PPI Problems Don't Get Done Get Dom

For years now, I've been on a crusade to combat your consumer woes.

But there are still companies out there who aren't taking the hint.

Big companies only care about money.

On a daily basis, thousands of you are being taken for a ride, and it's always the same old stuff -

bad customer service, poor products, dodgy workmanship

and those dreaded terms and conditions.

Big companies don't show the respect to the consumers.

These dismal dealings can drive you to despair, leaving you feeling abused and confused.

But fear not...

because I'll take them on to make sure you don't get done.

Coming up on today's show...

A pensioner that was cold-called by an insurance reclaim company,

leaving her out of pocket and out of patience...

This is legal and binding, legal and binding.

I thought you had to sign a contract with people

before it was legal and binding.

..a painting-and-decorating whistle-blower exposes the darker shade of the industry...

The rogues are literally just trying to earn a fast buck, get on to the next job

and that's all they're interested in.

..and we see if you've got the inside track when it comes to your consumer rights.

I will use that one in the future.

You'd have had to be living on another planet to have not heard about payment protection insurance,

but let me explain what it is and how it works with the aid of my friend here, Zoe.

Give everyone a wave, Zoe.

Now, let's assume Zoe took out a large loan to buy a car. You like your car, don't you, Zoe?

REVVING

Zoe was quite happy making repayments on that car while she was working.

But then, one day, fate struck and Zoe fell off her skateboard and had a little bit of a fall.

Didn't you, Zoe?

Wow, you really bashed yourself up.

Doesn't matter, though, because Zoe was sold payment protection insurance,

which means, while she's getting better, the insurance company will make the repayments on her loan.

Sadly, though, some people were sold payment protection insurances that they didn't need.

Naughty.

But the banks have realised the error of their ways

and are starting to refund people money on mis-sold payment protection insurance policies.

And here is where our story starts.

It's estimated that 2.5 million of us have been mis-sold payment protection insurance, or PPI,

and that the banks have set aside £4.5 billion waiting to be reclaimed.

Trouble is, though, when you've got £4.5 billion dangling there as a proverbial carrot,

of course someone somewhere is going to try to take advantage of that fact.

And one person who has experienced this is Anne Baduna from North London.

Until six months ago, Anne was happily living off her modest pension.

That was until she received a call from a PPI reclaim company.

I was sitting at home and the phone rang and it's these people from Redress Claims.

They were insisting that I had so much money to come back from PPIs,

which I did tell them, I had never had PPIs in my life.

Many people were sold payment protection insurance without realising it,

and some were told that they had to take it out in order to secure a loan.

Some were sold insurance that wasn't valid for their individual circumstances.

But following a court ruling in 2011, the financial institutions were told to pay this back.

Redress Claims are one of the many companies that offer to request this money back on customers' behalf,

and Anne says they told her she could be owed some money.

But they did keep insisting that they could get me between £3,000 and £9,000.

Anne says Redress Claims wouldn't take no for an answer and continued calling her,

asking her to let them take on her case on a no-win, no-fee basis.

They rang five or six times in a week.

The people that I spoke to on the phone were very convincing.

They said that they had 26 lawyers working for them to get this money for me from PPIs,

Which then you start to think, well, maybe I did have PPIs.

If this company's got 26 lawyers working for them,

they must be very confident that they can get this money for you.

Anne eventually agreed, and Redress Claims told her that, to investigate her case,

they needed her credit card details, which Anne gave them.

But instead of receiving a protection windfall of up to £9,000,

Anne received a nasty shock in the post.

Well, when I opened the credit card bill, I thought, I can't believe this -

£2,170 for this company...

..that was not supposed to cost me

one penny for investigations has charged me all this money.

When Anne contacted Redress Claims and asked for her money back,

she was told she'd entered into a legally binding contract,

and because the 14-day cooling-off period had passed, she would forfeit 60% of the £2,170 to cancel.

I had sleepless nights, worrying about this money.

How was I going to pay this money to my credit card?

I'm an old age pensioner. I get basic pension,

and this shouldn't have to happen to anyone,

all right? This upsets me because it's injustice.

All the Redress Claims investigations had managed to recover for their £2,000 fee

is a refund for a £15.50 bank charge.

And Redress Claims are sticking by their terms and conditions and refused to give her money back.

So I'm heading up to North London to see if I can get to the bottom of it.

BUZZER RINGS

-Oh, hiya.

-Dom, hello.

'Once inside, I get straight down to business.'

Tell me about the day these phone calls started.

Well, they kept ringing me up and saying that I had so much money to come back.

Between £3,000 and £9,000 was due to me. And I kept insisting that I didn't have any money to come at all.

So you knew you'd never had payment protection insurance on anything?

No, nothing whatsoever.

'Anne tells me she and her husband had paid off their mortgage by 1995'

and had only taken out two small loans in the last 20 years and had two credit cards they rarely used.

Now, you got five or six phone calls. Obviously they're trying to get some sort of money from you.

Tell me what happened there.

So then they wanted my credit card numbers.

-And then on the thing I had security number...

-Yeah, on the back.

..which was absolutely ridiculous, and I gave them my security number.

OK, I can tell you're not a fool, Anne, you're a very shrewd lady.

So why did you actually do that? Because you know now it's daft.

I don't know!

Well, you tell me, because there's a reason there somewhere.

I don't know. I think it was I had a house full of people having dinner and one thing or another

and I've given them my numbers.

But then after I'd done this I thought, what an idiot, why would you do this?

These people can do anything. That night I couldn't sleep, thinking about this stupid thing I'd done.

And I rang my bank to tell them that these people had all the details on my credit card.

Good for you.

So the man on the other end said to me,

"Your cards have been compromised," and I said, "Yes, they have. Just stop them, stop them all."

And I cut them all up.

But because Anne had given Redress Claims her card details before she cancelled it,

they were still able to take the payment.

Did, at any point, they tell you they were going to take any money, full stop?

Nothing whatsoever, because this man that I spoke to, he kept saying to me,

"This will cost you not one penny from your pocket, Mrs Baduna, not one penny."

No, it didn't cost me one penny. It cost me £2,170.

But when Anne contacted Redress Claims after they'd taken their fee

to tell them she didn't want them to investigate her case,

they told her that she had missed the 14-day cooling-off period

that began when she entered into a verbal contract with them during a previous phone call.

This is legal and binding, legal and binding.

I thought you had to sign a contract with people before it was legal and binding.

Unfortunately for Anne, it's common misconception that verbal agreements are less legal than paper ones.

They are not.

But Anne swears blindly that Redress Claims did not tell her

they were going to take the fee of £2,170,

but that they said they would investigate her case on a no-win, no-fee basis.

Although Redress Claims have managed to get Anne a bank charge refund of £15.50,

it doesn't even begin to outweigh

the burden of her unwanted credit card debt.

You must've addressed this company, phoned up, said, "Give me my money back."

I did, I did. I rang them up and I said I did not want this PPI investigation thing

or whatever it was.

The woman on the telephone said that I could not cancel this off because the cooling-off period

was two weeks and had passed that.

-Wow.

-That's gone.

-Yeah.

And I thought, well, they've got 26 lawyers working for them.

I'm just an old age pensioner, dear, what chance do you stand? Tell me.

The more I hear, the more I think establishing exactly what was or wasn't discussed

in the phone calls between Anne and Redress Claims is key to establishing if I have a case here.

But for now I want to find out what Anne has done about the £2,170 credit card bill.

-We're talking about six months ago now.

-That's right. Exactly.

What's happened now with this money? You're paying it off each month?

Well, I've paid it and I've got an overdraft at the bank

because I thought an overdraft in the bank is cheaper than having...

-Interest on your credit card.

-Yes, that's right. That was my way of reasoning.

How has this whole experience made you feel?

Very insecure, Dom. I'm frightened to say yes to anything at all.

How much worry has it caused you?

Well, it's caused me a few sleepless nights, especially at first when they took my money.

Terrible.

'To help me make head or tail of this mess, I'm going to get Anne

'to bring her clerical skills out of retirement.'

-Have you got the paperwork with your credit card number?

-I have, yes.

Let's have a look at what we've got here.

'In order to get to the bottom of this one,

'I'm going to launch a two-pronged attack. Not only am I going to track down Redress Claims

'and see what they've got to say for themselves, I'm going to also contact Anne's credit card provider.

'Now, Anne's convinced the payment was made without her authority,

'and if I can prove that is the case, under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act,

'Anne's card provider, NatWest, should reimburse her that payment

'and with poor Anne out of pocket to a tune of over two ground,

'I'm going to waste no time giving the bank a call.'

They took out £2,170.

What I'd like to do is immediately with you raise a dispute

and start the process of trying to reclaim that money.

Basically, Anne, I'm going to get you your money back.

-And I'm certain of it. Don't go booking your next holiday yet.

-Oh, no, I won't.

'With the ball rolling with Anne's credit card company,

'it's time for me to hit the road.'

Anne's the first to admit that she's been a bit daft

giving her credit card details out to a cold caller,

but Redress Claims sound like they haven't been too honourable in what they've done.

So, I'm going to get on the phone to them and see what I can sort out.

Let me tell you something.

If anybody cold-called me out of the blue

and ask for credit card details, I'd tell them to do one.

'But when I finally catch up with Redress Claims...'

-'VOICEMAIL MESSAGE'

-What a surprise(!)

I just wondered if you would have the decency to call us back, please.

Bye-bye.

For years now, I've been banging on to you consumers

about how it pays to know your rights,

but I never said it'd be easy. There's the Sales of Goods Act,

right to return, contract of sale... I could go on.

But a little knowledge will do both you and your wallet a huge favour.

So, the Don't Get Done team have been out and about

armed with questions to put to you, the buying public,

to see how well you know your rights concerning tricky transactions.

Today we hit the street on a mission to share my wealth of knowledge

and make you a bit more savvy.

First question for you busy buyers -

"You buy a digital camera from a large chain store.

"After four months, it develops a faulty screen.

"You return it to the store and ask for a refund,

"but the sales assistant says you will need to pay

"for an independent report to prove you didn't break it.

"Are they right?"

Yeah, the answer's yeah.

Yeah, I think they're right.

No, because it's in the 12 month guarantee.

Only one out of three.

Under the Sales of Goods Act, if an item develops a fault

in the first six months, that is not down to wear and tear,

the retailer must issue a refund.

And it states it is the retailer's responsibility

to prove that the item wasn't faulty and the first place.

But after six months, it's down to the consumer

to prove they didn't cause the fault.

Next up -

"You buy tickets to a comedy gig from an online retailer.

"At the last minute, a work commitment means you can't make it

"and you try to cancel the tickets three days beforehand.

"Can you return the tickets and get a refund?"

I guess you can get the refund. Or 50%.

I think the answer is probably no.

Probably not, I'm going to say.

Only two out of three.

If you change your mind about attending the event,

you're not entitled to a refund.

Once you pay for the ticket you no longer have any cancellation rights.

However, if the performance is cancelled,

then you are eligible for a refund.

-Good to know.

-Really good one.

Last up -

"Your neighbour has a row of trees

"that blocks the light to your garden.

"You have asked them to get the trees trimmed

"but they won't listen.

"Is there anything else you can do?"

No, I would've thought. If it's on their side.

Erm... Yeah, I think you can go to the council.

You can legally complain about that, can't you?

Two out of three.

With disputes of this nature,

you are well within your rights to go to the council and complain.

However, they are entitled to charge you for their services.

But the council isn't obliged to help you

if they think you haven't done enough to settle the dispute.

Right!

I am in no doubt there is room for improvement,

but I'm encouraged that some of you appear to have

learnt about what I have been ranting on about for years.

Take it from me, a little bit of know-how can go a long way

to stopping you getting done.

Today I'm looking into a case on behalf of pensioner Anne,

who is unhappy with her dealings with Redress Claims.

When I hung up the phone, this young man got quite angry

and rang me back immediately and asked me why I had hung up the phone.

Quite intimidating.

Anne says that, not only did Redress Claims tell her

that she could be owed up to £9,000 in PPI refunds,

but they said the service they were providing was no-win, no-fee.

However, the company have taken £2,170 from her credit card

to investigate her potential mis-sold PPIs,

and all she's received so far is a bank charge refund of £15.50.

Devastated. Devastated. How can I afford to lose £2,170?

Before I hit the phone,

I want to know a little more about the company.

Bradford-based Redress Claims was started in 2008

by a Naman Hussain, a former IT and marketing consultant.

Because the banks have been ruled to pay back mis-sold PPIs,

they are one of the many companies cashing in

on an opportunity in the market.

I'm sure Anne is not the only person to have been

contacted by one of these firms,

so I've hit the streets to do a bit of research of my own.

Have you heard of what's called PPI?

No, I haven't.

No.

I don't technically understand it.

Not a huge amount, just what you hear on the television, on the news.

It seems not many of you are aware of payment protection insurance.

No wonder companies can step in and offer their services.

Have you ever received a text, you don't know who it's from, saying,

"Have you been mis-sold payment protection insurance?"

Yes! Several times.

I get in the past month about five texts, yeah.

Yes, I have, but I've always thought it was junk so I just ignored it.

I received some SMS messages but I haven't contacted anyone.

If you had had it,

would you have known the correct way about reclaiming it?

A lot of people phone and ask you.

No, I would not have a clue, to be perfectly honest.

How would you go about reclaiming it?

I find the cheapest option,

like no-win, no-fee and stuff, for example.

How would you go round reclaiming it?

I've got no idea.

Obviously, with plenty of confusion out that there, and with the banks

paying back millions in mis-sold PPIs, the middlemen have stepped in.

I think it's high time I spoke to Redress Claims,

and the first thing I want to find out is exactly what was said

during Anne's sales call.

Tell you something, right from the heart.

I am not a great fan of these companies who cold-call people

and send texts offering to claim back monies they spent on PPI.

Let's just see how they respond to my questions.

'Something tells me I could be in for a bit of a wait.'

'Thank you for calling the PPI advice line.

'Please note, all calls are recorded

'for training and monitoring purposes.'

That's handy, cos I'm going to be asking

for a copy of poor old Anne's call.

And for me, this is the key

if I'm going to establish precisely what the terms

of her verbal contract were. And whilst on hold,

a quick scan of the web throws up a number of other people

complaining about Redress Claims.

Just looking online here,

there is untold complaints in here, untold.

Seven minutes later. I'm finally through to the call centre.

Hi, there. Sorry, did you say who I was speaking to? I didn't hear that.

'It's Andrew.'

'Oh, what a surprise,

'the person I need to speak to is in a meeting.'

What I need is a few details so I can get an e-mail over to you guys.

When you say he's not available,

what's the name of the person whose not available?

-'Mr Hussain.'

-Mr Hussain?

-'Yes, it is, yeah.'

Whilst I've got Redress Claims on the phone,

I'm going to pry a little deeper into how this company operates.

Could you just tell me,

when you record calls, how long do you keep those recordings for?

'Erm...'

Presumably, if somebody raises a dispute with you,

-I would imagine you probably archive that call just in case...

-'We do.'

Thank you, Andrew.

-'OK then. Thanks for your time.'

-Thanks. Bye-bye.

Now, he gave me permission to use the phone call, which is very good,

but I covered a couple of points there which are really crucial.

"Do you record all of the calls?" "Yes." That box ticked.

"If somebody raises a dispute, you keeper's calls indefinitely."

"Yes, of course we do." Lovely. Absolutely lovely.

Which means I can request that phone conversation

between those two parties and them.

And it seems Anne's not the only person to contact me

with a complaint about Redress Claims.

I've landed myself another case, William Dwyer from Dundee.

Like Anne, William got cold-called.

and claims he was told his credit card debts

could be cleared by money he was owed for mis-sold PPIs,

and that this wouldn't - yep, you've guessed it - cost him a penny.

Like Anne, poor old William has found himself out of pocket

and claims the company have ignored his requests to get the money back.

So, William had a fee of £980 taken from his credit card,

whilst Anne was charged a fee of £2,170.

William had been mis-sold PPI

but Anne hadn't.

Both were told they'd lose 60% of the upfront fee if they cancelled.

Redress Claims have managed to get William

PPI refunds totalling £333.35

and Anne has received a bank charge refund of £15.50

but Redress have kept their entire upfront fees.

So Anne is out of pocket

to the tune of £2,154.50

and William's wallet is £646.65 lighter.

Now, I'm no mathematician, but it doesn't take a genius to work out

those figures only stack in favour of Redress Claims

'and have done more than leaving Anne out of pocket.'

It does affect you.

Most certainly does, psychologically,

as well as financially.

Now, according to their terms and conditions, they only take their cut

which is 25% plus VAT

on any successful PPI refunds.

No win, no fee.

But - and it's a very big but -

their terms and conditions also state they will charge

an upfront fee for any case that they examine.

So, they're charging a fee, why on earth did they tell William and Anne

it won't cost them a penny?

At risk of sounding like a stuck record, I'm convinced

getting my hands on the sales calls

is key to getting Anne and William's money back

as they will prove whether or not Redress Claims told them

they would take any upfront fees for their services.

I'm now going to send Redress Claims an e-mail requesting those calls.

There is obviously a lot of confusion out there about PPI,

and with banks paying back millions for mis-selling the product,

the middlemen have stepped in

to cash in on what looks like a lucrative market.

Claims management companies will take a claim on your behalf

to a bank or financial company about mis-sold PPI.

They will expect you to provide details of your policy

and personal circumstances

but they take a fee for making this complaint.

What does it mean if somebody receives a call

from a PPI reclaim company?

A lot of claims management companies will cold-call you.

They'll send you texts, phone you at home, on your mobile,

sometimes promising that you can reclaim thousands of pounds.

But actually, this is just blanket phone calls and blanket e-mails

and we think you should probably ignore them.

Is using one of these companies the only way

of reclaiming mis-sold PPIs?

It's absolutely possible to make claims against financial companies

by yourself. The system is set up to do that.

Millions of people have already made very successful complaints

about mis-sold PPI, with billions of pounds paid out.

The banks are expecting people to complain, as they know they have mis-sold these products

so our advice is, go online, get the free top tips and template letters,

make the complaint yourself.

And in this way, you can avoid having to pay the 30% or more

that some claims managements charge for taking the complaint for you.

Crikey. So you don't even need to use a claims management company.

In fact, it could be considerably cheaper if you did it yourself.

Now, I think it's time to get back on the phone

to Redress Claims, and this time I'm going straight to the boss.

I'm going to ring this guy's mobile number.

Let's just see what does happen.

'But if he's got wind that I'm on his case,

'I wonder whether he'll even pick up the phone at all.'

Naman, it's Dominic Littlewood from the BBC. Good afternoon.

'So far, so good.'

I'm ringing about some complaints we've received

from some people about some problems with Redress Claims.

'I spoke too soon.

'He says he's off to a meeting and asks me to call back.'

Yeah, how long are you going to be, Naman?

'He says about 45 minutes.'

Could you give me your direct-dial number, please?

'Apparently not.'

Bye-bye, then.

I found that very strange. Here's the MD of the company

who says, "I'm busy." Fair enough. That I didn't find strange,

but I asked for a direct number. He says, "I've a problem with the line."

"What's your secretary's?" "It's the same line." "Can you give me any landline?"

"No, no, we're having problems with them. I'll call you back."

Here's your chance, Naman.

It's 3:40. You said 45 minutes. Call me back

cos if I have to, I'll come round and knock on your door.

I'm quickly sensing I could be in for one hell of a fight here

trying to get a copy of these sales-calls recordings

despite Redress themselves already telling me they keep them.

I've already e-mailed them requesting copies

and if I get them, I'm confident this will put the case to bed.

But I've heard nothing back. I'm convinced, if all else fails

that because Anne claims her money was taken from her credit card

without her authorisation,

she could be in for a shout trying to claim the money back

under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act.

This legislation protects all payments between £100 and £30,000

made on your plastic.

I've already got the ball rolling with this by contacting Anne's bank

but to be honest, I see this as a last resort

because if I get a copy of those calls

and it proves Redress Claims took that money from Anne

without the correct permissions, I want them to pay it back.

So what rules are in place to govern the way these companies operate?

And who's responsible for ensuring they play by the rules?

The answer is the Ministry Of Justice.

We're concerned that consumers

dealing with claims management companies aren't ripped off again.

They've already suffered through being mis-sold a product,

and we don't want them to be out of pocket again

through using the wrong company,

paying too much for a service which otherwise they could do on their own.

That's good to know.

So, what rules do claims management companies have to abide by?

All our rules we place on companies are very important

but the key rule is around treating customers fairly,

to give them a fair deal, not to mislead them in any way

and to ensure they're always acting in the client's best interest.

And what about companies taking fees upfront before providing a service?

We'd be concerned about companies taking upfront fees,

particularly because it exposes consumers to parting with their money

before any service has been provided.

We require companies to provide very detailed information

about the services they provide to the customer

before the customer agrees to pay any fee.

It's important customers understand

exactly how long it will take, how much it will cost,

and what sort of compensation they might get at the end of the process

so they can make an informed choice about whether to go forward.

The Ministry of Justice stipulate

that verbal agreements over the phone must be followed up

with a contract outlining the terms and conditions,

including the cooling-off period, BEFORE any fees are taken.

Both Anne and William say, not only were they misinformed

during the sales calls about what they were entering into,

there was no mention of a cooling-off period

and that the claims pack paperwork didn't arrive

until AFTER the fees were taken and the cooling-off period had passed.

Are the MoJ aware of Redress Claims?

We received some complaints about the activities of Redress Claims

several months ago, and after analysing those complaints

and investigating the circumstances around them,

we decided we need to put restrictions on their activities,

so firstly we require them

to issue receipts to consumers when they take any fee from their account,

and secondly, we require them to hold call recordings

for a period of three months,

so that we can investigate any allegations made by consumers

later on, that the process hasn't gone as they expected it.

Crikey. So Redress Claims have already had

conditions placed on them by the MoJ,

stating they must issue receipts when they take fees over the phone

and must keep recordings of all calls for three months.

But these restrictions didn't come into effect

until two months after Anne and William had been cold-called

and speaking of phones, it's time I got back on one to you-know-who,

armed with yet more queries about where Redress Claims

may not have abided by the rules in Anne and William's cases.

Now, it seems rather convenient

Redress Claims had no problem picking up the phone

when they chased poor Anne and William's credit card details

but now I'm asking questions, they're proving slightly elusive.

I've already called the boss and he promised to call me back,

but that was nearly an hour ago.

He obviously doesn't know I don't like being kept waiting.

Let see if he answers the phone this time.

'This is the Vodafone voicemail service for...'

What a surprise.

'Please leave your message after the tone.'

BEEP

I wondered if you'd have the decency to call us back, please. Look forward to hearing from you. Bye.

Call me back, Naman. Because I'm not going away.

But when I finally get through to Redress Claims,

I'm far from impressed by what they've got to say.

If you can't provide those, you're not in a position to argue and you need to give them their money back.

Wouldn't we all like to know

what goes on inside the mind of dodgy traders?

You know, get a little insight into how they all work.

Well, step forward, today's whistle-blower.

Watch this, because it's going to be very interesting.

For many, when it comes to redecorating our homes,

it pays to pick up the phone and call in the professionals.

After all, the last thing you want to live with is a hacked-up hallway,

poor paint jobs or wonky wallpaper.

And although many decorators do exactly what they say on the tin,

the pitfalls can be poor preparation, flaky finishes

and cowboy tradesmen that are only interested

in getting their mitts on your pot of cash.

Today, we have an expert who's determined to lift the lid

on the dodgy decorators that give the industry a bad name.

And with the picture he paints of more tarnish than varnish,

you'll soon understand why we've taken measures to disguise him.

It's very, very, very frustrating

for, you know, professional decorators

that have got good standards and want happy customers,

you know, these fraudsters,

these daubsters, chancers, etc,

they are literally in it just for a quick buck.

So, what tell-tale signs help distinguish a good decorator

from a dreadful one?

A good decorator will give you quality,

they'll give you a job that will last.

A job done well will last a long time.

A job done badly isn't going to last any time at all.

The rogues and the chancers and the bad tradesmen

are literally just trying to earn a fast buck, earn a quick living,

get on to the next job.

If an average room would cost £250-£400 depending on the size,

these guys will come in and say that they'll do a room for £200 or £150.

The paint alone in a room,

an average-sized room, good quality paint could come to £100

so in reality, they're only going to earn themselves £100.

They'll just used the cheapest of cheap paint,

paint that's, you know, bought from a boot sale, etc,

so they won't use the best-quality paint.

What tales of woe does our decorator whistle-blower have for us?

I was called on a job to rectify,

the client was complaining of all the filler falling out.

On close inspection, it turned out

that the bodger had used mud.

An absolute nightmare. Every part of that filler had to be dug out

and the correct products used

to give a lasting job,

which ultimately will cost more than doing the job right first time.

I've seen fibrous cornice work, which is really a specialist job to fit,

nailed up with six-inch nails, split and broken.

I've seen wallpaper that should be hung professionally,

expensive wallpaper, with all the joints overlapped,

all the adhesive seeping out,

paste all on the skirtings and on the ceilings

so when the client turns on their table lamps,

they have a shiny ceiling wherever the paper's gone up.

What more subtle ways would a rogue operator try to deceive a client?

A bad company could camouflage their work practices in many, many ways.

They could, for example, if they're using gloss,

they could put lots of white spirit in this gloss

so they can apply it at speed.

The downfall to that, obviously, would be,

the gloss will go completely flat in a very, very short time,

because it's thinned out,

it won't have the tough protection that gloss should have.

A bodger would say that

they're going to strip the wallpaper that's already on the walls,

they'll fill, they'll sand, they'll seal the walls,

they'll cross line, and they're going to hang this expensive wallpaper.

In reality, what they will do, if you're at work or on holiday,

is they won't do none of that.

They will literally just hang the wallpaper

straight on top of your existing wallpaper.

So our decorator has dished the dirt on the disasters.

Now, how do you stop yourself from getting done?

Here are my insider's tips.

Firstly, go to those in the know.

Definitely get in touch with a trade association.

They have a code of practice,

they have rules that we have to adhere to

and, you know, you've actually got a third port of call.

If you're not happy, at least you've got somebody you can refer to.

Always get three estimates.

By default, I would recommend that clients usually try and think,

the middle one could be a good one.

You really need to feel happy with your tradesman.

You'll get an instant like or dislike

to the tradesman coming into your home.

And lastly, be wary of cash-hungry cowboys.

Always steer clear of a trader

that insists on cash upfront, or cash payments.

A bona fide tradesman shouldn't need to be worrying about cash.

All these sort of things should give you an indication

that the guy should be bona fide.

I've taken on a case of two pensioners,

Anne Baduna and William Dwyer,

who have been left out of pocket

after being cold-called by PPI reclaim company Redress Claims.

Well, they kept ringing me up and ringing me up,

convincing me that I had this money to come

and it wasn't going to cost me one penny from my pocket.

Redress Claims have taken fees of £2,170 from Anne

to investigate mis-sold PPIs

that she swears she told them she never took out,

and all she's received in return is a bank charge refund of £15.50.

And William was charged fees of £980

for his PPI investigation,

and although he did have money for PPI to claim back,

the costs outweighed the settlement

so he's found himself with almost £650 less than when he started.

Anne and William allege Redress Claims not only failed

to fully inform them about the agreement they were entering into,

but also failed to send them this information in writing

before taking the fees, which if true,

breaks guidelines outlined why the Ministry of Justice.

I found out that following a series of complaints,

the MoJ had recently enforced conditions on Redress Claims

to issue receipts when taking fees over the phone

and to keep all telephone call recordings for three months.

For me, getting hold of Anne and William's sales calls

is key to finding if Redress Claims did everything by the book.

But despite asking for copies, they've been ignoring my requests.

But just when I'm hoping for a breakthrough,

I receive a bit of a bombshell.

I've had an e-mail from Redress Claims,

saying they tried to take the money from Anne's account on two occasions

and on both of them, it was declined.

Just in case I didn't believe them,

they've been kind enough to send me a screen grab. How nice.

There it is. "Declined."

But Anne's got a statement from her bank

showing that the money was paid out

and into Redress Claims' account.

It even says the account number. So on one hand,

we've a letter from NatWest saying the money has been paid to Redress.

On the other, you got Redress Claims saying, "We haven't got it."

Someone needs to give their accounts department a kick up the backside.

I've got a funny feeling I know who it is.

The person who sent the e-mail, the company's legal adviser,

has given me his number.

It's time I had an overdue chat with Redress Claims.

It's Dominic Littlewood from the BBC.

You're denying payment's been received by Anne Baduna to you?

'I can't believe what I'm hearing.

'Redress Claims are sticking to their guns.'

She's supplied you with proof that she has paid it, so don't...

I don't want to hear, "That's not proof enough,

"it could be in any account."

'Redress asked me for another copy of Anne's credit card statement,

'which should clear that up.

'But there is another issue I need to discuss.'

Both of these people saying they were assured no money would be taken

so if you've got phone conversations and you can prove that,

great, I'm off your back.

'Redress saying that if they didn't want them to take the upfront fees,

'then why did they give their credit card details?'

If I started phoning up your granny, 76-year-old granny,

on five occasions, and she put the phone down on at least two of them

telling me to go away, I'm sure with the right amount of sales practice,

I could get your 76-year-old granny, who's getting fed up of my voice

to give me her credit card details.

And if that's what happened, you as a company should be ashamed

and that's why a phone conversation

and hearing the transcript of that, or hearing that conversation,

would put the whole situation to bed.

We'll know exactly what happened.

'Now they're saying the calls might have been deleted

'when they changed their phone system.'

Right, now my blood's boiling!

'Well, by the sound of that call, I'm back to square one'

'and something tells me, once this company dig their heels in,

'they dig their heels in.'

Guess what?

We've had an e-mail back, saying

they are not prepared to accept a scanned copy of Anne's authorisation

for us to request this information.

Not a problem. I will send the originals.

They've also said they're going to charge us for it.

Not a problem, Redress Claims. We will pay it.

But to top it off, they said the whole thing might take 40 days.

So what? I'll wait if I have to.

But lo and behold, a few days later

I get another e-mail from Redress Claims.

They refuse to comment further on the matter

and just told me that they'd contacted Anne and William directly.

In a letter to Anne, they say...

'Surely, this can mean only one thing.

'I think it's time for me to head back to North London.'

-Hello, my lovely.

-Oh, hello, Dom. How wonderful to see you.

-I like that sort of greeting. Hello, Anne.

-Come in.

No, you come out here! It's a lovely day. How are you, lovely?

-I'm all right, dear.

-Are you?

-I am.

I feel like we're about to waltz or something.

I wish I could dance!

Yeah? So do I. Did you see me on Strictly? Forget it!

Let's have a seat, Anne.

Come on over here, my lovely.

There we are. Thank you.

How's it been since I last saw you?

-All right.

-Yeah?

-Yes.

Cor, it's like a date, this, Anne.

It's all right, dear. I'm used to cuddling the boys.

Are you? Right.

-Redress.

-Oh, my God.

I made you a promise, didn't I? When we first met. What was that promise?

You promised that you would get my money back.

Yeah. And what's happened since?

-Well, you got my money back.

-Yeah.

Unbelievable. I mean, this to us

-is a massive amount of money.

-Yeah.

And thanks to you, we've survived and we got justice.

You was prepared to write this money off.

You were so fed up with the company, you'd given up on chasing it.

I did. Yes, I did.

That worries me. How many other people out there like you

-might have just given up on it?

-That's right.

-Now, I need to tell you about my fee.

-Yes.

It's a cup of tea and a bacon sandwich.

SHE LAUGHS

You can have half a dozen bacon rolls, dear,

-as well as a cup of tea.

-Just one, Anne! Just one.

Cup of tea and a bacon sarnie with a bit of red sauce. Shall we go in?

Yes, let's go.

'After a very stressful six months,

'Redress Claims have sent Anne a cheque for £2,170,

'refunding her upfront fees, which makes me very happy.

'But Anne wasn't the only case I investigated.

'Remember William Dwyer from Dundee,

'who found himself almost £650 short

'after Redress Claims investigated his mis-sold PPIs?

'As a gesture of goodwill, they've agreed to return

'the upfront fees for William's unsuccessful PPI refunds

'so he's received a cheque for £390.'

At the end of the day, they've now done the right thing

and refunded the money, but let this be a warning to us all.

Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd