his passport off using recorded delivery and had left plenty of time. But the passport got lost in the system, meaning that Craig was not only in danger of missing his trip to China, but was actually unable to go on another holiday in Egypt. He has since spent nearly £200 on train tickets trying to get a replacement passport. Then there's the days off work - and the price of the lost holiday. So much for Royal Mail's boast that it's recorded 'signed' for service gives you complete peace of mind when you're sending post.

But what if you are receiving post? We've heard from one viewer who ordered two dresses online, in a tiny size six, for an important function back in December 2011. The supplier confirmed they were sent by recorded delivery - and even provided a tracking number. But by the end of April 2012, the dresses still hadn't arrived; and if - or when - they do, they won't be much use, because that viewer is now eight months pregnant!

So that's First Class and Recorded Delivery - but what about Airsure? It's Royal Mail's fastest international tracked service. Secure and reliable to over 30 destinations worldwide - apparently. Yes, we've had complaints about that too. Lynn Ferguson told us how she used it to send cash worth £130 - and a fridge magnet - to a friend in the USA in February 2012. Royal Mail aim to deliver Airsure packages to the States within six days; however, neither the money or the magnet arrived, and all Royal Mail have offered is a refund on the cost of postage: just £9.87.

So what about Parcel Force? It's a company that is part of the wider Royal Mail Group - and a company that promises: "Every single parcel you entrust us with is a confirmation of your confidence in us. How we respond is a measure of our success."

However Glenn Ferry from Northern Ireland had a different experience. He left his brother's bagpipes in a hotel room in Glasgow, so he booked a delivery with Parcel Force to pick them up. Glen explained that the pipes are irreplaceable and had been in the band for over 60 years, so it was important that they were delivered back to Northern Ireland safely. However, this evidently wasn't as important for the company, as, despite boasting a high quality, smooth and efficient service, they promptly lost them. Glenn is still waiting for them to answer how it is possible to lose something as big as bagpipes...

COMPANY RESPONSE

A Royal Mail spokesperson said:

Our service

Royal Mail delivers 15.9 billion items a year to the UK'S 29 million addresses. In the overwhelming majority of cases items are delivered on time. In the last published financial year, 2010-11, we received about one complaint for every 13,000 items of mail we delivered. Our minimum service standards - at 93% for First Class and 98.5% for Second Class - are amongst the highest for any major European country. We are very transparent about the quality of our service. It is actively monitored by an agency independent of Royal Mail and published every quarter.

We acknowledge that sometimes we get it wrong. When we do, we seek to put things right as soon as possible. We have looked closely at each of these individual cases to seek to rectify the situation for the customer.

Craig Holden

We have apologised to Mr Holden for the loss. We have made an offer of compensation and continue to discuss the matter. We would always encourage customers to use our Special Delivery service when sending items that are urgent or valuable. Special Delivery is a fully tracked service which better enables us to resolve individual cases of loss or delay as quickly as possible.

The customer who purchased two dresses

We also apologise to this customer for our failure to deliver the item she had ordered. In such circumstances, our contract is with the retailer which paid for the service. In cases of loss, it is a matter for the retailer to recompense their customer. We would always seek to refund the retailer where appropriate.

We are pleased that the situation has now been resolved.

Laurence Harris

We are also in contact with Mr Harris about his concerns about our service. In the Ilford postcode, First Class quality of service was 92.9 per cent last quarter - just 0.1 below our target of 93 per cent for next day delivery. We are investigating Mr Harris's situation as a matter of priority to understand and resolve any delivery issues he has experienced

Lynn Ferguson

We have contacted Miss Ferguson to apologise for the delivery issue she has experienced. We have reviewed her complaint and will be providing a payment as a gesture of goodwill.

Glenn Ferry

Parcelforce Worldwide is a leader in the UK's express parcels delivery marketplace. All incidents of loss are very regretful but are extremely unusual. We have been in regular contact with Mr Ferry about the loss of his bagpipes and have conducted many searches since the item was lost. We are pleased to say that a further search of all our depots this week has found the bagpipes. The address label had come off the parcel in transit to Northern Ireland and it was misrouted to our Londonderry depot rather than Portadown. It then became hidden behind some equipment whilst being held for safe-keeping. This should not have happened. When an item cannot be delivered because the label has come off it should be taken to a central location where we make every effort to reunite it with the sending or receiving customer. We are reminding our people of the correct procedures to follow in such cases.

On Price Increases

Royal Mail provides one of the highest quality postal services in Europe. Royal Mail's next day target is the highest of any major European country. This needs to be paid for. A high, fixed-cost network - currently costing £6.7 billion a year - is required to maintain this high quality service. Mail volumes have declined by 25% in six years while the number of addresses we deliver to has increased from 27 million in 2003 to 29 million today. Irrespective of the number of items delivered every day, Royal Mail has to maintain a network on the basis that it delivers to 29 million addresses six days a week.

We know how hard it is for households and business when our economy is as tough as it is now. Raising prices is never easy. It is not a decision we have taken lightly but regretfully we have had no choice but to do so. We need to secure the future of the one-price-goes-anywhere, six-days-a-week Universal Service.

Ofcom said there is a very real risk to the Universal Service. They also found price controls failed and there is a need for material increases to ensure its viability. Royal Mail has made a loss in its core mail business, including packets, of almost £1 billion over the last four financial years. That is not a sustainable position for any business.

UK stamp prices are amongst the best value in the EU. In five of the six weight steps for First Class and Second Class mail, the UK cost of UK stamps are ranked in the bottom half of prices when compared with other European countries. In the 51g to 100g weight band, the new 50p price of a Second Class stamp will be the lowest in Europe.

Asda Rollbacks

Elham Rizi — Thu, 03 May 2012 18:00:00 +0000

In March 2012 we revealed how Asda was breaching government guidance with its famous price-cut slogan the 'Rollback.' We showed how some items labelled as rollbacks had previously been on sale at a lower price. At the time, Asda claimed that these examples were due to a processing error - and that with 40,000 products on offer each week, they do occasionally get it wrong. On occasion? Really? Becca Wilcox found out more.

Asda describe their rollback offers as a 'permanent or temporary price reduction'. Their customers love them and their staff are proud of them, as their TV adverts make clear.
But you also can't beat straightforward honesty - which is why we love checking supermarket deals to make sure they really are what they seem. Over the last few weeks, Watchdog researchers have been checking the price histories of a much larger sample of Asda goods, all labelled as rollbacks, online. And the results?

Out of the 120 products checked, 52 failed to comply with one or more of the government pricing guidelines. That's an astonishing 43%. We've found several ways that these Asda rollbacks contravene the official guidelines, but what's key is whether these offers mislead consumers.

According to the guidelines, if a retailer like Asda is promoting a price cut, the Rollback price should be compared to the immediate previous selling price unless stated otherwise. However, Sheba cat food, which was advertised as on Rollback from £4.94 to £4, was not at this higher advertised price since 25th March 2011. The immediate previous price was, in fact, £4.68 and has had three other prices since the one they've used as a comparison.
Deborah Parry, a consumer law expert, has reviewed the Rollback offer on this product and was not impressed. "This product is not complying with the government pricing guidelines because they state that the comparison should be with the immediate past selling price of the product," said Deborah. "That is not happening in this case."

Under government guidelines, a product on offer should also have been available at the previous higher price for 28 consecutive days or more.

So where does that leave Clairol hair dye? Asda were selling it for £7, and then put it on Rollback at £5. But rather than being sold at the higher price for the recommended minimum of 28 days, it was only sold at that price for nine days.

Deborah highlights the importance of these guidelines in protecting consumers, and to prevent them from being misled. "The pricing guidelines are designed to ensure that traders don't temporarily increase a price to then advertise a price reduction," she said. "Consumers are being misled into thinking that the higher price was the normal proper price of the product when this may not be the case."

And so to a third product - Kitekat pet food. Here, we found Asda breaching yet another guideline - by continuing to label it as a Rollback, even though it's was on sale it at this lower price for twice as long as the previous higher price.

Deborah has told Watchdog that not only is this confusing to customers, it may even be unlawful. "If a product is advertised as being on offer for a long period of time it can become misleading because the consumer believes that this is a recent reduction whereas in fact the new price has actually become the established price," and added, "If consumers are being misled then there is a possibility of a breach of the law."

The law is the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations and it forbids traders from presenting misleading information which may deceive consumers into buying goods they wouldn't have bought otherwise.

So what about these ASDA Rollback deals? Could they deceive people?

"The implication for consumers is that they are being misled as to the value of the price reduction that is being advertised," said Deborah. "They are not being given full clear and accurate information. With the research that I have seen I believe there is more than enough evidence for Trading Standards or the Office of Fair Trading to take an interest in how these prices are being displayed."

COMPANY RESPONSE

An Asda spokesperson said:

We thank your viewers for getting in touch.
While we don't entirely agree with elements of what your experts say, we do acknowledge we need to do better.

This is what we plan to do:

Our online service operates on a different IT system to our stores - that can to lead to human errors as offers are manually listed. We will move from this manual system to an automated one through a significant IT investment;
This automation will take some months to complete, so in the meantime we have implemented a new checking procedure - already in place across the entire grocery website. This process ensures all price cuts are triple checked before they appear online;
To ensure compliance with our own strict procedures, we are also in the process of appointing an independent audit team to monitor the prices displayed on our website, with the authority to remove content if they uncover any pricing errors.
We believe these comprehensive measures will address the issues you have identified, and ensure our customers can continue shop online confident we are delivering on our promise to be the lowest price supermarket.

Bank Fraud: Easy to be a victim - hard to get your money back?

Elham Rizi — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:00:00 +0000

Each year, over 900,000 of us find that thieves have used our card details to make purchases or to withdraw money from our accounts. However, proving that fraud has taken place on your account can be difficult. To help protect customers, the FSA has drawn up new rules, making it easier to claim refunds on disputed transactions. But are all the banks taking notice? Riz Lateef reports.

Thieves drain our bank accounts of more than £300 million pounds every year. There are many ways they do it - from using cards or card details to order items in shops, on the phone or internet to even stealing your identity to take over your entire account.

Criminals may find it easy to defraud you, but persuading your bank that they've done so can be a lot tougher. The FSA rules say that if you deny having authorised a payment, the bank should give you the benefit of the doubt unless they can prove otherwise. But we've found some banks using pretty flimsy excuses to refuse refunds.

Kulvir Kooner recently went on holiday to India. While he was away, a fraudster claiming to be him called Natwest and managed to alter his personal details. He changed Kulvir's place of residence from Slough to Nottingham and persuaded the bank to send out a new card. Once it arrived at this new address, the fraudster proceeded to empty Kulvir's account of more than £18,000.

Almost £5,000 of that total was stolen by transferring it to other accounts which Natwest has now refunded. However, most of the other £13,000 which came from ATMs and cash withdrawals, was not refunded by the bank. Despite Kulvir being 4,000 miles away at the time, Natwest say these withdrawals could not have been made without him being present, or having disclosed his PIN number.

Card Fraud expert Richard Emery disagrees. Having reviewed Kulvir's case, he drew attention to two transactions which were done in over the counter withdrawals. Richard commented: "Kulvir was away on holiday at the time, he couldn't possibly have done those transactions. Therefore the bank must refund his money."

Fraudulent use of your bank card is often obvious - the thief has spent money in a place you've never been to, or on goods that you've never bought. But, if your card has been used for a transaction with a retailer you have used before, good luck getting a refund from Barclays.

Ray Saddington returned from a holiday in Cyprus to find two unauthorised payments had been made on his card. He would later discover that they were to the DVLA, for tax discs on cars he didn't even own. They were for a purple Volvo and a silver Mondeo. Ray approached his bank for a refund but was told that the transaction weren't fraud because he had used this merchant before.

Yes, you heard that right. If a criminal uses your card to buy something from a retailer - and you've used that same retailer before - Barclays might not be prepared to accept there's been fraud. Why? It could either be that the retailer has your details and may have accidently debited your account or because this is in line with your normal pattern of spending.

Trouble is, if you're a motorist and you need to buy a tax disc, then there's only one supplier available: the DVLA. Expert Richard Emery doesn't think this is fair. Richard commented: "The regulations say that the firm has to prove that the payment was authorised. To argue that the payment was authorised simply because the customer has made purchases from this company in the past is a completely unreasonable argument."
Despite being able to prove the cars weren't his, Ray couldn't get a refund from Barclays. Having taken two months to even provide him with details of the transactions, they gave him just ten days to dispute them. But, as he was out of the country at the time, he missed the deadline.

If thieves want to make a fraudulent telephone or online purchase, they don't need your card, just your card details. They use sophisticated techniques to obtain these, even going so far as to hack into retailers' databases. You may be completely unaware that a criminal has got hold of your details, but you could still be held responsible.

Dharmadev Trivedi is a junior doctor and another Barclays customer. Last October the bank noticed a number of unusual transactions on his card, one of which was made at a hotel in Northampton. However, he was working at the time in Leeds - which is 120 miles away.

The bank cancelled Dharmadev's card and stopped a number of transactions, making him feel reassured. However, there was a purchase at a hotel in and some food purchased from a food website and to Dharmadev's surprise, they were re-debited from his account.

Although Barclays later refunded him the hotel bill, they refused to refund the money for the food order. They used the same excuse as they had given Ray - that it was not a 'fraudulent transaction because he had used the retailer before'. Dharmadev recognised that he had used the retailer before, but also noted that thousands of others had done so as well.

After three months, Dharmedev did manage to persuade Barclays to refund the money. However, it was only given as a 'goodwill gesture'. Despite the fact they couldn't prove he'd made the transaction, they still felt he was to blame.

In the letter to Dharmadev, Barclays wrote that 'the fact that the card has been misused clearly indicates that the card was not adequately protected against misuse.' After seeing the letter from the bank, expert Richard Emery said that this statement was 'ridiculous.' He added: "This gentleman has protected his card, somebody has managed to use his card number and that's a very different matter. As cardholders we are clearly responsible for making sure that we keep our physical cards safe. But lots of people have access to our card details and we cannot prevent some of those people from misusing those details."

The FSA now says banks should give customers the benefit of the doubt when they claim to be victims of fraud - unless they can prove otherwise. It's a shame some of those banks don't seem to be listening...

COMPANY RESPONSES

A NatWest spokesperson said:

"NatWest would like to thank Mr Kooner for his patience during the time taken to investigate the specifics of his case. The fraud that occurred was complex and required a comprehensive investigation. However, we're pleased to say all of his money has now been refunded. We appreciate this must have been a difficult time and we can reassure Mr Kooner, and our other customers, that NatWest continually develop their anti-fraud measures.''

A Barclays spokesperson said:

"We have no higher priority than the security of our customers' money and Barclays guarantees to compensate genuine victims of fraud. We regularly pay out in over 85 per cent of fraud cases.*

"When we do get things wrong we put our hands up and take swift action to put it right.

"Mr Trivedi has already been refunded for all the money he lost, but it is now clear we wrongly held him liable for one payment which was fraudulent and for this we are sorry.

"Mr Saddington disputed two payments made from his account but unfortunately we failed to investigate within industry timeframes and this meant that we were not successful in getting the money back from the merchant. This is not Mr Saddington's fault and it is unfair that he should lose money. We are pleased to confirm that we will refund the fraudulent transactions totalling £209, as well as a gesture of goodwill of £50 for the inconvenience we have caused."

*68 per cent are refunded immediately and a further 17 per cent refunded after further investigation. Of the remaining 15 per cent the customer either no longer wishes to pursue the fraud claim; the customer has recovered the funds or the customer has been held liable.

Fiat: Steering that doesn't have the power?

Elham Rizi — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:45:00 +0000

Fiat Puntos, Fiat Grande Puntos and Europe's best selling super-mini, the Fiat Panda are three small cars with one big problem. So much so, that some of their owners are scared to drive them. Ricky Boleto reports.

The Fiat Grande Punto is advertised as stylish, good quality and most importantly, safe. However, Watchdog has received over 130 complaints about various Fiat cars and found there is a serious problem with the power steering on some Fiats that is costly to fix and potentially very dangerous.

Dominick Thoburn's first ever car was a Fiat Grande Punto, which he bought second-hand in 2010. Less than a year after he bought the car, problems with the power steering began. A problem with the electrics had caused Dominick's power steering to fail the first time and within weeks, it went again. In fact, according to Dominick, it failed around 50 times in the space of six months. Dominick's car was no longer under warranty and he had to pay £645 to get a new steering column fitted.

Another Fiat Grande Punto owner, Sarah Butt, has told Watchdog that her car is the most unreliable car she has ever had due to the power steering unit failing twice. Sarah has now lost confidence in driving the car, so much so that she's taken out the highest level of breakdown cover.

Other Fiat owners experiencing these problems own the Fiat Panda. John Falcini is one such owner. He loves Fiat cars and has owned over 30 Fiats. John has had his current Fiat Panda for five years and has had to replace the steering unit three times. This has been a huge expense for John, made worse by the fact that he is a driving instructor.

On writing to Fiat to complain, they said that they don't "accept that the problems being experienced are as a result of any manufacturing defect at this point in the vehicle's history."

Watchdog phoned five independent garages around the UK who seem to be well aware of the issue. One garage in Scotland said some Fiats 'do have problems' and that the electric power steering 'can pack up'. A garage in Lincolnshire described the problem with the Punto as 'a well-known common fault'. In fact, four out of five garages told us that the power steering can be faulty on either the Fiat Punto or Panda.

Watchdog spoke to Mark Brown, Automotive Engineer to find out what exactly is the problem and if Fiat should be taking responsibility for it. Mark Brown stated that "The problem with the power steering lies on the electrical side, which develops an intermittent fault that in turn causes the loss of power steering. Given the fault lies with the electrical side of the steering column, which I think shouldn't happen in the lifetime of a car, I really think that Fiat ought to be paying to replace these units."

COMPANY RESPONSE

A Fiat spokesperson said:

Fiat Group Automobiles UK Ltd prides itself on maintaining a high quality reputation for our brand and we always aim to ensure that customers receive exemplary service from both ourselves and our dealer network.

With reference to the issues you have highlighted, we can confirm that a small number of Fiat Punto and Panda vehicles have had power assisted steering repairs during the period you have mentioned. Every case that has been brought to our notice has been given our full attention. More than 430,000 Punto and Panda vehicles have been sold since their introduction here.

A failure of the power assistance is indicated by a warning light on the instrument panel. But the car can still be driven, albeit with an increased effort on the steering wheel, as detailed in the owner's handbook. Should this happen, we recommend that contact is made with an authorised dealer.

With regard to the examples you have highlighted, you will understand that we are not in a position to comment on individual cases.

Should customers wish to contact us in relation to their vehicle, we recommend that they either contact their local dealership or our Fiat Customer Care team (00800 3428 0000), who will be happy to investigate.

Fiat Group Automobiles takes all customer inquiries seriously and strives to support customers wherever possible.

Rogue Traders: Stuart Johnson, Drainsafe

Elham Rizi — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:30:00 +0000

Bexley-based Drainsafe Limited is a company specialising in boilers and drains.

Susanne Black called them out in December 2011 when her boiler went on the blink. The man who came to fix it appeared to diagnose the problem fairly quickly and said it needed two new parts. He came back the following day to fit them, and the problem seemed to be fixed. However, 40 minutes after the repairman had left, the heating went off again. The same man came back, and this time he called the boiler manufacturer and discovered that he hadn't fixed the problem correctly and that he would have to start again from scratch.

When Susanne asked whether this would be covered by the guarantee, Drainsafe said no because Susanne had misdiagnosed the problem, it wasn't their job to fix it or to pay for it. So it would appear that Drainsafe customers have to decide what is wrong with their boilers...

An expert has since told us that this was a simple fault for any trained gas fitter and should have been fixed for around £220 yet Susanne was charged a massive £724 - from a company that promises "satisfaction guaranteed".

We also heard from Jas, who is the landlord of a flat in South London. When he called the company about a blocked bathroom drain, they came out and said they'd fix it the following morning. They also asked for an initial payment of £66 from his credit card and they said they would let him know the final bill. The bill came to £1056 but the job should have cost half that, tops, according the expert we have spoken to. And what is worse is that Jas says they took his full payment without his consent.

It was time for Rogue Traders to splash out on some secret cameras and to call Mike Griffin, an expert plumber. We hired out a house and the drains were power-washed in advance, ready for Mike to work his magic. He filled the drain full of beef dripping, fresh pasta, pilau rice and topped it off with a bit of fresh broccoli. A plumber should have been able to clear the blockage in 20 minutes with just a bit of elbow grease.

Our homeowner John waited for Drainsafe employees Jason and Ryan to arrive but they were four hours late. Prior to their arrival, they had explained on the phone that their charges would be "£65 for the half hour and £55 on the half for the plant", and the use of the plant would "depend on the nature of the gravity of the situation then obviously it's a two man job".

However, the forms that Jason asked John to sign say something different - and he doesn't make this clear. On the phone, he quoted the labour charge as £65 per half hour. What Jason didn't say is that, according to the forms, in very small print, the charge is £65 per man per half hour. With two of them on the job, that's a massive hike - and of course, there's the additional £55 for the jetter. With charges like that, they'd better be good - and quick.

Drainsafe employee Jason told John that the drain looked to be built up with limescale, so they need to "blast it". Mike Griffin explains that there is no need to blast it as there is no limescale: "He should be clearing the gully, sticking a rod down in and clear it in a couple of minutes." But instead of trying the cheap and straightforward way first, Jason and Ryan automatically reach for the expensive jetter.

Ryan says the drain is rammed to the brim; but rather than pulling out the dirt, he and Jason tried to push it round the bend of the trap. It took two men a full hour to do the job, even with the aid of a jetter. It should have taken one man 20 minutes to do it - using only his hands.

Once the job was completed, Jason quoted John £576 for the bill - the breakdown being £260 for the labour of both men, £220 for the plant and £96 VAT. The job should have cost less than £100. Jason explained that the jetter had to be manned by two people for health and safety reasons. He also explained that the blockage was due to a thick build-up of limescale, almost as thick as cement. This was not the case at all. It also seems that we were charged twice for the jetter.

We also spotted Jason and Ryan giving each other a 'high five' after they had been paid by John and were about to leave...

We wanted to establish whether Jason and Ryan were indeed two typical Drainsafe boys - or simply two bad apples. During the course of our investigation we did call the company out on two other occasions, but both times just one plumber turned up and we weren't overcharged. On the other hand, we have been ripped off once - and so have the customers who have been in touch with us so we needed to find out if the instructions were coming from the top.

We got one of our team who we called Claire, to call the manager of Drainsafe, Stuart Johnson, to see whether or not he would back his team. Claire complained that the charges weren't explained to us properly, and it seems that we have been charged twice for the jetter, so Stuart came up with a new explanation: that the team were on site for an hour and thirty-seven minutes. In fact, they took an hour to complete the job. But, according to Stuart, the fact that he is claiming that they were onsite for 97 minutes means that Drainsafe has actually given our team a discount on the total bill...

He says: "I can give you a reworked invoice but then it's going to have the correct figures on and it's going to end up physically costing you more money." So, Stuart wanted to charge us more. Claire responded that it was outrageous pricing, to which Stuart replied: "Well, I do apologise about that. I mean, all I can do is offer you a 10% discount in the future."

As the boss clearly was backing the boys who overcharged us, it was time for us to visit him face to face. When we arrived at Drainsafe HQ, Stuart promptly locked himself in the building and closed the blinds. Matt spoke to him through the door and Stuart said that he would call him later.

Stuart did in fact call us later. Matt spoke to him on the phone and Stuart said that he wasn't "in the habit of ripping people off". He explained that there was no way the bill should have come to £576 and there must have been a mistake by the engineer. However, Matt highlighted that when we spoke to him afterward, Stuart himself said that we should have been charged more; to which Stuart explained that he must have misunderstood or been misled by the engineers.

Although Stuart admitted that we were overcharged, he says that his engineers are not on commission - so there is no benefit to them to cheat customers. He said that he would have a look at all the evidence and get back to us...

Company Response

The company has since been in touch. They have told us they take our allegations seriously and deny they're rogues. They say they're open and fair with pricing, don't lie about the scale of the problems, and always carry out a "drain clean" unless customers specifically request otherwise.

They say they went about our job in the right way, and have offered a partial refund for the billing mistake. Jason and Ryan's high-five was to celebrate the fact they completed the job so quickly. They say they went out of their way to help Susanne Black, and their second visit was for a fault unrelated to the first.

They have refunded Jas.They say this is not because they were in the wrong, but because he complained so much.

99p Stores: Do they really offer 'Unbeatable Value'?

Elham Rizi — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:15:00 +0000

99p Stores started out as a single shop in North London eleven years ago. Now there are more than 150 stores all over the country, generating profits of £6.3 million. What's the secret? Chris Hollins reports.

When money is tight, we're bound to be attracted by promises like 'Amazing Value', 'Mega Deals', 'We will not be beaten on price' and 'Unbeatable Value'. These claims are certainly clear and definitive, but are they true?

Watchdog investigated some of the bold claims made by this chain. Firstly, we confirmed with a call to one of their stores that they stand by that in-store promise; we were told that 'we will not be beaten on price' means that you can't buy products purchased from 99p Stores, cheaper in anyone else's store.

Watchdog researchers carried out an investigation. Forty products chosen at random were bought from 99p Stores. The products were purchased - where possible - four times, from four different stores, over a three week period in March and April 2012.

We then used data supplied by the online shopping site MySupermarket in order to compare the prices at 99p Stores with those at the Big Four Supermarkets (ASDA, Morrison's, Tesco and Sainsbury's) on the same dates. During the course of our research we found that on at least one occasion, seven of the forty products were cheaper - when comparing gram with gram - at one of the leading Supermarkets.

We were told by Vince Mitchell, Professor of Consumer Marketing from the Cass Business School at City University that the claims made by 99p Stores include no caveats explaining what happens if you find the products cheaper elsewhere. Vince explains that this gives the impression to consumers that these claims are an absolute promise of value, but what we find is that with some of those price comparisons, you can find those goods cheaper elsewhere.

99p Stores also make their own price comparisons with the Big Four Supermarkets on labels in-store. However, we discovered that 27 of the 37 shelf-edge comparisons we checked were inaccurate. Sometimes the rival stores' prices were less than claimed, sometimes more - and in all 27 cases 99p stores were cheaper. But why the inaccuracies at all? Maybe because some of the price comparisons were made months ago even as far back as 2010.

Vince Mitchell tells us that the general image of this store is that it is good value and they won't be beaten on price - but if not all of their goods are the best value on the market, then consumers are not making the price comparisons that perhaps they should be.

After all that hard work at least our team could look forward to some cheap refreshment, thanks to a "wow" offer on Coca Cola: two bottles for just 99p. Except, when we got to the till, they charged us.... £1.80. Wow.

COMPANY RESPONSE

Hussein Lalani, co-founder of 99p Stores said:

99p Stores success over the last decade is down to the fact that we have consistently provided the best value and most competitive prices on the High Street.

On rare occasions the major supermarket chains will beat us on price on limited products by running special promotions. However, our customers know than 8 times out of 10 our stores provide the greatest value.

With regards to shelf edge labels we acknowledge that our systems and processes have not been as rigorous as they should have been and we are currently in the process of or updating these to ensure the comparisons we display are always as accurate as possible.

We offer more than 5000 products in over 186 stores across the UK and Ireland and the 2 million customers who shop with us every week do so because of the value we consistently offer all year round.

Rick's Rants: Admin Fees

Elham Rizi — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:00:00 +0000

This week our resident grump, Rick Wakeman is leading the charge against admin fees. Why do big companies often make us pay exorbitant costs for them to process our paperwork?

Admin fees crop up in all sorts of businesses, even the ones that are supposed to be showing us a good time. Big ticket agencies have always liked their booking fees, but it seems it's now gone way beyond a nominal charge to cover costs. Take Ticketmaster's fees for the Queen musical, "We Will Rock You". If you booked online through Ticketmaster and chose the £62 ticket, you would have to pay £8.25 on top of that in fees. That's bad enough. But what's confusing is why the company varies the fee according to the price of ticket you're buying. Surely it doesn't cost them more to process expensive tickets, so why do they charge more? The costs don't stop there. Ticketmaster charges customers £4 per order to pick up their tickets from the box office, have the tickets posted to them, or even have the link emailed to them so they can print out the tickets themselves.

When it comes to sky-high fees, airline companies are no exception. Take two of the UK's main carriers: Virgin Atlantic and British Airways. If you want to change the date of travel on their lowest fare tickets, you'll have to pay. Virgin charge up to £120 for the alteration. British Airways charges a more modest £30 to make the change over the phone (it is free online), but then adds a £100 penalty fee on top, bringing the total to £130.

Pick another form of transport, such as cars, and you still can't escape the costs. Car insurance policies often charge admin fees when customers make changes to their policies.

Joe Townsend insures his car with Halifax. When he moved house, Halifax not only increased his premium because he was moving to a higher risk neighbourhood, they also charged him £25 for producing new documents.

But that's not the most expensive admin fee out there. When Karen Devitt informed the company she had bought her car cover with, One Call Insurance, that she was moving house, she was made to pay a whopping £55 for them to update her address. She told us that she was very surprised that a change of address was counted as an amendment to her policy. She told us when she first read her policy's small print, she assumed the amendments would only cover details such as a change of vehicle, or a switch from third party to comprehensive cover.

So why do some insurance companies charge such high amounts? The regulations state that insurance companies must treat their customers fairly, so it is up to the insurance companies to set what might be considered a fair admin fee. Admin fees vary across the board and some companies don't charge any fees for mid-term adjustments.

That is why Simon Read, personal finance editor at The Independent, thinks it is critical to check policies closely before buying: "When you buy a policy, you need to look at the total cost. That means not just looking at the monthly or annual premium, but looking at all the other fees. That means going through the small print, finding out what other charges they're going to lump on you later on."

At least processing this kind of paperwork might save you some money!

COMPANY RESPONSES

A Ticketmaster spokesperson said:

Ticketmaster does not independently decide the per ticket service charges and per booking order processing fees. All fees are agreed in consultation with each client and reflect the nature of the commercial agreement with the venue or event organiser and the level of retail, marketing and technology support being delivered to them by Ticketmaster.
There is still a fundamental lack of understanding about why ticket agencies like Ticketmaster charge a per ticket service charge. In many instances, these fees are the sole source of revenue for ticket agencies. However, these fees do not just relate to the cost of processing the customer's individual booking and the distribution of the tickets purchased. These fees often cover the cost of Ticketmaster providing a wider range of services to our clients, including investment in venue access control, ticket fulfilment (printing, packing and distribution) and 24/7 customer services.
Ticketmaster does acknowledge that excessively high per ticket fees can be a disincentive to customers to buy tickets. Therefore we endeavour to agree commercial terms with our client that allows us to be competitive. Ticketmaster is rarely the exclusive ticket seller for an event and therefore whenever possible, we try to agree terms with the event owner to allow us to be competitive with other ticket agencies.
The booking fees for We Will Rock You are only one example and are the exception, rather than reflecting the level of fees charged by Ticketmaster for West End shows. For most UK events Ticketmaster sells for, the level of fees average at around 9% of the face value, with music concerts being slightly higher at just over 11%.
All fees are clearly outlined throughout the Ticketmaster website, including before customers reach the purchase process, and broken down every time the customer sees the price. We listened to our customers and have increased the level of transparency relating to fees across the whole website. The reason fees are not included in the advertised price is because these vary across different ticket agencies and points of purchase, such as venue box offices. As a founding member of STAR, Ticketmaster also refunds all per ticket service charges if an event is cancelled. This is not standard practice for all ticket agencies.
Ticketmaster does not currently have a separate level of order processing fee depending on how the customer receives their tickets. Customers currently pay the same amount for using our TicketFast (print-at-home) tickets, as they would to have their tickets posted to them. The Ticketmaster print at home option can only be offered once a high level of technology infrastructure has been installed at the event venue and the right level access control systems are in place. The venues do not normally pay Ticketmaster separately for supplying this technology and therefore this substantial cost is covered by the per ticket service charge and per booking order processing fees.
Looking ahead, Ticketmaster is keen to encourage more customers to print their own tickets or have them sent to their mobile phones, so we do anticipate that pricing will become more flexible.

A British Airways spokesperson said:

With free food and drinks, free baggage and free check-in, we offer our customers the best possible value for money.

We also offer a full range of fare structures that allow our customers the option of choosing a ticket that suits their individual requirements.

For customers who think they may want the option to change their date of travel, but are not sure and do not want to purchase the higher fully-flexible fare, we offer a ticket that allows a one-off payment which is only made if the customer chooses to fly on a different day.

We understand that customers can make unintentional typing errors when booking their travel arrangements, for this reason we do not charge a fee for corrections.

We do not charge for bookings by debit card, do not charge for check-in and allow customers to make changes to the date of travel for free on our website, ba.com.

A Virgin Atlantic spokesperson said:

"Like most airlines and transport providers, we clearly offer flexible fares that allow changes or restricted fares that are lower priced but limit adjustments. This is not a hidden charge or administration fee - it is giving our customers the choice of fares depending on whether they are likely or not to change their travel plans. As this is clearly communicated before customers' purchase, the issue you have raised is very rare. However we are very sorry if the three customers that you have referenced in your programme feel that they have been disadvantaged."

A One Call Insurance spokesperson said:

"All of our charges are brought to the customer's attention at the point of sale, and again if the customer is discussing any changes. They are outlined in writing in our Terms of Business which the customer signs. This transparency allows customers to make an informed decision at the outset based on their likelihood of making any alterations during the year. We aim to deliver very competitive premiums and are transparent with our charges, which we make as simple and clear as possible to customers."

A Halifax spokesperson said:

"Mr Townsend's fees reflect the costs of updating the insurer which underwrites his policy, recalculating the premium as a result of his house move and re-issuing updated policy documentation. The fees are in line with industry standards and stated clearly in our terms and conditions."

An ABI spokesperson said:

"An insurer, in common with any other business, may incur extra costs when asked by their customer to make changes to their contract. While an insurer will try to absorb any extra costs where they can it may be necessary to make a charge to the customer concerned. Any charge made by an insurer should reflect the actual extra costs involved, and should be explained to the customer".

British Gas: Looking after your world?

Elham Rizi — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:00:00 +0000

British Gas is the leading energy provider in the UK and was the first provider to cut domestic electricity bills by 5% this year. But, when it comes to servicing your boiler it's also number one for complaints about overcharging and needless work. Chris Hollins reports...

British Gas adverts tell customers that they will come to their rescue when boiler breakdowns occur. It's a reassuring message and British Gas promise to offer top quality service, peace of mind and - most importantly - no surprises when it comes to your bills.

But do those promises match the reality? Watchdog has heard from a number of British Gas customers who claim differently. Chris and expert plumber Mike Griffin went to meet them.

First they met Lois Brown, who's been with British Gas for 38 years, paying £18.85 a month on her homecare plan. Lois' boiler was working fine - until it started making strange noises the morning after its last service. A British Gas engineer came back to replace a pipe - and to deliver some shocking news. The day after the service Lois was told that her boiler could go on for another five years or it could go tomorrow which meant that she needed a new boiler. Lois was told it could be costly and it was: British Gas quoted more than £3600 for a new boiler. Lois was so shocked she called a local plumber - who gave a different diagnosis - and a very different price. She was told that the cause of her problems was the thermostat control and that it would cost £97 to fix.

Lois' boiler which has been working fine ever since the minor repair. Mike Griffin conducted an overall visual check on the boiler and checked to make sure it was performing safely and cleanly. He concluded that there was no reason for British Gas to tell Lois that she needed a new boiler.
Now, we all make mistakes, and identifying the wrong fault is not unheard of. But claiming a part is obsolete when it's not? That is unusual. Ask Gareth and Julie Ann. They were Homecare customers too, so when their boiler developed a fault, a British Gas engineer called round to check the boiler. However, he told them that the parts were obsolete, so the boiler would need to be replaced, and the cost of a new boiler would be £2800. On getting a second opinion they discovered that all the boiler needed to get it back up and running was a new gas valve, which could be fitted for £70. Mike's verdict? "The gas valve has been changed, it's a replacement, it's freely available and it's working properly and it's within the safety requirement so I don't see any reason to change this boiler."

Misdiagnosing, claiming parts are obsolete when they're readily available? Could it get any worse? Well yes, you see British Gas condemned Dorian Sibley's boiler even when it was in fine working order. A British Gas Engineer told Dorian during an annual service that the flue was corroded and as the parts were obsolete, Dorian would need a new boiler. Not only did British Gas condemn Dorian's boiler but the engineer also dismantled the boiler, placing parts in the bin. Luckily, Dorian got in contact with a local plumber who discovered that the so called obsolete part was available and that the old part didn't even need replacing.

Mike's verdict on Dorian's boiler was that the condition of the flue that British Gas had taken out did have some corrosion on it but not enough that it would allow flue gases to leak out of it and that there's no good reason to condemn the boiler and change it for a new one. It could have just been cleaned up, re-sealed and put back together.

And British Gas did eventually put it back together again but only after Dorian confronted them with the plumber's findings.

COMPANY RESPONSE

Chris Jansen from British Gas said:

We were clearly very disappointed to receive the three customer complaints passed to us by Watchdog. At British Gas, we work hard to do the best possible job for all our customers, and we maintain a relentless focus on customer safety.

We have carefully reviewed the cases of Mrs Brown, Mr Sibley and Mr & Mrs Hughes and believe that we acted with the best of intentions, and with these customers' interests in mind.

We made a mistake when we incorrectly advised that parts were obsolete when, in fact, they are still available. This was a genuine error on our part and we apologise for this. However, we stand by our advice that the boilers in question are at the end of their life and will become increasingly difficult and costly to maintain.

We repair 99 per cent of all breakdowns that we attend. Any recommendations we make to install a new boiler or undertake a repair take into account a range of factors including: safety; manufacturer guidance on the availability of spare parts; the age and efficiency of the existing boiler; and the likelihood of recurring breakdowns.

The three customers featured have boilers that are at least 22, 21 and 14 years old respectively. On every occasion, we reflected the manufacturer's guidance in the advice we gave.

Our 8,000 engineers are at the heart of British Gas. We are proud of these men and women, who have real expertise and who have been with our company for an average of 20 years. Their job is to get to a customer as quickly as possible and try to fix the problem on the first visit - we do this in the vast majority of cases.

At British Gas, we work 365 days a year and visit over seven million homes annually. Our objective is simply to do a great job for our customers. While we strive to please every customer we don't always achieve this. On the rare occasion where there is a disagreement we do all that we can to resolve the matter in our customers' favour.

If any customer has a concern about the advice or service they have received from British Gas then they should e-mail me at chris.jansen@britishgas.co.uk and I will respond personally.

PIP breast implants

Elham Rizi — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:45:00 +0000

The PIP breast implant scandal saw 47,000 British women affected. All the women were fitted with silicone implants containing industrial grade chemicals never intended for medical use. In December, the French government recommended their removal due to increasing evidence they could rupture. Women in France can get the procedure for free but the NHS and private clinics in the UK will only remove implants if it is deemed clinically necessary.

What's worse is that as the company that made the silicone has gone out of business, they've been unable to get refunds on their surgery. But could that be about to change? Martin Lewis reports.

Rachel Oates had her left breast partially removed after developing cancer in 1999. In 2004 she opted for reconstructive surgery, costing nearly £6000. Her surgeon used Poly Implant Prothese - or PIP - implants. Seven years on, she discovered those same implants contained a gel not intended for the human body, but rather for use in mattresses. Rachel contacted the clinic who carried out her surgery as she desperately wanted the implants removed and replaced, but she was told they could not help her, leaving her no choice but to pay to have the procedure done again. Rachel was too late to stop the implants leaking inside her body. When doctors came to remove them, they found a hole the size of a golf ball. They'd already ruptured.

Like thousands of PIP patients, Rachel has a strong claim, but the chances of patients recovering their money have looked slim. Although the law says a supplier is responsible if it sells you a faulty product, the manufacturer in this case has gone out of business. And as the implants were approved as safe by the EU, the clinics that fitted them have argued that they did nothing wrong.

Martin Lewis looks at this as not a health issue but as a consumer rights issue, and has tried to ascertain whether the laws that apply to any purchase can bring hope. The answer is that there is a new avenue to try if they paid on their credit card. One woman in the Midlands tried to claim the entire cost of her surgery from Lloyds TSB because under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, if you buy something over £100 and pay for any of it on a credit card, the card company is jointly liable if anything goes wrong with the product. Last month her claim was successful and Lloyds TSB paid out £3,700.

Now this doesn't set a precedent and it needs to be understood that usually if it is has been over six years since you made your purchase you can't claim. So for women whose implants were fitted before 2006, the deadline has technically passed. But, because of the circumstances of this scandal, they still may have a case.

Consumer Lawyer Dean Dunham says, "The general rule is that you have to bring a claim within 6 years however there is an exception and that exception does apply in the case of the PIP cases- if you have suffered a personal injury you can claim within the last three years from when you had knowledge of the injury. Now we all know in the case of PIP that it only really came to public knowledge within the last two years and that means we are well within the three year period."

For Debbie Brewer, it's more clear cut. Her implants cost £4275 and, like Rachel's, they leaked. She had pain in her left breast for over a year and after a scan she was told that she has gel oozing out of her implants. She feels the implants are not fit for purpose and she should get her money back. That leak means that Debbie has a much stronger case when it comes to proving her implants were faulty. Crucially, she underwent her surgery three years ago in 2009 and she paid for it on her credit card.

Of the 47,000 British women who received PIP implants, nearly 500 are believed to have suffered a rupture. But many whose implants remain intact also want them removed in case they burst at some point in the future.

Melanie Schilling has already gone with removal and replacement surgery in January as she wasn't prepared to take the risk to her health of them rupturing. Melanie's implants may still be in one piece but as she paid more than £300 for them by credit card, does she have a case for getting her money back? Dean says that under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 it says that those implants must be of satisfactory quality and as the implants are made from industrial standard silicone rather than medical, it means that they are not satisfactory quality and there is a breach of contract which means she can make a claim against the credit card company under Section 75 or the clinic.

COMPANY RESPONSES

A LLoyds TSB spokesperson said:

"One of the advantages of using a credit card to pay for goods and services is that consumers can make a Section 75 claim if there has been a misrepresentation or breach of contract, providing the cost is above £100 and less than £30,000. This can be the case whether they have purchased a holiday, electrical goods or plastic surgery among other things. Every Section 75 claim is different and each one will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis."

"We have received a small number of s75 claims from customers who have been affected by faulty PIP implants in the past few months. We always try to do the best for all of our customers and each case has been or will be assessed on their individual circumstances. We cannot disclose how many claims have resulted in a refund."

A Barclaycard spokesperson said:

Barclaycard has been in contact with Rachel to discuss the details of the case with her. Our advice to any viewers who maybe in a similar position to Rachel is get in touch with us at the earliest opportunity so we can review their case and give guidance on the claims process.

Barclaycard takes its obligations under Section 75 seriously and reviews all claims from customers on a case by case basis.

A Nationwide spokesperson said:

"The option of claiming a refund via Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act of 1975 is open to all customers. However, we will investigate each case on its own merits taking into account the individual circumstances of each customer.

"In terms of Mrs Brewer, we have already had initial contact with her after she requested copies of her credit card statements, which we have provided. If she wishes to pursue a claim, we would be more than happy to look at the case in detail."

A Capital One spokesperson said:

1. Has Capital One received any applications for refunds from people who have paid for the fitting of PIP implants on their credit cards? If so, how many and have any people been issued with refunds to date?

We have had enquiries from three customers who have had PIP implants.

In each case we have asked the customer to talk to their GP in the first instance to seek medical advice on whether they should have their implants removed or replaced.

If they are deemed to be at risk by a medical professional, then we would consider their claim and whether we should cover their costs for corrective surgery.

As yet, none of our customers have had this advice and so we have not provided any refunds for PIP implants to date.

2. Would Capital One consider granting a refund to the specific case study outlined above?

All Section 75 claims are assessed on a case by case basis - it is difficult to make a decision in Melanie's case based on the information that has currently been provided. However, we will be contacting her to discuss her case in more detail and will do what we can to support her claim.

3. Would Capital One consider granting refunds for those people who have had PIP implants fitted and have paid on their Capital One credit card?

We assess all Section 75 claims on a case by case basis. We would ask any customer who has had PIP implants to talk to their GP in the first instance to seek medical advice on whether they should have their implants removed or replaced. If they are deemed to be at risk by a medical professional, then we would consider their claim and whether we should cover their costs for corrective surgery.

4. Would Capital One accept that anyone with the implants would have grounds for a refund for their credit card payments given the evidence that the implants are faulty, even if they have not ruptured?

The latest guidance from the NHS states "there is no clear evidence at present that patients with a PIP implant are at greater risk of harm than those with other implants". The NHS has also confirmed that they "agree with the MHRA advice that there is no specific safety concern identified which requires a recommendation of routine removal of PIP implants."

However, we assess all Section 75 claims individually and if a customer receives medical advice that they should have their PIP implants removed or replaced, regardless of whether they had ruptured, then we would consider their claim and whether we should cover their costs for corrective surgery.

We would always ask a customer to seek medical advice in the first instance though to check that corrective surgery is the right thing for them in their individual circumstances.

5. Would Capital One consider granting refunds to those people who have had the implants fitted more than six years ago, but who have only been made aware recently that the implants are not fit for purpose and could be faulty?

We assess all Section 75 claims on a case by case basis, but given that the problems with PIP implants have only come to light over the past 24 months, we do not believe that anyone will be outside the six year limitation period at this time. We would therefore consider a claim even if the original surgery was more than six years ago. However, we would always ask a customer to seek medical advice in the first instance to check that corrective surgery is the right thing for them in their individual circumstances.

Rogue Traders: John Ovenell, Cheap and Cheerful Clearance

Elham Rizi — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:30:00 +0000

Kent-based John Ovenell offers his customers "Cheap and Cheerful Clearance" of their waste. But despite charging what could be considered reasonable prices, his services haven't left everyone so cheerful.

Kaloyan Todorov paid John Ovenell to pick up some rubbish. He thought it had been taken care of until Kent County Council called him up to tell him that they had found his waste flytipped on the side of the road.

Not only was the rubbish a blight on the landscape in that area, it could have had landed Mr Todorov in court. Under Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act, everyone has a responsibility for ensuring that their own waste is deposited at an authorised site. Last year, Swale Borough Council in Kent prosecuted three people whose rubbish ended up in the wrong place. Luckily, the council didn't pursue matters with Mr. Todorov, as he could prove that he had paid to have his waste disposed of by someone who he thought was authorised to do so.

Of course, the greater responsibility lies with the fly-tipper. Leaving waste on any land without an environmental permit can lead to a fine of up to £50,000 or imprisonment.
But this didn't seem to have been on John Ovenell's mind when he dealt with Rogue Trader's rubbish.

We called him out to a house in Kent, where our homeowner Nicki was waiting with a standard pile of household waste, including a mattress, a sofa and a desk. To make absolutely certain we could identify our waste after we collected it, we sprayed it with a special UV spray and added a few distinctive pieces from the Rogue Trader's props cupboard, such as a red wig and a pair of "Dimbleby" pants. We also added a tracking device to the pile to help us monitor the progress of the waste.

While John was collecting the rubbish at the house, he warned Nicki not to throw away any letters or bank statements as her details could be used by identity fraudsters. But he also must have known that if the council were to find the waste fly tipped, any details in the rubbish identifying her could lead investigators back to him.

John also told Nicki that he would sort out the rubbish before putting it in skips and bins. For example, he told her that he would take some of the bricks he had previously collected to Bexley tip. This would be good practice, but unfortunately it turned out not to be true.

At around 4am on the following day, he was tracked by our team to a spot near Meopham, Kent where he dumped a mixture of our waste and someone else's on the roadside. The rubbish damaged a nearby gate to an apple orchard and made it impossible for anyone to drive through the entrance into the field.

To check whether this act of fly-tipping was a one-off, we called him out to another house to pick up more household waste. This time, he told our homeowner an anecdote about people frequently asking for his waste carrier licence. He implied that he had a licence, but this turned out not to be true. He doesn't have a waste carrier's licence, so it is illegal for him to charge to pick up customer's rubbish.

Just like the first time, he failed to take the rubbish to a tip. Our team followed him from Kent to Esher in Surrey, where at 1.20am he fly-tipped our rubbish next to a Rugby Club.

We then confronted John Ovenell with our allegations, namely that he had been breaking the law by charging customers for waste disposal without holding a waste-carrier's licence, and by leaving the rubbish in unauthorised places. He responded by flatly denying fly-tipping. He admitted he doesn't have a waste carrier's license but does have the form to apply for one. He apologised to us, and to the farmer and said he's not going to collect waste anymore, not even for £1,000. As a gesture, he picked up the rubbish from Esher and deposited it back at the rented house which we had called him out to. He threatened to sue us if we ever put him on television. Presumably, this episode of Rogue Traders will not make him very cheerful.

Excel Parking Services Ltd

Elham Rizi — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:15:00 +0000

The British Parking Association (or BPA) represents private parking companies in the UK. Under the current rules, only companies who are members can buy driver's details from the DVLA, which lets them chase motorists for extortionate charges.

To gain membership, companies have to agree to follow the BPA's Code of Practice, but we've previously seen how the BPA has failed to take action against companies that have breached the code, or even the law. But how would they react if a parking company failed to take action following a judge's ruling? Excel Parking Services Ltd have done just that.

A BPA-approved operator since 1994, Excel operate a car park at the popular Peel retail centre in Stockport. It was here that motorist Martin Cutts parked in March 2010. Martin told us that he thought it would be free to park there, since he believed most big shopping centres didn't charge for their parking. He was quite surprised to get back to his car and find a £100 parking ticket on the windscreen.

The average drive may have just paid up, but Martin was no average driver. As managing director of the Plain Language Commission, his job is to campaign for clear wording and simple language, and he's a bit of an expert when it comes to signs. The BPA Code of Practice states that car park signs must be clear and visible - so that drivers have a chance to understand the terms and charges that apply.

Martin investigated, and found the sign at the entrance to the car park. While it does state that the car park is pay and display, the lettering is just 13mm high and sandwiched amongst many other lines of text. He felt that when driving past at 10mph, you couldn't be expected to read it. When he appealed Excel rejected it, and when he refused to pay again, they took him to court - and lost.

The judge visited the car park herself and agreed that there weren't clear signs to warn drivers that they needed to pay & display, dismissing Excel's claim and ordering the company to pay Martin's expenses

As a BPA-approved operator, Excel is supposed to be one of the most professional and reputable companies in the business, but nothing was done by either the BPA or Excel to make sure the same thing couldn't happen again and the signs have remained exactly the same.

So, what's going on? Well, Excel's Managing Director, Simon Renshaw-Smith described the court ruling as ".....an embarrassment to the judicial system" and he made some pretty rude remarks about the judge too, describing her as "not fit to serve the civil courts".

The BPA said that because the 13mm wording does not break the Code of Practice rules on clarity and visibility, rules which are drawn up by BPA Approved Operator board members... one of whom is Simon Renshaw-Smith, Managing Director of Excel Parking Services Ltd.

In the three years from 2008 to 2011 Excel issued a total of 11,498 parking tickets to drivers who had parked at the Peel Centre car park without paying and displaying. But, by comparison, this council car park in the centre of town, similar in size to the Peel centre, but with pay and display nine times larger, issued only 3000 tickets for not paying and displaying in the same time.

The lettering is nine times smaller, the number of tickets issued is nearly four time higher, yet the BPA are happy for Excel's signs to stay just as they are as the don't break the rules of the code. The BPA says its Code of Practice sets the standard for the private parking industry.

But with rules that allow signs like these, isn't it time to raise the standards, BPA?

COMPANY RESPONSES

A spokesperson from Excel said:

Q1) Why has Excel decided not to change the signs in the Peel Centre Car Park, despite the ruling in the Cutts case?

A1) The said court case is one isolated incident that fell in Cutts' favour. We strongly believe that Deputy District Judge's decision was a grave error of judgement. In support of this view, we should point out that the Peel Centre benefits from 99.6% parking adherence. A compliance rate of this magnitude clearly supports our position. It should also be noted that we have secured many court judgements in Excel Parking's favour. The judgment creates no precedent.

Also, to further elaborate on examples from contractual law, would you not think it fair to state that to be in charge of a motor vehicle you must be of sound mind and have the benefit of reasonable eyesight? You are therefore expected to acknowledge and adhere to public information signs/notices. Ignorance is no excuse in English Law.

A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so, or by acting in such a way that he/she can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of parking in a particular area, by implication the motorist enters into a contract with the parking enforcement company (or the landowner) and accepts the terms set out in the notice by proceeding to park. The decision by the Court of Appeal has confirmed that provided that adequate notice of the consequences of illegal parking is given, the person parking accepts the terms as set in the notice and therefore consents to the risks and consequences.

For your reference below please review a 'summing up' example from case law in terms of signage.

Vine v Waltham LBC [2000] EG 13 May 142 the Court of Appeal

In this particular case it was found that the Plaintiff (Vine) did not consent to have her vehicle wheel clamped. In Mrs Vine's evidence she stated that she had not seen the warning sign on the wall. It had been hidden from her view by a large 4x4 Range Rover parked in the adjoining parking space.

The points to be drawn from this case however, are firstly, if prominent signs had been displayed warning the Plaintiff of the terms and conditions, then Mrs Vine would NOT have been successful in her claim. The sign(s) should be displayed in such a way that a motorist could and indeed should have seen the sign(s). Even if the motorist claims they did not see the sign(s) he/she will be bound by the terms stated therein.

The second point is that the charge to be paid must not be extortionate. In this particular case the Court of Appeal regarded the fee of £105 as reasonable.

For further clarity in terms of signage for the site, please find below for your reference the quantity and type.

Warning Signs & Equipment Present at the Peel Centre, Stockport

Entrance Sign: 4 No. 1500mm x 792mm
Repeater Sign: 29 No. 1220mm x 660mm
Tariff Board: 17 No. 1200mm x 1000mm
Pay Here Cones: 14 No. 605mm x 460mm
Disabled Pay at Machine Sign: 28 No. 300mm x 150mm
Pay & Display Machines: 14 No.

The Code of Practice states that signs must be at least 450mm x 450mm. With the former in mind would you not agree we not only adhere to, but exceed signage standards?

To offer you further insight into the layout of the Car Park, I would refer you to the attached photographs that clearly show signage throughout the site. To confirm, the majority of the signs are back to back (double sided) in order that they can be clearly seen from all areas/angles of the car park. Furthermore, Mr Cutts attended the Peel Centre with his 13 year old son, thus one would have expected them to take the safest and most direct route to their chosen retailer, JJB Sports. I have attached a photograph highlighting this route, which passes over three Zebra Crossings and takes you within a foot of a P&D Machine and accompanying back to back tariff sign.

To conclude this question, the Parking Industry, as with many other industry sectors, are often advised or offered guidance in terms of Best Practice via their respective governing or advisory Bodies. Such Forums are made up from members and stakeholders from outside of their specific sector i.e. consumer groups, motoring organisations and legal representatives, thus allowing for greater opportunities to share best practice and development for the sector in question. This is the case with the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme and the Code of Practice.

As such, when you then consider that the BPA, the Police's own association with the 'Park Mark', the Safer Parking Scheme Award, which the Peel Centre is proud to have achieved, as well as 99.6% of our customers at the Peel Centre acknowledging the signage in situ, clearly this confirms that the site is known as a Pay & Display car park. It is for these reasons the signage remains the same.

Q2) What assurances can Excel give to motorists that the company is committed to providing clear information to motorists, given the revenue generated from this one car park alone and the decision not to alter the signs?

A2) The Peel Centre benefits from 99.6% parking compliance. Such a high compliance rate delivers unquestionable assurance to our customers. There are 14 highly prominent Pay & Display machines, supported by 'Tariff Boards' and 'Pay Here' signs. In total the car park benefits from 92 'Customer Information' signs.

Excel Parking Services have been members of the BPA for over 17 years. We have also actively contributed to enhancing Best Practice within the industry throughout the whole of this time. We have also been instrumental in bringing about improvements to the private parking sector and will continue to call for further action and development of legislation resulting in definitive improvements for the industry as a whole.

Q3) How does Excel respond to the suggestion that AOS Code of Practice is neither robust enough nor enforced effectively enough to protect motorists?

A3) As previously outlined above, we as a business are totally committed to the goals set out within the Code of Practice, and we will continue to work closely with the BPA to bring about an improved experience for consumers and operators alike as our industry evolves. The Code of Practice is extremely consumer focused, and with stringent independent annual audits, we are confident that consumers receive a high degree of protection. Accordingly, we will continue to encourage changes in legislation bringing about greater transparency for all parties.

We would also like to state for the record that we fully support, and welcome, the introduction of an Independent Appeals Service that will come in to effect via the impending changes brought about by the Protection of Freedoms Bill from October 2012.

A British Parking Association (BPA) spokesperson said:

1. Why has the BPA decided that Excel does not need to change the signs in the Peel Centre car park, despite the ruling in the Cutts case?

The BPA has not required Excel's signs to be changed because they remain compliant with our Code of Practice. While the case involving Mr Cutts was noted by our compliance team, numerous similar court cases, not reported on by Watchdog, have found in favour of Excel, in which Judges have determined that signage is comprehensive and visible.

This inconsistency represents a problem for the BPA since we cannot change the regulation for the sector every time such a decision is made. We must therefore use all the information and context available to us to make the Code of Practice as pragmatic and as effective as possible.

2. Why does the BPA believe that these signs meet the AOS Code of Practice, despite motorists clearly not finding the information clear and visible?

We do not accept that motorists are 'not finding the information clear and visible'. During the period in question almost 2.9 million motorists followed the instructions on the signs at the Peel Centre in Stockport without difficulty - a compliance rate of 99.63%.

Nevertheless, the signs used by Excel have been fully checked by BPA's compliance team on a visit to the site, who have confirmed that they do not breach our Code of Practice.

3. What assurances can the BPA give to motorists that both the BPA and its member companies are committed to providing clear information to motorists, despite the decision not to change the car parks signs detailed above - and given the revenue generated from car parks such as this?

The BPA's Code of Practice exists solely to improve standards in the private parking industry, and therefore, to protect motorists. We review it regularly, in close consultation with bodies including; The AA, The RAC Foundation, The Citizens Advice Bureau, Consumer Focus, The Office of Fair Trading, Disabled Motoring UK, and a number of others.

The Code of Practice will be comprehensively reviewed this summer and we do intend to look closely at the clauses relating to signage.

We are currently working on the design and implementation of an Independent Appeals Service (IAS) for motorists ticketed on private land, which we have campaigned tirelessly for over the last decade and which the Government has finally sanctioned.
We have done everything in our power to ensure that the motorist is protected from rogue parking operators but unfortunately, the BPA simply does not have the authority to regulate the private parking industry any further than it already does.

4. How does the BPA respond to the suggestion that AOS Code of Practice is neither robust enough nor enforced effectively enough to protect motorists?

The AOS was created in 2007 in the absence of any other effective regulation of the Private Parking Industry. As such, it is still developing and improving.

We now have a robust Sanctions Scheme where, if members are found to be in breach of the Code, sanctions points are awarded which can eventually result in expulsion. Currently, 29 members have sanction points on their record and five members have been expelled from the Scheme.

We have a dedicated Compliance Manager and have conducted over 2000 investigations into member behaviour last year following complaints from the public.

However, we believe that our Approved Operator Scheme is no substitute for legislation which regulates the sector. We have campaigned for many years for the Government to fully regulate private parking operators so that those who are currently not answerable to any authority can be held to account. A robust regulatory framework enshrined in law is the fairest and most effective way to achieve this but the Government have consistently refused to take this important step to protect motorists.

Rick's Rants: Advert disclaimers

Elham Rizi — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:00:00 +0000

Tesco; Talk-Talk; Harvey's. They're all packing their ads with small print and disclaimers and this doesn't impress Watchdog's resident grump Rick Wakeman...

It's bad enough having some television adverts interrupting your favourite programmes, but what makes it worse is seeing the get-out clauses that some of these ads use.
Take Sainsbury's - they have a promise to match the price of branded products that you can find cheaper elsewhere. They've been banging on about it for months, which is about as long as it takes to read the list of disclaimers. These disclaimers include:

You have to spend at least £20
It doesn't apply online
It doesn't apply in Sainsbury's convenience stores
It doesn't apply in Sainsbury's garages
You have to price match across your whole basket of brands. Not just the ones that are cheaper elsewhere.

All this, and not to mention the hundreds of products that aren't included. Even after all of that, you can only claim a coupon with a maximum value of... £10.

Adverts in the newspapers use the same trick, and you also have to watch out for the dreaded asterisk. Take an advert for Talk Talk broadband. The 'half price' and the '£3.25' are in massive letters, but when you read the disclaimer you discover that it isn't £3.25, at least when you add on the £30 or £50 connection fee. Plus not to mention the £13.80 a month line rental... that comes with a massive 12 month contract.

Perhaps we have all become so used to seeing all this information that we don't bother to read it. We need to pay attention though, because it could be surprising. Take an advert from Harveys for example: if appears to offer massive discounts on sofas. But when you take a closer look, you discover that the supposedly "bargain" sale price of £699 is actually £100 more than the previous price on the screen (although there were two higher prices listed).

So we've had too much information - and "eyebrow-raising" information. A newer type of disclaimer concerns questionable market research. Want to know more? Ask the man from Del Monte. In one ad, he claimed that the majority of people like to say 'yes' to his orange juice, compared to the leading brand. But when you look at the small print, it reveals that this boast is based on a survey of only 144 respondents - 54% of whom preferred Del Monte. When you think about it, that means 46% didn't prefer it.

Rick suspects that most of these disclaimers are there to stop the companies getting into trouble with the advertising authorities for making misleading claims. It doesn't always work, though. Tesco fell foul of the authority with a press claim that their British iceberg lettuces go from farm to store within 24 hours. When challenged by the ASA that this might not be true, they said that it was "just puffery and doesn't need to be substantiated" and "the average consumer would take it to mean delivered quickly rather than within 24 hours". Well, why not just say that then?

COMPANY RESPONSES

A Sainsbury's spokesperson said:

"Millions of Sainsbury's customers benefit from Brand Match vouchers in our stores every week and they tell us they like the scheme and understand how it works. "The end of shopping around" is a headline in some of our adverts and invites people to find out more, with an immediate and clear explanation that we compare prices so that our customers won't pay more for their basket of comparable brands than at Asda and Tesco, and they will instantly receive a coupon for the difference at the till. To avoid customer disappointment we state where there are exclusions and a small number of stores where we are unable to offer Brand Match are detailed on our website."

A Harveys spokesperson said:

Harveys always endeavours to be both clear and transparent with the promotion of its offers to customers and also to comply with relevant regulations regarding the promotion of offers and price reductions. Harveys has to display price trails in full for a product to ensure that it fully complies with such regulations regardless of whether prices go up or down. This particular product was previously sold at one lower price as well as at two higher prices than the price given at the time of the advert hence the reason why a full price trail for the product meant that all these prices had to be displayed.

A Talk Talk spokesperson said:

A TalkTalk spokesperson said: "BT, BSkyB, Virgin and TalkTalk all advertise the cost of phone and broadband subscriptions separately from monthly line rental and connection charges. We make all of the charges very clear when customers sign up, they are contained within all the promotional material, and we are committed to offering the best value on the market, with no hidden charges."

A Tesco spokesperson said:

"The disclaimer was used to ensure customers understood that in rare and unforeseen circumstances the product may not arrive into our stores as quickly as normal. We know our customers value freshness and our intention was to highlight the fact that our lettuces go from farm to store within 24 hours, and that it is therefore possible for our customers to buy and eat a lettuce within 24 hours of it leaving the farm."