Episode 18 Rip Off Britain

We asked you to tell us, "Who's left you feeling ripped off?"

I think this is very, very wrong for what they have done.

The bank piles charges upon charges upon charges.

Legally, it was right. Morally? That's where the question and doubt comes, in my view.

And you contacted us in your thousands,

by post, email, even stopping us in the streets!

The message could not be clearer.

You don't always get a straight answer. They fob you off.

-I'm not happy with them at all.

-There's always that small print that you didn't realise.

We're being ripped off big time.

Whether it's a deliberate rip off,

a simple mistake or a catch in the small print,

we'll find out why you're out of pocket

and what you can do about it.

Keep asking the questions. Go to the top if you have to.

We do get results.

Your stories, your money... This is Rip-Off Britain.

Hello and welcome to Rip-Off Britain,

the series that investigates why you've lost out financially or been left feeling short-changed.

We're here to stop you ending up in situations that cost a lot more than you bargain for.

That's what happened to the people we're going to be hearing from today,

people who'd done the sensible thing by investing their money,

hoping that it would grow for the rest of their lives,

but didn't get the returns that they'd hoped for.

In fact, worse than that, they suffered enormous losses,

sometimes to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds.

As we'll see, a bad investment can have a devastating effect on you and your future.

Also coming up,

when the risks of an investment turn out to be far greater than ever imagined...

We could end up losing this house and everything that we own.

And more stories from our one-stop Rip-Off Britain advice shop.

What she'd been paying in

was twice as much as the benefit that's going to be paid out.

Now to a battle for compensation

that involves quite a number of Rip-Off Britain viewers

who had bought saving investments backed by the American bank Lehman Brothers.

You may recall that the bank dramatically collapsed in September of 2008,

causing shockwaves around the world.

Thousands of UK savers were affected. Many had invested everything that they had.

Three years on, some of them have managed to get some money back

through an industry compensation scheme,

but there are plenty more who have had their claims turned down

and who now fear that they will never see a penny of their savings again.

These beautiful 40 acres of rural Wales

are home to Belinda Platt and her husband, Martin.

Would you like a cup of tea?

They've lived here since 1970,

and over the years, the land has given them a decent living

as a garden centre, farmland, B&B and even a caravan park.

But Martin developed vascular dementia and arthritis

and Belinda has gradually become his carer.

I do everything for Martin,

apart from washing.

He can manage to do that and he can shave himself.

It is a learning curve.

You find that...

..every day there's perhaps something new

and you learn to cope with it.

Unable to work the land in the way that they had in the past,

the couple found that they needed an income to supplement their small pension and other investments.

So in 2003, they released some equity from their house

in order to take out a fixed-income plan with the investment provider NDFA.

We wanted an investment which had...

..an acceptable amount of risk.

This plan,

it was based on the fact that our capital was secure

unless the indices plunged below 50 percent.

We thought that was an acceptable risk.

Belinda took advice from an independent financial advisor

and, happy that the risk wasn't too high,

she invested £30,000 in the plan,

which seemed a good decision as it started paying out the income that they needed every month.

We had money coming in to meet the utility bills,

council tax,

insurances, which are a big thing, house and car,

and we wanted the money to be there at the time that the bills came in.

When the policy came up for renewal five years later in 2008,

Belinda says they received a letter from NDFA

to say that they could carry their existing policy over.

Again, they were told that the investment would only be at risk

if the stock markets dropped by a significant amount.

It had served us well for the previous five years.

It was convenient.

The way it was sold in the renewal letter,

it repeated its pledge that our money was only at risk

if the indices fell

and we thought we were buying the plan

on the same basis as the previous one,

so we went ahead.

Just after they reinvested in the plan,

news broke that Lehman Brothers, the big American investment bank,

had gone bust.

"After Meltdown Monday at Lehman Brothers in Canary Wharf,

"most of the firm's 5,000 employees are expected to lose their jobs."

Belinda discovered, to her horror, that Lehman's was the backer of her investment plan.

So her £30,000 capital had gone down with the bank.

It was rather like somebody dying. You have disbelief and then...

..and then grief and that sort of thing and anger.

You know, "How can somebody get away with this?"

It took a bit of time to gel really that we had lost it.

We thought, "Somebody must be going to do something."

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme

has paid out to some of the people who lost money in investment plans backed by Lehman Brothers.

There were a total of 15 products sold in the UK

and ten have been compensated automatically.

But Belinda and Martin's is one of the five that were rejected.

The compensation scheme said that the investors in these five plans

had been properly informed of the risks.

Belinda disagrees.

Nobody knew that Lehman's was the backer.

Everybody thought that there was...

..a spread of investments

quoted on the stock exchange or the Dow Jones.

Though she knew the plan she invested in wasn't supposed to be covered by the compensation scheme,

Belinda applied to it anyway.

Her claim was rejected.

But, determined not to give up, Belinda has appealed that decision.

I do feel very strongly about it

and I feel that NDFA

and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme

have treated us,

or they've treated these victims, badly.

After three years of desperately wondering

if they'll get any of their £30,000 back,

Martin's health, their savings and the house and land they love

are all deteriorating.

I just want to keep what I've got

and keep it in good order

so that if we ever do have to sell it,

it'll be a good saleable commodity

and we have something to leave our children.

As we've seen, Belinda's claim was originally turned down

by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

But she did appeal the decision

and we're delighted to say that she has now just received a cheque

for the full amount of £18,000.

So Belinda is now going to put in a claim for her husband's investment of £12,000.

Obviously, she's hoping they'll get the same result.

So a success for Belinda

and one that shows that it really is often worth pursuing a claim.

Now, if you've ever fallen for a slick sales pitch

or been subjected to a hard sell,

you'll have real sympathy for our next case study.

She may not be as mobile as she used to be,

but 88-year-old May Bell is absolutely determined to lead an active life.

Two years ago, she was cold-called by a salesman from a mobility aids company.

Because she was already considering buying a new stairlift,

she agreed to let him come round, as her granddaughter, Francis, explains...

My grandma initially agreed for him to come because she wanted a new chair.

She wanted a stairlift. That was all she wanted.

As soon as he walked in that door, he was intent on selling her that scooter.

"Let me show you what different ones we do.

"We'll give you this discount, we'll put these freebies on..."

She thought she was getting a bargain! "Ooh, yes, it looks great, this!"

The salesman's name was Shane Johnson, from Nottingham Mobility.

His sales pitch went on and on.

After an hour and a half, May caved in.

As well as a stairlift and a reclining chair,

she was also talked into buying the scooter.

Add to that £100 for removing the old stairlift,

the total bill came to a whopping £4,185.

I feel that she were pressurised into it

and I think that it was something that she didn't need to buy.

It was money that she didn't need to spend on it

but she felt pushed that way because...

..I think by the time they'd left, she was exhausted.

May is pleased with the chair that Nottingham Mobility supplied,

but quickly realised that for her,

the scooter had been a total waste of money.

I don't feel safe with it.

I mean, I've never gone out on the road,

I've never walked across the road on my own,

but he said, "Oh, you'll get used to it."

But no.

But May's problems were only just beginning.

Johnson told her that the new stairlift would arrive in two weeks.

A month later, and despite countless phone calls, there was no sign of it whatsoever.

I had a day off waiting for them coming. Nobody arrived.

Rang them up. "Oh, he's out. He could be here on Monday."

I'd book another day off, wait in again and it didn't come.

It was a continual cycle.

Nottingham Mobility had already disconnected May's old stairlift.

As she's got severe arthritis, she was trapped downstairs for five weeks,

having to sleep in a chair

and using a commode instead of the toilet.

When I tried to get upstairs, I was frightened of falling.

It was awful for her. She's quite an independent person.

She was having to rely on me and I was working,

so when I wasn't here, it was terrible for her.

Francis decided to contact the manufacturers direct

and, to her horror, was told that they'd never even received an order from Nottingham Mobility.

They were so appalled by her gran's story,

they fitted a new stairlift absolutely free of charge.

It puts elderly and vulnerable people

off of buying this equipment that they need.

But there are reputable companies out there,

it's just a matter of finding the good ones.

These definitely were not the good ones.

Nottingham Mobility was run by father-and-son team Shane and Laurence Johnson.

After an investigation, the local Trading Standards found that they'd made up to £31,000,

charging for products that simply never arrived.

As a result, in July they were convicted of breaching Consumer Protection Regulations

and sentenced to a year in prison.

Although they're no longer trading,

Trading Standards says that there are thousands of firms cashing in on mobility gear,

a market worth £200 million a year just in the UK.

A casual glance into driveways on a typical street like this,

they may notice there's a scooter parked in the drive,

there might be railings, which are an assist for the person into the house.

And once a salesman has identified a house,

he just needs to come up with a convincing reason to be calling unannounced.

A lot of underhand tactics...

Being told that they've been called because of some health problem

that's been reported by the local authority or indeed their doctor,

to get the confidence of the person and to get that salesman into the home in the first place.

Some parts of the country now have Cold Calling Exclusion Zones.

But in those that don't, the best advice

is to beware of any company that calls out of the blue,

trying to flog you expensive things that you may not need.

Still to come on Rip-Off Britain,

a desperate battle to reclaim money after a disastrous investment.

I was devastated at the thought of losing £50,000.

And we hear more of your stories from the drop-in Rip-Off Britain shop in Manchester.

Now, with pension funds drying up and no longer a guarantee of income,

it's obvious why so many of you are looking to other types of investments

in the hope of that they'll provide regular cash once you've retired.

Mike and Peggy Newman signed up to one that was described as "low risk",

but it turns out they bought into what was called a Frankenstein product.

You've never probably heard of that, but it's just as much of a monster as it sounds.

THEY SING OPERATICALLY

After successful careers as opera singers,

Mike and Peggy Newman were looking forward to their retirement.

However, like many pensioners,

they were property rich but cash poor.

We want to keep this house to leave to our sons.

It's the biggest amount of money we've got, by a long way,

and that's what is their inheritance.

They began thinking about how they could get an income

without taking away from their children's inheritance.

Selling the house and downsizing was one option.

It's either that or have a lifetime mortgage again,

which, at our stage in life, at 73 and 76,

we don't want to be bogged down with a huge mortgage

that's going to eat into the...

-The equity on the house.

-The equity on the house.

So instead, they contacted Mint,

an authorised and respected financial services company.

Mint suggested an elaborate product called the Maximiser,

which they sold for a company called Integrity.

It involved taking out a loan against their house

and that loan would be invested in a way that would provide a monthly income,

repay the loan and even generate a profit.

So it all sounded ideal.

We were told that the product at the end of the term

would not only meet all the expenses

that it would incur during the whole of the plan,

but there would be a high probability of a lump sum which we could reinvest at the end.

So we'd complete a circle.

We would be left with no debt at the end

and the probability of a sum of money we could reinvest and start all over again

if we were lucky enough to live that long.

So impressed were the Newmans with this remarkable product

that they immediately signed up, taking out a loan for £89,000.

They did so because they were told it was low risk,

meaning they could be very confident that the equity in the house would be safe.

We were convinced that taking on this Maximiser product was so good

that other colleagues, friends, singers,

we passed on the good news to them. We thought it was a good thing.

We were told that it was a window of opportunity.

Their faith in the Integrity Maximiser seemed well-placed.

For two years, they received £700 a month from the product,

which made all the difference to their living standards.

We were able to do things more, with the garden, for instance.

We didn't want it for any luxuries.

-We don't have holidays.

-We're not bothered about holidays or cruises.

But after a while, those monthly payments stopped.

They rang the company to find out why.

They said, "The plan isn't performing satisfactorily

"and so we're playing safe by stopping it."

It was a signal that something was really, really wrong.

The payments did briefly restart at a lower level

but then stopped for good, leaving the Newmans with no monthly income.

The couple's lawyer, Gareth Fatchett,

says problems with the Maximiser, which is no longer sold,

are down to the fact that it was such a complex product.

They're called Frankenstein products because of how they're put together and the way they start to go wrong.

Some of them have got multi parts to them.

They've got loans, investments. Very complicated.

Most people, when you ask them if they understand what they've got, they don't.

For Mike and Peggy, the result of investing in one of these products has been devastating.

Not only are they not getting the expected income,

but the interest on their £89,000 loan

means that they're now left owing an awful lot more.

In fact, £138,000.

We could end up losing this house and everything that we own.

In 2009, the Financial Ombudsman Service looked into their case.

It was found in their favour because the risks of the product had been misrepresented to the Newmans.

It gave them hope that they would finally get some money back.

-It was a relief and -

-We didn't feel so foolish.

-That's right.

-We thought we'd been too naive.

But it was a mis-selling case,

so it was a relief to know that they were in the wrong

in any advice we'd been given and what we'd signed up for.

But two years later, the Newmans haven't been able to agree with Mint

what level of compensation they should be entitled to.

They've turned down the offer so far

because they'd still be out of pocket.

Mike and Peggy's solicitor is dealing with a number of other Mint clients in similar situations.

He believes that between them, they've lost a total of £3.6 million.

Mint Financial Services told us that they regret the circumstances of the Newmans' complaint,

but point out that they were the intermediary between the couple and Integrity,

the company now in liquidation.

They say they weren't given adequate information about the product,

but since then, have done all that they can to help,

including agreeing to lift the £100,000 cap on compensation,

usually applied by the Ombudsman.

They're keen to resolve this as soon as possible

and although no final settlement has been agreed, they've given the couple an interim payment.

But sadly, Mike and Peggy feel that now they have little choice

but to put their house on the market in order to pay their debts.

I can actually start shaking.

I sort of tremble.

My stomach starts and my hands start trembling,

and it is all to do with the stress of it.

It's living with it all the time. You can't get it out of your mind.

Big companies don't always make things easy to understand.

It can be very confusing trying to work out

why you haven't ended up with what you'd expected.

If you feel bogged down and don't know exactly what to do,

we've put together a booklet of tips and advice.

You can find the link to the free guide on our website:

Or if you want to receive a copy in the post,

send an A5 self-addressed envelope to the address we'll give you at the end of the programme.

We're at the Trafford Centre in Manchester,

where we've opened our first Rip-Off Britain pop-up shop.

We've met so many people who are here for the weekend of free consumer advice,

and we've been airing grievances of our own, too.

What really bugs me, and to a serious extent,

is that whatever you've worked for, whatever you've managed to save, and my dad taught me to save,

is the fact that you can't get any interest on your money.

I can understand it when people say, "I'm worried about my savings.

"I'm worried about my pension" because so am I!

-We are consumers, too.

-Thank goodness we're involved in this programme because we love it.

-Exactly. And we've still got a queue, so maybe we ought to deal with some of those problems.

-Exactly.

Life insurance is something that many people take out

and you expect to get the money you've invested back for your family.

Beverly has discovered she won't receive anywhere near the amount of money her mother has invested.

She's popped in to share her cautionary tale with James Daley.

Talk me through the problem.

Right, well, in 1998,

my mum took out a couple of insurance policies

-which were death policies only.

-Right.

And since then, she's been paying the premiums,

she's 90 now, she's in a nursing home,

and I realised when I added it all up

that the cost of what she'd been paying in

was twice as much as the benefit that's going to be paid out.

I wrote to the insurance companies and they wouldn't do anything about it.

I since wrote to the Ombudsman and they are supporting the insurance company.

The way these types of policies work, they're a sort of a gamble in a way.

If you die young, they're better value, so to speak.

They're not value at all, though.

They're basically not very good products, as you can see.

And I think now, you've got to make a decision

as to whether or not you think paying that £8 a month is worth it,

-given that if you cancel it, you'll lose everything.

-I know.

She'd have been better off

putting the same money away in a building society account and she'd have that money now.

I think it's worth getting that message across.

Generally, these policies are not good value.

-I'm sorry that there's no magic wand in this case.

-I know.

-All the best.

-BOTH: Thank you.

Making the most of your money in these tricky financial times can be a struggle.

Understanding finances and being more confident with your maths can make things easier.

BBC Learning has some clever tools to help.

Michael, how is BBC Learning helping consumers?

Well, in order to understand the deals that are out there,

it helps to be able to understand percentages.

We developed a mobile phone app

that you can use in a shop or at home when you're looking at your bills

which will tell you what the final percentage is

when there is a discount or a percentage added.

How does it work?

It shows the price on one side and the percentage on the other side.

Where can we find out about all of these apps

and ones we're likely to use in the future?

Visit the Skillswise website at:

-All the information about downloading the apps will be there.

-Thank you.

Some really great advice there from the experts at our pop-up shop.

Thanks again to everyone who came along,

whether it was to get a problem solved or just to say hello.

Now, here's someone else with a problem

and they are not at all happy about it!

The peace and quiet of rural Carmarthenshire...

Like many other remote parts of the UK, there's no mains gas supply here.

So in the bungalow belonging to Chris and Roy Spragg,

they depend on heating oil to keep it warm.

It's one of the main fuels because of the rural area that we live in,

and other than that, you could be having a big problem

unless you've got anything similar to a log-fire burner or coal fire.

But most people around here require oil central heating.

500 litres...

At the end of 2009, with temperatures well below freezing and supplies running low,

the Spraggs contacted their regular heating oil supplier, GB Oils, to place an order.

I was quoted 45p a litre.

A fortnight went by, the delivery came

and we were invoiced at 59.95.

That was a 33-percent increase on what I'd been quoted.

The difference would've been £156 extra

on the cost of the delivery.

Roy got in touch with the company.

I made numerous phone calls

for somebody to give me an explanation

of the difference in the price,

and we weren't getting any response.

I was told on one occasion, "Contact the accounts department."

When I did contact the accounts department, it was, "Go back to the sales department."

With calls getting them nowhere, Chris tried writing to the company.

Two letters to them

and one of them was sent recorded delivery

so that I knew they'd received it,

addressed to the manager,

asking for an explanation

and that we had spoken, or tried to make contact with them

without any sort of response from them,

and they just didn't respond to my letters.

And it seems the Spraggs weren't the only ones

who wanted to ask GB Oils some questions.

Carmarthenshire County Council were also interested in talking to the company.

In January, 2010,

we had a complaint regarding the pricing of the fuel

and an officer went out to meet the company

and the answers weren't very satisfactory.

And basically, six more complaints came in

and we then took out a warrant as a council

and we went to the company

and then found that there was hundreds of complaints

regarding the company's actions on pricing of oil.

In fact, it seems there were around 400 dissatisfied customers,

including Roy and Chris Spragg, at the company's premises.

The problems occurred during the heavy snow and extreme winter of two years ago.

If they'd got and used the oil they were holding in store

and taken in new deliveries,

there could've been an increase in the price,

but the explanation given that I was delayed with my delivery

is that they couldn't get out of the depot.

That meant they should've been delivering the oil that they were holding

and that's the price they quoted.

Trading Standards took action against the company for overcharging customers.

In August 2011, GB Oils were fined £51,000 for 17 separate offences

under the Unfair Trading Regulations.

GB Oils told Rip-Off Britain that they fully accept errors were made

in two of their West Wales depots in the severe winter two years ago, resulting in:

They admitted those errors in court and stressed the court accepted that these breaches:

And they've taken steps to ensure these mistakes don't happen again,

changing their procedures, training and complaints handling so that they're:

Though the company's apologised to the Spraggs,

Chris and Roy remain concerned that because of where they live,

when it comes to energy, they don't have the same choices as most other consumers.

We can't go elsewhere, we can't use any other form of energy,

so sometimes the oil people do have you over that barrel,

whereby we are reliant on them.

If you think that you could end up in a similar situation

but don't know where to turn for advice,

don't worry because we've done the hard work for you.

Here's some information that should stop you from being caught out.

There are several things to bear in mind when you're ordering oil.

Try to order in large quantities

and try to avoid having to order in the depths of winter.

The price we cannot predict but, generally speaking,

it is likely to be more expensive in the depths of winter.

Get together with neighbours or friends

or find out if there's a local oil-buying club in your area.

The Citizens Advice Bureau may know of one

or your local councillor may know of one.

If you can buy with neighbours or through a club,

you're likely to get a better price.

When you get quoted a price,

make sure that that is the price you actually pay

when the oil is delivered.

But remember, oil is not regulated, unlike gas and electricity,

so you, the consumer, have to be very sure what you're doing.

Now, as we heard earlier, nearly 6,000 UK savers lost their money

in savings plans they thought were low risk

when Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008.

The world now sees that event as the beginning of the global economic crisis,

but for the individuals concerned, it was the start of dreadful hardship

and a desperate battle to reclaim their cash.

In September, 2008, the financial world was rocked

by the bankruptcy of one of America's biggest banks.

The collapse of Lehman Brothers helped trigger a financial crisis that swept the globe

and its demise left over 5,000 UK investors

£100 million out of pocket.

It's on the television that Lehman Brothers had gone bankrupt

and I thought, "It's amazing that an American bank has gone bankrupt"

but it had no effect on me because I had no investments in Lehman Brothers.

Or so I thought.

Though Peter Howard and his wife Christine weren't initially worried by the collapse of Lehman Brothers,

they were keeping an eye on the stock market

because they'd put all their life savings, £50,000,

in a stocks-and-shares investment plan.

I invested the £50,000

so that I would have an income that would improve my standard of living,

so that Christine and I could go out for more meals,

take better holidays, weekends away,

just generally have a better quality of life.

Initially, their investment had worked well.

They spent the extra income that it generated on small luxuries and holidays abroad.

But on their return from one of these trips, they got a nasty shock.

I found a letter telling me that my investment was with Lehman Brothers

and as such, my investment was affected

and part of the bankruptcy.

That was the first Peter had heard of his investment plan being linked to Lehman Brothers.

The collapse of the bank had taken his life savings with it.

I was devastated at the thought of losing £50,000

and I was very upset that I hadn't been told

that Lehman Brothers were involved in my investment.

Peter says whilst he knew there was a big financial backer behind his investment plan,

he didn't know who it was.

He says if he'd known it was Lehman's, he wouldn't have invested

because by then, March 2008,

he'd already seen signs that they might be in trouble.

He read that their credit rating was likely to be downgraded,

and though that didn't happen for a few months more,

he can't understand why their connection to his investment wasn't flagged up.

They had enough time to tell me that the backer, in the future,

was not going to be as strong as they'd put in the brochure.

But they didn't tell me that.

Convinced that he had grounds to complain,

Peter began to look into what he could do about it.

I knew that I could do nothing on my own,

so I had to get other people and form a group and try and do something,

and I did this by the internet.

And so the Missold Investments action group was born.

"Some of the 6,000 investors caught in the backwash of the Lehman's disaster

"were pressing their case outside the Financial Services Authority in London yesterday."

As well as protesting,

they launched a website offering help and advice to others.

You've got a June 2008 plan

and some of those have been compensated.

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme,

which is funded by the industry and pays out to victims of investment mis-selling,

began looking at the Lehman case in 2009.

A year later, they ruled that though some investors would be entitled to compensation,

it depended which plan they'd signed up to.

15 plans went to the Compensation Scheme.

They judged that ten of them would get compensated and five would not.

The criteria related to what it said on the front of the brochure.

The ten who got compensated,

it said on the front of the brochure, "Capital secure",

which it obviously wasn't.

On the brochure for the other five, it said, "Capital at risk".

But we all knew the capital was at risk,

we just thought the risk related to the stock market

and not to the unnamed backer going bust.

But there's confusion among the investors affected.

Some who were told they wouldn't be allowed to claim compensation

have gone ahead anyway and got their money back.

But Peter isn't one of them.

They came back in the letter, and there was a lot of legal jargon

telling me what I needed to prove

and I didn't understand it, quite frankly.

So far, over 1,600 people have received compensation,

but thousands more are still out of pocket.

Peter thinks some may not have bothered putting in a claim

because they assume it won't be successful.

But he reckons it's definitely worth them having a go.

Depending on what you put on the application form,

you may get compensated or you may not,

but we don't know what the difference is.

It's very confusing. People are very frustrated who are getting refused

when we're telling them that people with the same plan are getting their cheques.

And the Howards are determined

to carry on fighting to get their own money back.

I've lost my income from that plan for the last three years nearly,

but my real concern is the loss of the capital, which is the £50,000.

In my future years, I may need that for medical expenses or carers

and that's what really worries me, that that's gone.

Lots of you have lost money as a result of the financial crisis.

Investments you thought were secure have turned out not to be.

I'm here to talk to Mark Neale, head of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme,

to find out how you can get your money back.

One of the key issues

is whether or not people who took out policies that clearly stated that there was a risk element,

people feel that they signed a thing called a risk policy

but they didn't realise that when they came to you for compensation,

that this would rule them out.

We can't protect people against ordinary investment risk,

risks materialising that they knew about.

We can only protect people where businesses misled them

about the nature of the risks that they were running.

In this case, we've looked carefully at the marketing material

and the risk that the bank backing these products,

in this case Lehman Brothers, would fail was flagged to the investors.

I suppose what they're really saying is that signs of failure were there

and, in some cases, they were reinvesting

when Lehman's was looking shaky

and that they should've been warned.

Is there no sense of responsibility on your part

that these type of warnings should be given?

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme is not the regulator.

We're here to compensate people

who lose money when financial businesses fail.

In this particular case,

the fact that the bank backing these products had been downgraded

was notified to the investors,

who had an opportunity then either to withdraw from the investment or to seek further information.

When the worst happens, people do turn to you,

and in the case of one of the people that we're talking about,

she and her husband applied for compensation,

were turned down, but she has now won compensation.

How is it possible that you can say, "No, your claim isn't legitimate"

and then you can change your mind?

We look very carefully at the evidence that claimants present to us

in support of their claims.

If claimants can present us with further and new evidence,

we will always consider it, and that's what will have happened in this case.

It suggests that people have to be prepared for quite complex negotiation with you

in order to pursue their claims.

This woman happened to go the extra mile and she succeeded, but some people might not do that.

We work very hard to make the process of claiming from us

as straightforward as we can.

We also have a telephone helpline

for claimants who struggle to understand our processes

and we're always very happy to offer advice and guidance

on the completion of our claim forms.

And in general terms,

if you had one particular piece of advice to give to people

to try to avoid this situation, what would it be?

I think my overriding piece of advice would be,

if you're thinking of investing in a quite complex investment product, like a structured product,

please make sure that you read about the risks of that product,

please make sure you understand those risks

and please be sure that you're happy to live with the worst that could happen,

because just from time to time, the worst will happen.

Here at Rip-Off Britain, we're always ready to investigate more of your stories.

Confused over your bills

or trying to wade through endless small print that leaves you none the wiser?

I might've been stupid for not reading it,

or I've read it and not took it in.

I could kick myself, I really could.

Unsure what to do when you discover you've lost out

and that so-called great deal has ended up costing you money?

I thought, "This cannot be true. It's totally unacceptable." I was so angry!

You might have a cautionary tale of your own

and want to share the mistakes you made with us, so others don't do the same.

No-one knows about this.

This is very strange to me and I would like to get this clear.

You can write to us at:

Or send us an email to:

The Rip-Off team is ready and waiting

to investigate your stories.

It's clear that choosing where to invest your money isn't a straightforward decision.

Even when you've done your homework, things can go horribly wrong.

You can never reduce the risk entirely,

but you can protect your money by spreading it around.

You know the old adage - don't put all your nest egg in one basket.

And despite what you may be told and whatever you're investing in,

there are absolutely no guarantees.

Absolutely right. Our website...

has got lots more advice you'll find really useful.

That's all we've got time for today.

Thanks for joining us. We'll see you again very soon.

-Until then, from all of us...

-ALL: Bye.

Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd

E-mail [email protected]