Episode 3 Rip Off Britain

We asked you to tell us who has left you feeling ripped off.

And you contacted us in your thousands - by post, e-mail,

even stopping us on the streets.

And the message could not be clearer...

They're in it for what they can get.

They're not in it to provide a service.

I didn't sleep. It upset me so much that I didn't sleep.

You've told us, with money tighter than ever,

you need to be sure that every pound you spend is worth it.

How do I get my money back? Cos I think I'm entitled to it.

So, 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, that's the interesting thing.

Your stories, your money.

This is Rip-Off Britain.

Hello, and a very warm welcome to Rip-Off Britain,

where it's our job to get to the bottom of why you've had a raw deal,

or, indeed, if you feel you're not getting the service you expect,

and, indeed, deserve.

Whether it by pounds or pennies,

the people we'll meet today all feel they've lost out,

and they want to know why, so we'll be getting answers for them

and making sure that you know how to avoid the same sort of upset.

So, there's plenty of good advice coming up,

because some of the situations we're going to be hearing about

involve everyday costs or annoyances -

the sort of things that really could very easily happen to any one of us.

But, as you'll see,

they can end up causing a lot more bother than you'd bargained for.

Coming up, some of most memorable stories we've covered in the past.

The former nurse who thought she'd taken out a £17,000 mortgage.

So, how come her bank now says she owes them £100,000?

I was just shattered.

I couldn't believe this was happening to me.

The families being charged hundreds of pounds by care homes

after their relatives have died.

Just because it's legal doesn't make it morally or ethically right.

This is charging the dead, really, for a service they've not had.

And we open our doors to try

and solve some of your problems on the spot.

We declare our pop-up shop... ALL: Open!

Now, what do you have to do to be classed as "occupying your home"?

Does it mean that you stay there overnight?

Or is it being at the property every day?

Now, I admit that may seem rather an odd question,

but it is one that really matters when it comes to house insurance.

Andrew Hill is a carpenter, skilled at what he does.

So, when he and his girlfriend Chaska decided to buy a house

in the town of Glastonbury, they wanted one that THEY could work on.

And with a bit of financial help from his dad, and a mortgage,

they found the perfect bungalow, priced at £138,000.

We decided to go for a really run-down bungalow that needed

a lot of work doing to it. And a project for me.

With all the paperwork done and dusted, via a consultant

at Countrywide Estate Agents, the redevelopment began.

For 12 months, at evenings and weekends,

they worked on the project.

Coming to the end, it was looking amazing.

Every room we were happy with. It was basically ready to move in.

But on the night of April 9th, 2011,

just two weeks before they were due to move in, disaster struck.

A neighbour's home caught fire and the fire quickly spread

to Andrew and Chaska's house, with devastating consequences.

I got the call from my best friend's sister and she said,

"Your neighbour's house is on fire" and, within 20 minutes,

half an hour, it was ripping through our roof.

And I just couldn't believe what I was seeing. I felt sick,

gutted, shocked.

This big room here

and that bit over there is the extension which Andrew built.

And this bit here, which is now the kitchen, was the second bedroom.

So, this was the original kitchen,

which was now being turned into the third bedroom.

And it was beautiful and ready to move into.

As all of their hard work burnt to the ground in front of them,

their only comfort was that, along with their mortgage,

they'd taken out home protection and buildings insurance.

Everyone kept reassuring us, saying, "Don't worry, you're insured,

"it'll be OK, it's just going to be tough for a few months."

But that was an understatement.

They put in a claim on their policy,

which, though organised by Countrywide, was underwritten

by Axa, one of the biggest names in the insurance business.

Their claim was rejected, on the grounds that the house

wasn't permanently lived in during renovation.

They said, "If we'd known what your plans were,

"we would never have insured you."

And, basically, our insurance was void, because the property...

they said the property was unoccupied.

This is how Axa's policy spells out what they say "unoccupied" means.

"Unoccupied - not permanently lived in by you or by a person

"authorised by you for more than 60 consecutive days."

That's what it says.

But it's the ambiguity over what the word "occupied" means

that was at the root of Andrew's problems.

There is, in fact, no standard industry definition.

As far as Andrew was concerned, because he was at the house

every day, and the occasional night,

he WAS occupying it.

And that's how his dad, Paul, understood things, too.

We've been quite open,

explained our situation on numerous occasions.

And completely overwhelmed, shocked now, by the way it's turned out.

All because of the words "occupancy" and "unoccupancy".

I can't get it out of my head, those two words...

..and how we're in a battle now, trying to prove it.

Andrew insists that when he bought the policy at Countrywide,

who'd also arranged his mortgage for him, he'd explained in detail

exactly what he'd be doing at the house and how often he'd be there.

And his dad, who was also at the meeting with the broker, agrees.

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the mortgage consultant

knew exactly what our plans were.

We discussed it in great detail. We went through every question,

we discussed our plans, we told her we was not going to be

living in there, that we were going to be doing modernisation works

and when all the works were completed,

Andrew would be moving in.

So, how did Andrew end up with a policy that did not seem

to give him the cover that he needed?

A question that, when they rejected his claim,

insurers Axa said THEY couldn't answer.

When speaking to Axa, they'd come back to us

and said our argument was with the broker.

So we went back to the broker and...

..they basically said that we never told her.

Unfortunately, we are told,

regardless of whatever we said, there is nothing there to prove

what went on at that meeting in that office that night.

And we are trying to...

..fight a battle.

And we can't prove what was said.

But there should have been an easy way to clear all this up.

The Financial Services Authority has guidelines requiring anyone

selling insurance to keep careful notes of the meetings

that they have, so that, if later, there is a dispute of exactly

what was said, those notes can settle it.

But Countrywide has failed to produce any such records.

As a result, when Andrew

took his case to the Financial Ombudsmen Service,

their initial response was to say that

they were not minded to uphold his complaint,

because without any recordings or detailed notes of the sales

meetings with Countrywide,

there was no evidence to suggest the policy had been mis-sold.

But Andrew and Chaska were determined not to give up.

For them, it made no sense that, after Andrew had spent

all of his free time doing up the house,

that wasn't enough to mean that he occupied it permanently.

Every single morning, evening, the doors opened to that property.

I never left the property for more than 30 days,

even two days, because I just wanted to keep on battling through,

to get it finished, to move in.

We spoke to insurers Axa about Andrew's situation.

And they reiterated that his claim was rejected

because the house was not "permanently" occupied -

a fact that they'd only known about after the fire.

They told us that, if they'd been aware of that

at the time of purchase, they would not have provided cover.

And they bounced the issue back towards Countrywide,

saying it was their responsibility...

When we pushed Countrywide for an explanation,

they just said that...

And they didn't explain why they hadn't been able to produce

any notes at all from the sales meeting they had with Andrew,

as the guidelines said they should.

But then in July 2012, there was some encouraging news.

After looking at the case again, the Financial Ombudsmen Service

upheld Andrew's complaint against Countrywide, concluding

that the policy WAS mis-sold, on the basis of all the evidence.

So, we went back to Countrywide once more.

They told us they were reviewing the case, but it wasn't clear how,

or if, the case would be resolved, leaving Andrew and Chaska

worried that they still faced losing the entire value of their home.

The fire actually started in our next door neighbour's house,

but, as you can see, their house has been rebuilt

because their insurance has paid out.

Whereas, our house is still left like this, our insurance won't pay.

At the moment, we're stuck between the broker and the insurer

and I've still got pay for the mortgage, my loans,

for this pile of rubbish.

But then in August 2012, after we'd been contacting everyone

involved over several months, there was a very welcome final twist.

Insurers Axa rang Andrew at work with a change of heart.

I had to go outside because I couldn't hear the lady properly,

and then she said,

"Axa are going to pay for the full rebuild of your house."

And it was just...

It was like winning the lottery ticket

and I was just running around, shouting...

Jumping around. We both were.

You come home from work, didn't you, cos you were like,

"I need to sit down and take this information in." I couldn't...

I just couldn't work any more.

I was walking around, just smiling, shouting...

Ringing all my friends up, saying, "Guess what?

"They're going to pay!"

Axa told us, after reviewing the case in more detail,

they understand that Andrew

answered all of the application questions honestly

and should not be disadvantaged

as a result of miscommunication between them and Countrywide.

They've now paid the claim in full and given compensation!

It's finally coming to an end.

We can actually start to... Get on with our lives.

And look forward to the future, rather than just...

being in complete and utter...

Have a black cloud over our head, really, isn't it?

Our lives have been on hold for the past 18 months,

so, finally, we can look to the future. Yeah.

And since we first featured Andrew and Chaska's story,

they have been able to completely rebuild the bungalow.

They've now, at last, been able to move in and enjoy their dream home.

Now, someone who, despite thinking they were being very careful

with their money, has ended up, I'm afraid, losing it,

and they don't want the same thing to happen to anybody else.

I thought I was leaving a really good nest egg.

And now they're burdened with £100,000 to pay back

to the Bank of Scotland...

when I die.

The situation Penny Cooper has found herself in

is the opposite of everything that she'd planned.

Hello, there.

In 2011, she retired from her job as a nurse

at the Royal Berkshire Hospital,

although she still goes back there to volunteer.

And right through her 30 years of service,

she was very careful with her money,

hoping the value of her home would safeguard the family's future.

Isn't she beautiful?!

Throughout my life, I've never had a lot of money

and just spent what money I could afford.

I really did plan for my children's future.

For me to know that I was going to be able to leave them

half of this property and that they would get a nice little lump sum...

..was such a wonderful feeling for me

and made me feel very content.

Penny's problem began 16 years ago, when,

after the sale of the family home, she wanted to buy somewhere new.

I bought this house in 1997. Saw it, fell in love with it,

liked the area, and it was just what I wanted.

Penny could have used her savings to buy the house outright,

but wondering if it might be better to keep some of that money back

for a rainy day,

she arranged a visit with an independent financial adviser.

When I saw the financial adviser,

we decided that it was easier for me to have a small mortgage.

It would then give me

the opportunity to have a little bit of money in the bank.

Penny went ahead and bought the house, for £69,500,

taking out what she thought was a standard mortgage

on the property with the Bank of Scotland.

The mortgage was sorted out for £17,000,

which would be a relatively small amount to pay.

And that amount I was happy with.

Penny didn't think any more about it, until after she retired.

She decided the time was right to re-evaluate her finances.

So is this his sleepy time, in the morning? Yeah...

She went to a new financial adviser, who within weeks,

delivered Penny some earth-shattering news.

She said, "I've got some devastating news to tell you.

"The mortgage that you had

"was called a shared appreciation mortgage.

"It means, when you die,

"your children will have to pay back to the Bank Of Scotland £100,000."

My first reaction was to vomit and I just rushed of to the loo.

I came back and I was just shattered.

I couldn't believe this was happening to me.

And my thought was, "How can a £17,000 mortgage

"suddenly change to £100,000 that I owe them?"

Effectively, that's an increase of 490%.

Penny just couldn't understand how her loan

had suddenly got so much bigger.

Just the worst thing ever.

I didn't know what to do.

Unfortunately for Penny,

and indeed, the thousands of other people

who took out a shared appreciation mortgage,

it is not a typical mortgage, at all.

Sold for only a brief period between 1996 and '98

and by just two banks - Barclays and the Bank of Scotland -

it was a unique financial product.

THe bank offered a loan that was interest-free,

in return for a percentage of any increase in the property's value...

..as solicitor Hilary Messer explains.

A shared appreciation mortgage

is an arrangement where a home owner can borrow

up to 25% of the value of their home.

And when they come to repay that borrowing,

they also have to pay up to 75% of the increase in value

of their home, as well as the original loan itself.

But the loan itself is on a 0% fixed interest rate.

But what no-one at the time had predicted

was the property boom at the turn of the century,

so as house values shot up,

so, too, did the amount of money that anyone with this product

would find themselves owing the bank.

The problems associated with the product

come as a result of the almost exponential rise in property prices.

And when people come to repay their loan,

because they're paying back a share of the appreciation,

they end up with, normally, less than half of the value of their home.

Which is exactly what has happened to Penny.

It means that, when I die, or I need money,

if I have to sell this property,

I have to pay back £100,000 before I get any return.

The financial adviser gave me advice.

I took her advice, I was happy with that advice.

I trusted her, but what has happened now...

It was the wrong advice and I feel badly about that.

Of course, if the property market had gone down instead of up,

then Penny would have paid no more that the value of her initial loan.

So she isn't a victim of bad advice, but simply bad timing,

especially as if she'd bought her house just a few months later,

shared appreciation mortgages were no longer being sold.

The banks that did sell them accept that, for many people,

it resulted in considerable hardship.

But they're satisfied that the terms and conditions

that customers signed up to were made very clear at the time.

Penny's bank, the Bank of Scotland, told us that they take

"a very sympathetic approach" to anyone in difficulty

because of their shared appreciation mortgage,

but stresses that customers were...

"..to explain how the product worked."

So, if Penny feels it was mis-sold

or that she was given unsuitable advice,

they suggest that she takes that up

with the financial advisor who sold it to her.

But they say that if she's suffering from financial hardship,

she should contact them directly,

to see if they can assist in any other way.

What Penny is going through is a harsh reminder

that even when you do the right thing

and take expert advice, you do still need to understand

exactly what you're getting yourself into - and the risks.

I thought I'd done everything right.

I'd gone to a proper person that would sort out mortgages.

I didn't understand.

I feel very much that I've let my kids down.

I feel still very emotional about it

and very upset that this situation has come

and would hate that to happen to anybody else.

Who's my best boy?

We've opened our very own pop-up shop at the Metro Centre in Gateshead.

We declare our pop-up shop...

ALL: Open!

Overnight, we've transformed this space

into a one-stop consumer advice centre...

Hello, how are you? Fine.

..so we can try and solve some of your problems face-to-face.

Is this is your good lady? Yes, it is.

For one weekend, our team of experts was inside,

ready to offer practical advice on a variety of consumer issues.

Gemma popped in to see personal finance expert Sarah Pennells,

after a mistake by her bank when she switched accounts

left her out of pocket.

Fire away, Gemma.

When I changed my bank account over

and changed where my wages were going to be going,

they took all the direct debits out of the wrong account.

I was then charged by the mortgage company

for a mis-payment.

I'm worried now about whether there will be something

on my credit rating.

You said you've already made a complaint to the bank,

so I think you have to wait for up to eight weeks,

while they work out what, if anything, they're going to do.

And if they don't offer to pay back the £42 that they've charged you,

then I would go and take the complaint

to the Financial Ombudsman service, which is free to use.

But, I think, more importantly,

you do need to get a hold of a copy of your credit reference file,

just to make sure that that payment that was late,

that wasn't your fault, isn't marked down there, because if it is,

that could cause you some problems. Yeah.

If you look at your credit file

and you see something there that you think really is not just,

what can you do about it?

If you think the information isn't correct,

you've got the right to dispute it.

Basically, you should contact

the credit reference company concerned,

tell them what you think is wrong,

and they've got 28 days in which to either get back to you and say,

"Yes, we'll remove this disputed mark",

"No, we won't, and here's why",

or "We need longer to look into it".

You know, we don't care

whether your consumer problem is big or small,

we just like to hear about it, right? Absolutely right.

I can tell you that our black box is just the place

to get it all off your chest.

I'm really annoyed about the price of fuel.

It's ridiculous, how expensive it is.

Car insurance is an absolute disgrace.

I've paid £2,200 for my first year's insurance.

It's just a total rip-off.

I've come to complain about the high prices

that holiday companies charge during the school holidays.

I feel that the pensioners in this country are getting ripped off.

But one pensioner determined not to get a raw deal is Norman.

Norman, it seems to me

that you're someone who's got an eye for a bargain,

but it sounds as if you very nearly got caught out by an optician.

Tell me what happened.

Well, my wife and I decided to go and get new spectacles,

and I saw an advertisement for a company offering a 25% discount

for pensioners who went in and purchased on their quiet days.

So the assistant showed my wife spectacles

and she eventually decided on two pairs.

So the girl immediately got her calculator out

and said it wouldn't be any benefit to put it through on discount.

How much would the spectacles have cost you with your 25% discount,

special for pensioners,

and how much would it have cost you if you didn't have the 25%?

If I had the 25% discount for pensioners, insisted on that,

it would have cost me £215. Yeah.

If I didn't have the pensioner's discount

and went in as a normal member of the public,

it would have cost me £198.

Crikey!

SHE LAUGHS

It certainly sounds very strange.

I'm sure it's something Trading Standards would want to look at.

If you're being offered a discount,

you shouldn't pay more than those not offered the discount.

This is a story where it really is, "Read the small print,

"and buyer, beware."

When you feel you've had a raw deal,

it can be hard to know what to do or where to turn.

So to help you, we've put together a booklet

full of practical tips and advice.

You can download the free guide on our website...

Or, to receive a copy in the post,

send an A5 stamped and self-addressed envelope to the address

that we'll give you at the end of the programme.

Still to come on Rip-Off Britain...

The investment plan that turned out to be much riskier

than customers were ever led to believe.

I don't get angry about these things,

but, yes, I was very upset,

because I wasn't going to be able to stay here.

If you're having to face the very difficult subject

of moving a relative into a care home,

it can be a very stressful time.

And amongst all the things you're going to have to consider,

getting your head around the paperwork

may not seem to be a top priority -

indeed, it could be that the terms and conditions

aren't especially clear.

Many care homes have a clause in their contract which,

if you're not expecting it,

can come as a particularly unwelcome surprise later on,

as it did for the families in our next story.

Now, they had absolutely no idea at all that,

when their relatives died,

they would be hit with a bill for hundreds of pounds.

Just because it's legal

doesn't make it morally or ethically right.

This is charging the dead, really, for a service they've not had.

It was while Isabel Wilkerson was grieving for her grandmother

that she was hit with an unexpected bill.

What made it worse was that the whole situation

was a direct result of the death of 93-year-old Olive.

Isabel has fond memories

of when former nurse Olive was in her prime.

She was a very strong character, knew her own mind,

very loving towards my mum,

and she was... very outspoken, as well.

But Isabel's grandmother suffered from dementia

and three years ago, the family felt they had no choice

but to put Olive in a care home.

But choosing one they liked wasn't easy.

We looked at lots of homes around Cambridge

and...some of them I wouldn't put my dog in.

But we found a local one, which was lovely.

Olive received exceptional treatment at the home they chose.

The cost was £650 a week,

which included accommodation, food and drink

and round-the-clock care.

She settled really well.

They were absolutely brilliant, so yes,

it was a massive relief that we'd got her somewhere safe

where she was being looked after really, really well.

And she loved it.

Olive spent a happy two-and-a-half years there,

but in March 2011, she passed away.

It was probably over a three-week period,

she just went to her bed and became very, very poorly.

And she, basically, just slipped away.

And the staff were brilliant.

Isabel cleared Olive's room the very next day,

so she was shocked when she received a bill for her care

for the two weeks after Olive had died,

at a cost of £1,365.

I was livid. I couldn't quite believe that they would do that.

I looked into it and spoke to the solicitor about it.

She said it was quite common,

that these...these clauses are put into contracts

and some homes can charge up to four weeks.

It was classed as "legal".

And, unfortunately for Isabel,

it did say in the terms and conditions

that the contract would only be terminated two weeks after a death,

or when the room was cleared, if that was later.

I enquired to the home about it

and was informed that it was a period to allow the family

time to clear the room

and for them to make it suitable for somebody else to then move into.

But Isabel thinks the £1,300 bill is unfair,

because it covered not just the cost of accommodation,

but also all her grandmother's care, food, drink, lighting,

heating, even laundry done on the premises -

services that, of course, in the two weeks after her death,

she hadn't used.

I couldn't understand how it could be legal

that you could charge for a service that you weren't actually giving.

I could have understood if they'd have charged us

a percentage of the fee,

to allow us time to clear the room, etc.

But not for the whole lot.

What frustrated Isabel even more

was that she normally paid the fees from Olive's pension,

which had stopped the moment she died.

As soon as she had taken her last breath,

her pension and her attendance allowance stopped.

So, she has no more income...

..but is still expected to pay bills.

In fact, it's not all that unusual

for care homes to have this sort of charge.

Helen English and Rob Sewell's father Jack was 93

when he moved into a retirement home.

At home, he began to really struggle.

And it was a very difficult decision, indeed.

He really didn't want to go and leave his home,

but we just couldn't see any alternative.

They found an ideal home close by, at a cost of £837 per week,

with an initial deposit of £2,760.

That's Dad... But after three months there,

Jack died.

We immediately, in the next two or three days,

cleared everything out of his room, made the funeral arrangements,

and it was all quite straightforward. Quite straightforward. Yes.

Or it was, until they noticed

that the home had deducted nearly £2,000,

the equivalent of three weeks' care,

from their initial deposit.

The home claimed that this was part of the contract,

and indeed, there it was.

They require one month's notice of a termination.

They require one month's notice of a termination.

We felt that that money, or at least most of it,

should have been given back to us, because Dad was in no position

to give a month's notice of termination,

because he didn't know when he was going to die.

Rob and Helen had read the terms and conditions,

but now feel that they weren't clear,

because they hadn't realised that the clause

about the termination of residency also applied to death.

They're not completely clear.

And they certainly don't specifically mention

what happens in the... in the event of the resident dying.

When the Office of Fair Trading looked into care home contracts,

they were concerned about the "lack of clarity" with these fees, which

they say are often "not drafted in plain, intelligible language."

And though they concluded that a charge for up to four weeks

may be fair, if the room was unoccupied for all of that time,

they said that any fees after a resident's death should be made

"clear and prominent in the contract,

"so that consumers are fully aware of them."

Which is also the concern of Caroline Abrahams from Age UK.

It's absolutely horrible

to think you're a family member

who's experiencing all the distress of a bereavement and then,

suddenly out of the blue, you get a bill you weren't expecting,

for quite a large sum of money. When people go into a care home,

it's often at a time of crisis, so it's all a bit of a rush.

It's very easy, then,

to overlook those details about what you're signing up to

and it is really important that care homes do everything

they can to bring the small print to families' attention

so that there aren't any horrible surprises later on.

Which, of course, neither family we spoke to

says happened in their case.

So, we asked both of the care homes involved whether they think

the charges were fair and made sufficiently clear.

Only the one Olive lived in replied, saying that the costs of their care

are...

"..with this fee..."

"..and..."

They say it's...

"..that Isabel doesn't feel it was clearly explained."

But Isabel, Helen and Rob remain angry and upset

about the charges that they've had to pay.

There isn't a choice. Even if you challenge it beforehand,

you've got to do the best for the person

and it's a big decision moving a loved one into a care home.

My dad would be very upset about it.

He would have been horrified, I think,

if he'd known that this would happen.

Next, an investment that really did seem to be a perfect opportunity.

And it certainly did turn out to be life-changing,

but not at all in the way that was expected.

At 84, Margaret Sherborne should have been enjoying

her retirement in peace.

But her quiet life has been disrupted by the effects

of an investment that her bank recommended she take out.

I'm not money-minded. I have no financial interests,

really, but when Barclays said I should do something with this money,

I thought that was a good idea.

So, I was happy to invest in this fund that they recommended.

It never occurred to me not to trust them.

Margaret's financial situation first changed back in 2007.

Recently widowed out in Spain, she made the decision

to move back, to a retirement village in the UK.

I came here because I'd come back from Spain and my son lives

about a half-an-hour's drive away.

And I thought this would be quite nice to be near him.

If you live on your own, you are very isolated sometimes

and so I thought this was

the best of both worlds, you know.

You've got security, privacy, and to be with other people, if you want,

which is good.

Margaret's new retirement plan would be funded from her life savings

and the sale of her Spanish property.

In total, Margaret invested over £247,000,

which she put into her account with Barclays.

I had the money transferred to my savings account in this country.

And when Barclays saw that I had that much, they said

I really ought to be doing something different with it,

putting it somewhere else.

Barclays sent round a financial adviser,

who recommended that she invest her money in a scheme that was called

Aviva's Global Balanced Income Fund.

He told me that it would bring me in about 5,000 a quarter.

That, with my pensions, was going to be just about enough

to pay the rent. I told the Barclays adviser

that I didn't want a high risk, but moderate risk I was prepared for,

in order to get a good return.

But I don't know much about these things.

I didn't then and I don't now.

On the advice of the man from Barclays,

Margaret placed her entire life savings into their recommended fund

and she did it because Barclays had themselves classed the fund

as "unadventurous".

So, on that advice,

it seemed just the sort of investment that Margaret needed -

unlikely to throw up any nasty surprises. Or so she thought.

But right from the off,

the fund did not perform in the way she'd expected.

I took this investment out and then it started to fall

and each month it had fallen by 10,000 or 20,000 and so on,

until December, when it had fallen

so much it was really worth only half what I'd invested in,

half the money I'd put in.

I could see that I wasn't going to be able to stay here

in The Hawthorns. I wouldn't have enough for the rent.

And that... I was worried about it.

And Margaret was far from being the only Barclays customer

to find herself in this predicament.

It turned out that the bank had "misclassified" the risk,

not just on this fund, but on another one, too.

So, in total, 12,000 Barclays customers, most of them

either already retired or approaching retirement,

were finding that their investments were a lot riskier

that they'd been led to believe.

Between them, they'd invested a total

of £692 million, much of which, with the funds underperforming,

now appeared to be lost.

Barclays faces the biggest fine ever levied on a bank

for its dealings with high-street customers.

In January 2011,

Barclays was fined £7.7 million by the Financial Services Authority

for mis-selling these funds. The FSA said they should always

have been described as "high risk"

and shouldn't have been sold to older customers,

who could ill afford the heavy losses that the product caused.

For Margaret, this seemed good news. She hoped that she could reclaim

some of the money that she'd lost.

When I realised how much money I'd lost, I contacted Barclays

and I asked if there could be any compensation,

because I didn't have enough. Then I received a letter from them

saying that they admitted they had wrongly advised me,

but that I wasn't entitled to any compensation.

I don't get angry about these things, but, yes, I was very upset

because I wasn't going to be able to stay here.

I was worried about the money situation.

But then Margaret heard of someone who could help.

My daughter then told me that she'd heard of this firm

called Claims.

This company had already advised other people

stuck in the same situation.

And when they contacted Barclays about Margaret's case,

the bank changed its tune.

They offered 44,000 and I was very surprised,

because they'd already told me that there was nothing due to me.

It didn't really cover the amount I had lost,

but it would have put me on a much more even keel.

Claims didn't think Barclays was offering Margaret enough

and an adjudicator at the Financial Ombudsman Service agreed.

Barclays was told that in January 2012, but it disputed

the adjudicator's decision, leaving Margaret to wait

for the Ombudsman to make a final ruling,

with further months of uncertainty and worry.

I'd always been with Barclays all my life, for 60 years, at least.

I trusted them....implicitly.

We contacted Barclays about Margaret's case.

They told us at the time that we first covered this story,

"they were sympathetic to her situation."

And, after a recent review agreed that the fund she was sold...

They were sorry this was causing Margaret...

And said they would...

But for Margaret, and thousands of other pensioners

affected in the same way, this continued to cause

unwelcome stress, because it meant she was still worrying

about whether she could afford to stay in her home.

All I'm concerned about is having enough money to stay here.

I wouldn't trust them again.

Since we first featured Margaret's story, the Ombudsman ruled

that she was entitled to £60,000 - the total amount that she'd lost

on her investment. Barclays have paid out in full and,

with this compensation, she's confident

that she can now stay in her retirement apartment for good.

Here at Rip—Off Britain, we're always ready to investigate

more of your stories.

Confused over your bills? Trying to wade through wodges

of small print that leave you totally confused?

When they sit you down to sign you up for things,

they don't really give you the chance or the time

to read through all of that small print.

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

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

You feel as though, because you got a cheap deal, you are not

worth their time in the same way.

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.

I feel angry. I feel stupid, that I'd allowed this to happen to me.

You can write to us, at...

Or send us an e-mail, to...

The Rip—Off team is ready and waiting to investigate your stories.

Well, these days, especially, we all want to make sure that,

not only does our money stretch as far as it possibly can,

but that it's buying us exactly what we thought it would,

so it's extremely annoying when things don't turn out that way.

But remember, our website has plenty of advice on how to make sure

your money is working hard for you and not just someone else.

The address - I'm sure you remember...

And that's an address to make a note of.

But do keep telling us who it is that's left you out of patience

or out of pocket and we'll see if we can find out why.

But what we are out of now is time.

But we'll be back to investigate even more of your stories very soon,

so I hope you'll join us, but until then, bye-bye.

Bye. Bye.

Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd