:00:00. > :00:00.But now on BBC One, back with a new series
:00:00. > :00:00.of consumer investigations, it's over to Gloria, Angela
:00:00. > :00:13.And welcome to the start of one of our very special weeks of live
:00:14. > :00:16.Today, we'll be looking at two big stories in the news.
:00:17. > :00:18.One of them that global cyber attack.
:00:19. > :00:22.And the other, the companies charging up to ?23.97 a minute
:00:23. > :00:27.Well, we've got their number all right.
:00:28. > :00:35.And what's being done to keep those costs down?
:00:36. > :00:40.We asked you to tell us what has left you feeling ripped off and you
:00:41. > :00:45.have contacted us in your thousands. You told us about companies you
:00:46. > :00:48.think get it wrong and the customer service that is not up to scratch.
:00:49. > :00:52.We are all just numbers at the end of the day. Profit comes before
:00:53. > :00:56.anything else and that's all that matters. You have asked us to track
:00:57. > :01:00.down scammers who stole your money and investigate extra charges you
:01:01. > :01:06.say are unfair. Why can't they give you the price it should be. They try
:01:07. > :01:09.and charge as much as you can. When you have lost out but no one is to
:01:10. > :01:13.blame you come to us to stop others falling into the same trap. When it
:01:14. > :01:17.comes to customer services, it's dreadful. Whether it's a rip-off or
:01:18. > :01:24.a genuine mistake we are here to find out why you are out of pocket
:01:25. > :01:25.and what you can do about it. Your stories, your money, this is
:01:26. > :01:31.Rip Off Britain. Good morning and many thanks
:01:32. > :01:34.for joining us on one of the weeks of Rip Off Britain that,
:01:35. > :01:38.I must say, we all love the best. And that's because being live we can
:01:39. > :01:41.get your comments right away on the stories that matter
:01:42. > :01:44.most to you. As ever, our team of
:01:45. > :01:45.experts is standing You can e-mail us at
:01:46. > :01:54.ripoffbritain@bbc.co.uk. Well, I'm sure you'll have plenty
:01:55. > :02:01.to say on that directory inquiries And indeed on the other topics we've
:02:02. > :02:08.been looking into on your behalf. We'll be unpicking a new scam that
:02:09. > :02:12.any one of us could be fooled by. Just wait until you see
:02:13. > :02:14.what the fraudsters And with the news over the weekend
:02:15. > :02:18.dominated by that huge cyber attack on the NHS,
:02:19. > :02:21.we've advice on what to do We've also been testing out wi-fi
:02:22. > :02:27.on the go after a disgruntled train traveller told us he's fed up
:02:28. > :02:30.of paying a fiver a pop for a service that, he says,
:02:31. > :02:36.just isn't reliable. All that, plus consumer champion
:02:37. > :02:40.Dominic Littlewood tells us why And outside we'll be
:02:41. > :02:45.opening our pop-up advice clinic where our experts will be tackling
:02:46. > :02:51.some of your problems. I'm not sure what the collective
:02:52. > :02:54.word for a group of experts is, so I'll just say we've a whole bunch
:02:55. > :02:58.of them out there today and they're going to be answering some
:02:59. > :03:00.of your questions later First, though one of two big stories
:03:01. > :03:05.we're looking at today that are very much in the news,
:03:06. > :03:08.the rising cost of those And it's not just us who think
:03:09. > :03:28.the charges are getting out of hand. ?5. 61 for a 20-second call.
:03:29. > :03:31.?103 for a 27-minute call that the person making it had agreed to have
:03:32. > :03:37.connected. You have sent us a steady stream of
:03:38. > :03:41.complaints about the cost of a call to directory inquiry services. But
:03:42. > :03:44.in recent months some of the prices involved have spiralled and gone far
:03:45. > :03:49.beyond what many would consider a reasonable charge for finding out a
:03:50. > :03:54.phone number. What a great day today. It is. In Southport Mike is
:03:55. > :04:00.great friends with his father-in-law Ron. Last October 88-year-old Ron
:04:01. > :04:03.received an unusually high phone bill he turned to Mike for help. You
:04:04. > :04:10.are younger than me. You are more experienced. He had been charged ?68
:04:11. > :04:13.for an 18-membership call to the directory inquiries number, a call
:04:14. > :04:17.he couldn't remember making. When I first saw the bill I was shocked. I
:04:18. > :04:22.couldn't believe it. I was very worried. Got upset about it and I
:04:23. > :04:25.rang Mike. It turned out that that what had happened to Ron was
:04:26. > :04:28.something that's caught out a lot of people. He had been trying to call
:04:29. > :04:33.the local hospital but after misdialing one digit he got a
:04:34. > :04:37.recorded message suggesting he call a 118 service for the number he
:04:38. > :04:41.really wanted. So Ron had done just that, not appreciating that when he
:04:42. > :04:46.then agreed to have his call put through to the hospital the entire
:04:47. > :04:51.cost of his chat would be charged at a directory inquiries rate, in this
:04:52. > :04:55.case, ?10. 47 for the first minute and then ?3. 49 for every minute
:04:56. > :05:00.thereafter. Ron had called the 118 number
:05:01. > :05:06.without realising he was ringing a directory inquiry number. He didn't
:05:07. > :05:12.know. I think the charges are unbelievably bad. How can anybody
:05:13. > :05:16.possibly justify ?6 a minute or thereabouts for a call to anything?
:05:17. > :05:22.I wouldn't pay that if I was ringing Australia. I think people like Ron
:05:23. > :05:26.here are very vulnerable to this sort of thing, older people who are
:05:27. > :05:29.used to people behaving more honestly than people sometimes do
:05:30. > :05:33.nowadays. They're almost too trusting.
:05:34. > :05:39.And, for Mike, the point isn't so much how Ron ended up using this
:05:40. > :05:43.particular service, but the amount it ended up costing. Basically,
:05:44. > :05:49.these people should not be allowed to get away with charging these
:05:50. > :05:53.amounts. Regulation should be in force to specify a maximum charge
:05:54. > :05:57.per minute. Vulnerable people are being hit with ridiculous charges
:05:58. > :06:02.which they can ill-afford to pay and there's no way out of it.
:06:03. > :06:08.The company behind the 118820 number has been criticised for its pricing
:06:09. > :06:11.before. Back in 2014 it was fined ?60,000 for several breaches of the
:06:12. > :06:15.regulator's code, including fair treatment of customers, and the
:06:16. > :06:20.prominence of price information. The company is now dissolved and
:06:21. > :06:24.when we contacted its former director he declined to comment.
:06:25. > :06:27.But of course it's not just one directory inquiries number that has
:06:28. > :06:33.had high prices. And that's something about which Martin James,
:06:34. > :06:36.who works for the complaints website Resolver, has real concerns. He is
:06:37. > :06:41.particularly worried when he hearse stories like Ron's. A lot of the
:06:42. > :06:44.complaints we see at Resolve are in relaelgs to misdials where one
:06:45. > :06:49.number can result in you being directed through to a premium rates
:06:50. > :06:52.line. These businesses must let you know before they connect you or when
:06:53. > :06:56.you call through to them what your potential charges might be or the
:06:57. > :07:01.fact they could be quite high but the fact that people are still using
:07:02. > :07:05.them suggests that those warnings simply can't clear enough. So how
:07:06. > :07:09.have we got into this position? You may remember the days when to call
:07:10. > :07:15.directory inquiries all you had to do was ring 192. That number was
:07:16. > :07:21.operated by BT initially for free. Then later at a fixed price of 40p a
:07:22. > :07:26.call. In 2002 the regulator decided to do away with BT's monopoly
:07:27. > :07:29.leaving the door open for independent companies to compete for
:07:30. > :07:34.the market. It was predicted it would drive prices down. In fact,
:07:35. > :07:38.the opposite has happened. In many ways deregulation was that great
:07:39. > :07:42.promised land but it didn't deliver very much for many people.
:07:43. > :07:46.Competition should mean exactly that, competitive prices. We ended
:07:47. > :07:51.up with was a lot of competition looking at different ways to charge
:07:52. > :07:55.more money for people. Around 430 companies now offer a directory
:07:56. > :08:01.inquiries service. Most of them begin with the numbers 118. But the
:08:02. > :08:06.price you will pay with each of them can vary considerably. The most
:08:07. > :08:11.expensive charge we found is ?23. 97 for the first minute of a call. As
:08:12. > :08:14.stoningishly eight different directory inquiries companies are
:08:15. > :08:17.known to have been charging this. Currently the market is dominated by
:08:18. > :08:22.two giants which take up around 80% of the business.
:08:23. > :08:26.The first remains BT. And although the company has more than one way of
:08:27. > :08:32.searching for a number, it is best known service is on 118500. Call
:08:33. > :08:37.that number and you will pay an initial charge of ?2. 75. Plus, a
:08:38. > :08:41.cost per minute of another ?2. 75. So a total of ?5. 50 for a one
:08:42. > :08:45.minute call. As for the other main player, well,
:08:46. > :08:49.over the years we have probably all seen the ads.
:08:50. > :08:58.# If you are someone new and need help... Who you gonna call...
:08:59. > :09:06.A call to 118118, otherwise known as The Number, will cost you ?8. 98 for
:09:07. > :09:11.the first minute, a charge that has risen by 2145% since 2003. And the
:09:12. > :09:15.phone operator could charge up to 5p a minute on top of that cost. While
:09:16. > :09:18.the ads do state these charges it seems we haven't all taken on board
:09:19. > :09:22.how much a typical inquiry will cost. As was made clear when we
:09:23. > :09:27.asked some shoppers in London to tell us how much they thought they
:09:28. > :09:30.would pay for a one minute call to this particular number. I reckon it
:09:31. > :09:35.would cost about this much. That's what I expect to pay. I wouldn't be
:09:36. > :09:40.surprised if it was that one. This is what I think. It shouldn't be
:09:41. > :09:51.higher than that. I would say probably 99p. I would say ?1. 98. I
:09:52. > :09:57.would go for... This one. But when we revealed the true cost it caused
:09:58. > :10:01.quite a stir. I would never have thought it was
:10:02. > :10:09.that much! Shocking! I could buy meat for dinner for the family and
:10:10. > :10:15.have change. That is shocking. Wow. No way! Oh my God! It's actually a
:10:16. > :10:19.lot, yeah. I wouldn't expect it to be that much. I would never do that.
:10:20. > :10:24.Internet is free. While it is true that most phone
:10:25. > :10:27.numbers can be found online, directory inquiries remains a
:10:28. > :10:31.valuable service for many, including some older people and those who
:10:32. > :10:34.aren't online. But not every company makes charges
:10:35. > :10:37.clear when you call. They're only obliged to do so if they go on to
:10:38. > :10:43.connect you. So some people using the service may not know exactly how
:10:44. > :10:48.much it costs or how quickly charges can mount up.
:10:49. > :10:51.Older people are traditionally more likely to use directory inquiries
:10:52. > :10:53.services and are disproportionately affected by these potential charges.
:10:54. > :10:57.If you are used to trusting a telephone number you call through
:10:58. > :11:01.to, and it seems straightforward, you would have no reason to believe
:11:02. > :11:07.the charges would be as high as they could be. And certainly 93-year-old
:11:08. > :11:12.Annie from Manchester had no idea how she ended up having to pay such
:11:13. > :11:19.a huge amount. Her Goddaughter Mary got in touch with us ever Annie, who
:11:20. > :11:21.is hard of hearing, received an unexpectedly large bill after
:11:22. > :11:26.unwittingly calling a 118 number. I was so shocked when you got this
:11:27. > :11:33.bill, Annie. I couldn't believe you paid so much for this bill. Then
:11:34. > :11:39.when I investigated, I mean, it stood out straightaway, because it
:11:40. > :11:44.was ?67, over ?67 for an 18-minute call. I called down to see Annie and
:11:45. > :11:51.she was in a terrible state. She was really in a dreadful state saying
:11:52. > :11:58.about this phone bill. Of course it gave me a shock. She decided what to
:11:59. > :12:03.do with it. I just paid it and that was it. Just wanted to get out of
:12:04. > :12:07.trouble! Annie had been trying to speak to
:12:08. > :12:12.someone about a fault on her line. And she has no idea how it was she
:12:13. > :12:18.came to phone the directory inquiries number 118080, run by a
:12:19. > :12:22.company called Simuex. Nor was it initially clear why the call went on
:12:23. > :12:27.so long but Mary doesn't think it's right that a call of this nature can
:12:28. > :12:31.end up costing so much. I just don't know how it is completely legal.
:12:32. > :12:35.It's so unfair, you know, Annie lives alone and it needs to be
:12:36. > :12:38.stopped. We contacted the company that runs
:12:39. > :12:43.the number Annie called. It told us that calls to this line are charged
:12:44. > :12:46.at 3. 60 per minute which it said isn't high compared to the
:12:47. > :12:51.outrageous charges that have become the industry norm. Annie's high bill
:12:52. > :12:55.must have been because she agreed to have her call connected, so it was
:12:56. > :12:59.all charged at a higher rate. But the company stressed the costs are
:13:00. > :13:01.made clear in the call so that customers can decide whether to
:13:02. > :13:08.continue. We also contacted the two market
:13:09. > :13:11.leaders, BT and The Number. BT, which provides 118500 pointed
:13:12. > :13:17.customers to its free online directory inquiries. And to its
:13:18. > :13:23.lower priced no-frills 118700 service that costs ?1. 45 a minute T
:13:24. > :13:26.said the price of calls to 118500 ensures BT can provide a quick,
:13:27. > :13:31.accurate and professional directory inquiries service.
:13:32. > :13:37.And The Number, which runs 1118118 didn't get back to our e-mails or
:13:38. > :13:40.calls but has previously said it offers a range of services at
:13:41. > :13:43.different price points because while for some speed and convenience is
:13:44. > :13:47.paramount, for others, it may be cost.
:13:48. > :13:51.But if you don't have access to the internet, there are ways that you
:13:52. > :13:57.can get a number without costing you money. For example, The Number
:13:58. > :14:02.offers an entirely free automated service line. That is if you don't
:14:03. > :14:07.mind listening to an advert before getting the number you are after.
:14:08. > :14:10.BT also offers a free directory inquiries number for people with
:14:11. > :14:16.disabilities although to use it you do need to fill out a form to be upt
:14:17. > :14:19.countersigned by a GP. Back in Southport after his father-in-law
:14:20. > :14:25.Ron's experience, Mike would like to see the regulator take more action.
:14:26. > :14:28.Lots of vulnerable people are being charged ridiculous amounts of money
:14:29. > :14:34.for short phone calls and in most cases they've no idea they're being
:14:35. > :14:45.charged that amount. This needs to be sorted and sorted now.
:14:46. > :14:47.Well, I'm glad to say he may well get his wish.
:14:48. > :14:50.We've been talking to the regulator Ofcom about this for some time,
:14:51. > :14:53.and it too is concerned over 118 prices, as the cost of more
:14:54. > :14:55.expensive services has risen significantly in recent months.
:14:56. > :14:58.So Ofcom has just announced it will look into these as part
:14:59. > :15:02.of a Call Cost Review, to ensure people are protected
:15:03. > :15:08.from higher prices, and indeed any unfair practices.
:15:09. > :15:14.I am one of those people who use that, I don't Google. I am horrified
:15:15. > :15:19.at the price. I will never do it again. When you say Ofcom will bring
:15:20. > :15:22.out this report are they going to crack down on charges?
:15:23. > :15:25.I don't see the words "crack down" in what they've told us.
:15:26. > :15:27.But Ofcom says callers should expect to be told very
:15:28. > :15:30.clearly what prices are - and that they are getting
:15:31. > :15:36.So it's going to consider whether we get that,
:15:37. > :15:42.It expects to publish detailed plans around that later this year.
:15:43. > :15:47.What really shocked me in that report wasn't just
:15:48. > :15:48.the cost of the calls but the sheer number
:15:49. > :15:52.of companies all offering a directory enquiries service -
:15:53. > :16:02.I'm sure it will help with that Ofcom review to know what YOU think.
:16:03. > :16:18.And some of you have been telling us while we've been on air.
:16:19. > :16:24.Chris Todman said his elderly, disabled mother always uses
:16:25. > :16:30.Directory Enquiries and agrees to be connected. By so doing, her last
:16:31. > :16:37.quarterly bill included nearly ?400 of charges. Janet, who is also
:16:38. > :16:41.watching, has come up with a good point. How hard would it be to make
:16:42. > :16:43.it law for premium rate lines to have a recording of the price before
:16:44. > :16:46.the call starts? Well, I'm sure we'll return
:16:47. > :16:48.to this topic again. But, next this morning,
:16:49. > :16:50.another way of staying connected... You may be using it
:16:51. > :16:54.to contact us right now. And, if you're out and
:16:55. > :16:56.about at the moment, you may well have to PAY
:16:57. > :16:58.for the service. But is it reliable enough to give
:16:59. > :17:10.good value for money? Wi-Fi has revolutionised the way we
:17:11. > :17:15.communicate. So much so that we now expect to be online rebel we are,
:17:16. > :17:20.outside the home or office and even on the move. Train, bus and tram
:17:21. > :17:27.services across the UK increasingly offer Wi-Fi services. Communications
:17:28. > :17:32.manager Smith Harper has been among those telling us their Wi-Fi
:17:33. > :17:36.experience has not so much been wonderful but distinctly wobbly. He
:17:37. > :17:41.regularly travels on the virgin West Coast line between Manchester and
:17:42. > :17:45.London. When they brought in Wi-Fi I'd thought, great. Be able to do
:17:46. > :17:51.work and stay connected in this hyper connected world. The first
:17:52. > :17:56.time I tried it, I was, that didn't really work. Smith says things did
:17:57. > :18:00.not get better which he finds frustrating put up the Wi-Fi he is
:18:01. > :18:06.trying to use is not free from. Virgin charge him ?5 every trip. I
:18:07. > :18:09.e-mailed them and said I had been on this train journey trying to do my
:18:10. > :18:15.e-mails and have not been able to do it I have my money back? Virgin
:18:16. > :18:19.would not refund the money. Record showed that during the journey he
:18:20. > :18:25.had got online and use much more data than is allowed and it's fair
:18:26. > :18:30.usage policy. I went back and forth with them. They then tried to say
:18:31. > :18:36.you have downloaded all these megabytes. I can't say I haven't
:18:37. > :18:41.done that but the e-mail itself just does not work. Smith could not
:18:42. > :18:46.understand how he could possibly have used as much data as virgin
:18:47. > :18:51.said. As far as he was concerned he could barely send an e-mail. The
:18:52. > :18:56.company told him this could be caused by such factors as programmes
:18:57. > :19:01.running in the background, system updates all streaming movies. He was
:19:02. > :19:05.adamant he had not done this. I thought, it's a fiver, it's not
:19:06. > :19:11.worth losing any sleep. It niggles and it is a frustration. We want to
:19:12. > :19:16.see if the train Wi-Fi is as patchy as Smith claims? We are joining him
:19:17. > :19:20.on the train from Manchester to London and we made sure that there's
:19:21. > :19:26.nothing running on his laptop which would use updater. I'm going to give
:19:27. > :19:30.Virgin Trains one more chance. To test the connection, Smith will be
:19:31. > :19:35.trying to link up with technology expert Graham wild to see how the
:19:36. > :19:40.Wi-Fi is performing. As Smith sets off on his train, Graham is heading
:19:41. > :19:45.to the BBC's New Broadcasting House in London where he will be ready to
:19:46. > :19:52.receive Smith's Munich and is. I am on the internets I have a speed test
:19:53. > :19:57.running. -- communications. It is perfectly fast enough to make most
:19:58. > :20:01.things work. The Wi-Fi at the BBC and that most homes and offices
:20:02. > :20:06.connects to a fixed, physical source. The Wi-Fi on trains work
:20:07. > :20:12.through the mobile phone networks which can be unreliable. Imagine
:20:13. > :20:17.sharing four and six Mobile internets connections between 300
:20:18. > :20:22.people. Sometimes there are places where there is no mobile signal from
:20:23. > :20:27.any operator. There it will not work at all. Let's see how Smith gets on.
:20:28. > :20:32.I'm just leaving from Manchester Piccadilly on the way to London. I
:20:33. > :20:38.will look into the Wi-Fi and see what happens. Smith pays ?5 for
:20:39. > :20:42.24-hour 's worth of Wi-Fi access. As he leaves the more populated areas,
:20:43. > :20:52.is internets connections start to the Syria -- deteriorate. I am
:20:53. > :20:57.coming up with the request, please try again later. Nothing on
:20:58. > :21:02.Facebook, e-mails. I cannot even go on the BBC website. It
:21:03. > :21:06.disappointment. As the train comes into Stoke, the Wi-Fi springs back
:21:07. > :21:14.into life. To see if any of his communications have got through, he
:21:15. > :21:19.gives Graham a call. How are you? How is short train journey? I have
:21:20. > :21:24.been struggling to get messages to you from Facebook or e-mail. I had
:21:25. > :21:29.something when you set off from Manchester but nothing since then. I
:21:30. > :21:37.did send G1 since then. I wonder where it went too. I think it may
:21:38. > :21:42.have got lost in the ether. I will have to check my e-mails. I have one
:21:43. > :21:48.from you now, so I replied back to that one. Fantastic. While some rail
:21:49. > :21:53.companies charge, on others you can get it for free. On this virgin
:21:54. > :22:02.train that Smith uses there is no Wi-Fi charge for passengers in first
:22:03. > :22:06.class. We know it is a real bone of contention for many of you that in
:22:07. > :22:12.this day and age you ever have to pay for Wi-Fi at all. I never paid
:22:13. > :22:17.for it on the trains. I have before but it was bad so I did not do it
:22:18. > :22:22.again. If you are not in a good place, you feel like you are being
:22:23. > :22:26.ripped off. I have used it on trains before but it is better on the
:22:27. > :22:33.mobile. The laptops you do not get a good signal or usage. What about
:22:34. > :22:37.other forms of transport like coach travel? Graham is going to try for
:22:38. > :22:44.himself the Wi-Fi on national express. He tries to get onto the
:22:45. > :22:51.BBC website. It has loaded quite quickly. That took about a second or
:22:52. > :22:56.so. Mobile coverage along major roads and motorways and so one is
:22:57. > :23:01.much better than it is along the railways, especially in rural areas.
:23:02. > :23:06.That means it is actually a little bit easier for coach companies to
:23:07. > :23:13.offer good Wi-Fi than it is for train companies to do that. So,
:23:14. > :23:17.comes up for coach travel. When a grey and Smith meet up at Euston
:23:18. > :23:22.station in London, Smith is still very unhappy with his experience on
:23:23. > :23:30.the train. -- Graham. It was pretty poor. That has been my experience on
:23:31. > :23:37.Virgin Trains before. The good news is that services like that will get
:23:38. > :23:41.better. The new technology called 5G is much faster and it will make a
:23:42. > :23:45.difference to your Wi-Fi experience. There are special radio networks is
:23:46. > :23:50.being built alongside the railway especially for use for the train. I
:23:51. > :23:53.guess there is good use coming down the track. To use a very cheesy
:23:54. > :23:56.analogy, yes, there is. Well, Virgin Trains accepts
:23:57. > :23:58.their Wi-Fi doesn't fully meet customers' needs,
:23:59. > :24:00.but told us that though they want all customers to have free,
:24:01. > :24:02.fast and uninterrupted Wi-Fi, unfortunately - as the company
:24:03. > :24:04.relies on mobile phone networks for the internet -
:24:05. > :24:07.there's often a very limited service in rural areas,
:24:08. > :24:10.cuttings and tunnels. They say they're working
:24:11. > :24:12.with mobile phone companies to improve the signal,
:24:13. > :24:15.and in the meantime have introduced a free, on-board entertainment
:24:16. > :24:18.service which lets customers stream movies and TV without
:24:19. > :24:23.the need for Wi-Fi at all. Well, difficulties with getting
:24:24. > :24:26.connected are one thing, but - staying with problems online -
:24:27. > :24:29.the big story over the weekend was that global cyber assault
:24:30. > :24:36.that targeted the NHS. It's been described
:24:37. > :24:37.as an historic moment - Joining me now is the the BBC's
:24:38. > :24:57.technology correspondent, Even the headlines today are a
:24:58. > :25:00.wake-up call for the world. 200,000 organisations in 150 countries.
:25:01. > :25:05.Reducing it down to people like myself who are not very good on the
:25:06. > :25:09.website at all, how does the ransomware really manifest? This is
:25:10. > :25:14.the biggest type of cyber crime we are seeing. A recent statistics
:25:15. > :25:20.showed 50% of all offences shown to the police now relate to cyber
:25:21. > :25:24.crime. This is the most serious. What happens is you somehow get
:25:25. > :25:30.malicious software on your computer. The next thing, a message pops up on
:25:31. > :25:34.your screen and says all of your files, your valuable data, is
:25:35. > :25:39.locked. The only way to get it back and unlock it is to pay a fee to the
:25:40. > :25:44.crooks, a ransom. They are quite clever in a way. They do not ask for
:25:45. > :25:50.huge amount of money. Was speaking to a charity and months ago. The
:25:51. > :25:55.manager said they had had one of these ransom things and it was only
:25:56. > :26:01.like 400 quid, proportionately not that much. He said he paid it. He
:26:02. > :26:05.hated himself to pay but he said it would have taken three months
:26:06. > :26:14.because he was not backed up properly to get the info and the
:26:15. > :26:19.cost of an spurt would have cost far more than 400. -- and expert. I
:26:20. > :26:28.think it is sadly the trees. It has taken a global assault. Lots of
:26:29. > :26:32.organisations have experienced this. There are simple lessons around
:26:33. > :26:36.this. You should be keeping your data backed up. You should have a
:26:37. > :26:42.separate hard drive you plug into your computer from time to time,
:26:43. > :26:47.backing up your data. If the worst happens, you should be all right. In
:26:48. > :26:52.this particular case, the one we are hearing about over the weekend, it
:26:53. > :26:56.is mainly directed at large organisations. That is who has the
:26:57. > :26:59.kind of networks where this sort of thing can spread quickly put a bid
:27:00. > :27:09.is not targeted at individuals at home. Would you pay the ransom? I
:27:10. > :27:13.would not be falling for it in the first place, Gloria. You can see why
:27:14. > :27:19.there is a tent Asian to do that. What one hears sometimes is that
:27:20. > :27:25.these criminals are pretty well organised and they will unlock your
:27:26. > :27:29.data if you pay the fees. They know their business. The important thing
:27:30. > :27:35.out of the conversation is to make sure you are backed up and up to
:27:36. > :27:39.date with the companies say. People could have avoided this had they
:27:40. > :27:45.applied a regular Microsoft security update back in March.
:27:46. > :27:48.Well, as Gloria said, that story is still all over the papers,
:27:49. > :27:50.with worries about what other businesses and people might
:27:51. > :28:02.The front page of The Mirror is warning Web Hackers to Strike Again.
:28:03. > :28:10.It goes on to have two full pages of the story inside. It says we are
:28:11. > :28:17.under cyber attack and this is the greatest threat to civilisation
:28:18. > :28:26.since World War II. Probably less of a threat is this story. Busy water
:28:27. > :28:27.can make you fat. That can trigger a hunger hormone which makes you
:28:28. > :28:30.overweight. The Mail is following up
:28:31. > :28:33.on suggestions that Amazon may allow refunds on low-cost items
:28:34. > :28:34.WITHOUT you needing The company wouldn't
:28:35. > :28:37.comment but certainly that It means you get the refund and the
:28:38. > :28:48.item as well. Good idea. And finally the FT says Pension
:28:49. > :28:51.Fraud Losses Hit Record High - that's something we'll be looking
:28:52. > :28:54.at on Wednesday's programme. Well, all this week we'll have
:28:55. > :29:00.updates on some of the stories we've And I'm afraid we've uncovered
:29:01. > :29:13.a whole new twist to a scam we've You may remember a scan we first
:29:14. > :29:20.told about in 2015. Fraudsters have found a convincing to make take
:29:21. > :29:26.calls appear to be from a genuine, trusted number for that they can use
:29:27. > :29:32.widely available at two show a number as coming from, for example,
:29:33. > :29:35.your bank. These two people received an unexpected call and it showed up
:29:36. > :29:42.on their phone as being from their bank, Santander. The number that
:29:43. > :29:47.showed up on my phone was the same number as the back of the Santander
:29:48. > :29:53.card. That convinced me he must be from the bank. We thought that that
:29:54. > :29:58.is it. It cannot be anything else. They were about to become victims of
:29:59. > :30:01.what is called number spoofing by disguising the number they are
:30:02. > :30:05.really calling from to look like one we know. Criminals are able to get
:30:06. > :30:09.around the fact that we're all becoming more wary about who might
:30:10. > :30:13.be on the line. In this case got it meant they could convince the couple
:30:14. > :30:17.their bank accounts were at risk from fraudsters and they should move
:30:18. > :30:31.their money elsewhere. I was in a panic we were losing our money. He
:30:32. > :30:37.said from your cash Isa, we'll move that first found we will take a
:30:38. > :30:40.whole lot out. Trish transferred ?50,000 into supposedly safer
:30:41. > :30:45.accounts that belonged to the fraudsters. The realisation they had
:30:46. > :30:50.been conned hit couple hard. My overall feeling is devastation, to
:30:51. > :30:56.be honest. I did go down into a depression afterwards for quite a
:30:57. > :31:01.long time because we have lost a lot of money. I was thinking, that is
:31:02. > :31:09.our retirement fund gone up the creek. I did feel... I felt really
:31:10. > :31:17.stupid to have been conned. The bank was able to recover ?27,500 of the
:31:18. > :31:21.couple's money. They were left ?22,500 out of pocket. As Trish
:31:22. > :31:27.Adudu authorise transactions, the bank said it could not accept any
:31:28. > :31:31.responsibility for the losses. There has been a further development. In
:31:32. > :31:38.February this year, a man was jailed 18 months for his part in this scam.
:31:39. > :31:42.Unfortunately, as with many scams, this one has continued to evolve and
:31:43. > :31:47.now fraudsters are not only using this method to trick people with
:31:48. > :31:52.calls, they are doing it with texts as well.
:31:53. > :31:55.Well, with us to tell us more about this new version of the scam
:31:56. > :31:57.is fraud lawyer Arun Chohah and Claire Pearson who,
:31:58. > :31:59.I'm sorry to say, fell victim to one of these fraudulent texts.
:32:00. > :32:08.To the tune of ?71,000. That's awful. Terrible. Why did the whole
:32:09. > :32:12.thing seem plausible? I received a text message on a thread of genuine
:32:13. > :32:16.text messages which I thought were from my bank. I had no reason to
:32:17. > :32:21.believe this wasn't a real message from my bank. What were they asking
:32:22. > :32:27.you to do? How did they approach it, they talked about a possible fraud?
:32:28. > :32:30.They said is this your transaction, this is a possible fraudulent
:32:31. > :32:35.transaction, did you make it? Call this number. I was in a rush, I
:32:36. > :32:39.panicked. I was seven months pregnant. I thought I have to get
:32:40. > :32:43.this sorted quickly. Rang the number from the text message. It was all to
:32:44. > :32:49.do with the length of time they kept you on the phone, wasn't it? Yeah, I
:32:50. > :32:57.spoke to the guy for half an hour. Went through a full security check.
:32:58. > :33:02.Cancelled my debit card. At the end of the phone call I was ?71,000
:33:03. > :33:07.short. They had been milking your account. While I was on the phone. I
:33:08. > :33:12.imagine this is a story you have heard before, something similar,
:33:13. > :33:17.Arun. Her bank has taken very hard line with her, saying you did this
:33:18. > :33:21.to yourself, therefore, it's not a fraud that we can say we will
:33:22. > :33:26.compensate you. Do you think that's being harsh? To an extent I think
:33:27. > :33:32.it's being harsh. The criminals are out there intercepting text messages
:33:33. > :33:34.and telephone calls but banks do have monitoring software, they have
:33:35. > :33:39.the ability to delay transactions. So, I think there is more banks
:33:40. > :33:42.could do. But I suppose their worry is opening the flood gaits to saying
:33:43. > :33:46.they could do that and take responsibility. What about us as
:33:47. > :33:50.individuals, what are the dangers we should be looking out for and what
:33:51. > :33:54.should we never do? This new-age type of attack, you have to take a
:33:55. > :33:57.moment and consider the situation. Don't react swiftly. If you are
:33:58. > :34:01.going to make contact with your bank because you see something like this,
:34:02. > :34:04.call the number on the back of the card, don't use the same phone you
:34:05. > :34:08.received the messages from, use another phone. Banks aren't going to
:34:09. > :34:12.ask you to transfer money to an account they set up. They're not
:34:13. > :34:16.going to make you part with money to deliver a card. Take time and keep
:34:17. > :34:19.control of the situation. Do you think if you heard that before it
:34:20. > :34:25.would have helped you in your situation? Yes. I wish I had taken
:34:26. > :34:29.five minutes to stop and think. I would be in a different position.
:34:30. > :34:33.It's great to be wise after the event. Sorry for what happened to
:34:34. > :34:35.you. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that story with us. Thank
:34:36. > :34:39.you, Arun too. Well, all week our experts will be
:34:40. > :34:42.tackling your problems in our pop-up Yes, our experts are already
:34:43. > :34:52.busy getting stuck in. Personal finance expert
:34:53. > :34:56.Sarah Pennells is here along with Lyma Blay who's had rather
:34:57. > :34:59.a lot of trouble with, and indeed Tell us what happened
:35:00. > :35:10.when yours developed a problem. Yes, that's true. It was faulty. It
:35:11. > :35:13.was considered faulty. Taken away and essentially we didn't have a
:35:14. > :35:17.fridge for ten days until it was replaced. Ten days for anybody
:35:18. > :35:22.without a fridge is pretty bad, in kaur case there was a reason why you
:35:23. > :35:27.needed that fridge. At that point I had a 12-month-old baby who was on
:35:28. > :35:32.antibiotics that had to be kept cold and milk and food and so forth. It
:35:33. > :35:36.was really hard. You did eventually get a replacement fridge number two
:35:37. > :35:40.after ten days. Sarah, what are the rules carding -- regarding
:35:41. > :35:44.replacement or moneyback when you have a problem with something you
:35:45. > :35:48.need like a fridge or oven. The law is clear, as the fridge went wrong,
:35:49. > :35:52.soon after she bought it, if it had gone wrong within 30 days she should
:35:53. > :35:56.have been offered a refund. She could have got a fridge the next
:35:57. > :35:58.day. If they wanted to give a replacement, the laws is less clear
:35:59. > :36:02.about how quickly you have to do that. But common sense surely would
:36:03. > :36:05.tell you you shouldn't leave a mother and a young baby without a
:36:06. > :36:10.fridge for ten days. Absolutely not. We know that they did replace it
:36:11. > :36:16.after ten days. That also you feel developed a problem. Yeah. You went
:36:17. > :36:20.back to Samsung. We have spoken to Samsung and they say they have sent
:36:21. > :36:26.an engineer and he can find no fault with the fridge. However, because
:36:27. > :36:29.they believe they believe customer satisfaction is paramount for them
:36:30. > :36:33.they're going to replace that fridge so you are going to get fridge
:36:34. > :36:37.number three. With luck, that one won't have a fault. Do tell fuss it
:36:38. > :36:39.does because we would like to follow it up. Sarah, thank you very much.
:36:40. > :36:42.Join me here. Over here is Andy Webb
:36:43. > :36:45.from the Money Advice Service and Christine Barnwell who's had
:36:46. > :36:47.quite a drawn out process trying to We won't get into all of the detail
:36:48. > :36:53.of what happened but there was something very interesting
:36:54. > :36:55.you were told when you eventually tried taking it up with your
:36:56. > :37:04.credit card company. I missed the opportunity, the window
:37:05. > :37:08.of opportunity was too late. What do you mean? They have a restriction on
:37:09. > :37:14.how long before I can claim the money back. How long was that? They
:37:15. > :37:18.told me 105 days. You were outside of that? I was, yes. Andy, in the
:37:19. > :37:21.office we found this extraordinary because we had never come across
:37:22. > :37:25.this before. We always assume if you have a problem with a credit card
:37:26. > :37:28.that means that you have good protection. I don't think any of us
:37:29. > :37:31.have thought that was a time limit on it. It's important to know we are
:37:32. > :37:35.talking about disputed payments. Maybe you have been charged too much
:37:36. > :37:39.or something you don't even recognise at all. Now, what they've
:37:40. > :37:42.said is contact the person that's on there first of all and say what is
:37:43. > :37:45.this charge and money back or whatever. You should also at the
:37:46. > :37:50.same time contact the credit card provider as well because they'll be
:37:51. > :37:53.able to tell you exactly what these windows are and you are not going to
:37:54. > :37:59.fall out of time like we have here. It varies. Visa and Mastercard is
:38:00. > :38:03.120 days. American Express is 105 days. That's when you have to put
:38:04. > :38:05.your claim in and say I want my money back and hopefully you will
:38:06. > :38:11.get that cash back for a disputed claim. Still got all that credit
:38:12. > :38:14.card consumer protection we talk about like section 75, if something
:38:15. > :38:17.doesn't turn up or it is broken you have longer to get money back. Who
:38:18. > :38:21.would have known there was a time limit on anything we do with our
:38:22. > :38:25.credit cards. Thank you very much, Christine, for flagging that up.
:38:26. > :38:30.Thank you very much to our experts. Still lots of people here with us.
:38:31. > :38:34.We are going back to the studio now. I love the idea that it's all live
:38:35. > :38:38.and you can join us in the pop-up shop any day this week.
:38:39. > :38:41.We'll be tackling more of your problems in our pop-up shop
:38:42. > :38:44.And each day too we'll be sharing the spending secrets
:38:45. > :38:50.First to spill the beans is this very cheeky chap.
:38:51. > :38:59.He is known to millions from shows such as Don't Get Done, Get Dom and
:39:00. > :39:07.Right On The Money which is back on BBC soon. When you pay for the
:39:08. > :39:11.policy, do you pay in a lump sum? That's the wrong answer! It seems
:39:12. > :39:15.Dominic Littlewood has always had it in him to be a consumer champion. In
:39:16. > :39:20.his 20s he took three companies to the small claims court after getting
:39:21. > :39:25.fed up with them fobbing him off. He won every case. So what are his
:39:26. > :39:30.consumer secrets? Dominic, you are here because you are a red hot
:39:31. > :39:35.consumer expert. I want to quiz you about you as a shopper. What is it
:39:36. > :39:40.like when you go into the shop, do they recognise you and think oh-oh!
:39:41. > :39:42.? A mile away they see me coming and the reaction is entertaining. One
:39:43. > :39:48.example, this has happened a few times, people know I am a good
:39:49. > :39:54.haggler, I haggled once on a backet of biscuits to prove you can get a
:39:55. > :39:57.discount. The shopkeeper found it funny someone was bothering,
:39:58. > :40:01.whatever it was 20 off a packet of biscuits. I did it to say look, you
:40:02. > :40:06.can haggle. As long as you do it the right way you can do it, people will
:40:07. > :40:11.have fun with it. Yeah, OK, it's a ?1. 50 packet of biscuits, so what,
:40:12. > :40:14.have fun. You have been a consumer expert for ten years now. What's the
:40:15. > :40:19.main thing you have learned in that time? One bit of advice I would give
:40:20. > :40:22.to anybody, whenever possible pay for everything on a credit card.
:40:23. > :40:26.Now, a few reasons for that. You have to have discipline. I have a
:40:27. > :40:31.direct debit set up so every month it is paid off but benefit of paying
:40:32. > :40:34.by credit card, straightaway you have protection, covered by section
:40:35. > :40:38.75, which means if you have a problem and something goes wrong you
:40:39. > :40:42.can go back to the credit card company and say this person isn't
:40:43. > :40:45.honouring the warranty or anything, they'll step in so you have added
:40:46. > :40:49.level of protection. If I buy a pint of milk in the supermarket, credit
:40:50. > :40:52.card, credit card, credit card. Everything is covered. Job done. No
:40:53. > :40:57.interest. Credit card companies probably hate me. We get a lot of
:40:58. > :41:01.letters and so on from people who are aggrieved because they've paid
:41:02. > :41:05.for something that hasn't worked out the way they wanted it to. What
:41:06. > :41:09.would your recommendation be? For starters, keep calm. Keep cool. I
:41:10. > :41:14.always try and do everything as a normal punter. For starters, when I
:41:15. > :41:18.am on the phone to anybody I record all my calls. Have you noticed when
:41:19. > :41:22.you phone up they say just to let you know, our calls are recorded for
:41:23. > :41:28.training and exercise purposes. I say just to let you know so are
:41:29. > :41:31.mine. Keep a record, it's brilliant because you can go back and say
:41:32. > :41:35.yeah, I did say that or they said that. That helps, if you can't
:41:36. > :41:39.record them make notes just so you have a diary of that, I tell you
:41:40. > :41:43.what you need to fall back on it and if it is there, it's worth its
:41:44. > :41:48.weight in gold. He is a real character.
:41:49. > :41:53.He is. Two of our experts are still with
:41:54. > :42:00.us. They're going to answer some questions. I have to thank Barbara
:42:01. > :42:06.from Bradford and Robbie. This question to Sarah ray, how can we
:42:07. > :42:12.stop nuisance calls from abroad, they're both already signed up to
:42:13. > :42:15.stop unwanted UK calls. TPS does cut down on calls but doesn't get rid of
:42:16. > :42:18.all of them, especially from those calls where they're from overseas
:42:19. > :42:22.companies. Basically, the law changed a year ago and companies,
:42:23. > :42:26.whether they're overseas or nr the UK, should display their number so
:42:27. > :42:28.you can find out who is calling you and unfortunately sometimes they
:42:29. > :42:33.display false numbers, this happened to me. The TPS only covers companies
:42:34. > :42:38.that are registered in the UK. I would recommend if neither of these
:42:39. > :42:42.wr are working and the calls are beginning to bug you, invest in call
:42:43. > :42:46.blocking software, some are very effective. Thank you for that. A
:42:47. > :42:52.question for you, Rory, from John. Morning, John. If the recent cyber
:42:53. > :42:55.attack locks your computer, do you need to reinstall the operating
:42:56. > :42:59.system even if all your files have been backed up, a lot of people will
:43:00. > :43:02.want to know that? Absolutely. I should stress again it's unlikely
:43:03. > :43:07.that people at home will be affected by this. It's mainly big
:43:08. > :43:12.organisations. But if you are, I think you will have to reinstall
:43:13. > :43:16.your operating system, take advice first. Because if you have a backup
:43:17. > :43:21.of your files, the virus, the bug, may still be in your system and you
:43:22. > :43:25.don't want to set it running all over again and possibly infect other
:43:26. > :43:30.computers. For you, Sarah, from David. He wants to know if an
:43:31. > :43:34.unmarried couple can get travel insurance, he and his girlfriend had
:43:35. > :43:37.to come back early from holiday and insurers are not paying out because
:43:38. > :43:40.they're not married. That's an odd one, some will class you as a couple
:43:41. > :43:44.if you have been living together for six months or more. So I think the
:43:45. > :43:45.insurers need to move with the times. There are some that will
:43:46. > :43:49.cover you. I agree with that. Well, I have to stop
:43:50. > :43:51.you there because I'm afraid we're Thanks to everyone who's
:43:52. > :43:54.contacted us this morning. We'll be back tomorrow
:43:55. > :43:57.with a shocking story anyone thinking of buying a used car really
:43:58. > :43:59.won't want to miss. And we'll be looking at some
:44:00. > :44:02.of the online tactics retailers use to make us hurry up
:44:03. > :44:04.and spend our money. We'll see you back
:44:05. > :44:09.here at 9.15am sharp.