Episode 1 Rip Off Britain

'We asked you to tell us who's 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 couldn't be clearer.'

I think there's a lot of hidden information about your bills

that should be made a lot more clear.

I don't feel I get treated how I should be.

'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 just 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 it is that you're out of pocket and what you can do about it.'

Keep asking the questions, keep going 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 welcome to Rip-Off Britain,

where, as always, we three are on hand to fight your corner

in those situations that haven't just cost you time and money

but have also probably caused you an awful lot of grief along the way.

All the people we'll be hearing from today would say that they've been treated unfairly,

either because of small print that they don't think was clear

or plain and simple bad customer service.

I can tell you, we've got quite a few examples of that coming up.

I must say, it's been a huge mailbag

and some of the problems are really quite shocking,

with huge sums of money that stand to be lost.

Now, they're all to do with problems around the home, and big problems at that.

In fact, in one case it could hardly be worse.

Coming up, a company that promised to bring down your council tax

but in reality was just after your cash.

I don't think I'll ever get my money back. I do know it was a con.

It was in the papers.

It was a scam and I could say bye-bye to my money.

And with insurers continuing to count the cost of recent floods,

could you end up paying the price?

They're not making the money they think they should be making,

so they'll continue to search for a reason

to punish householders for wanting to protect their greatest asset.

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.

As this next couple found out, they face losing everything

because of that one tiny detail which made all the difference.

Andrew Hill is a skilled carpenter,

so when he and girlfriend Chaska decided to buy a house in the town of Glastonbury,

they wanted one that they could work on themselves,

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

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

We had gone 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.

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 Andrew built

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

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."

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.

But their claim was rejected

on the grounds that the house was not 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 they said the property was unoccupied.

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

that's at the root of Andrew's problems now.

There is, in fact, no standard industry definition

and as far as Andrew was concerned,

because he WAS at the house every day and the occasional night,

he WAS occupying it.

I'd 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.

Andrew insists that when he bought the insurance 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 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 told her that we were 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 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.

There should have been an easy way to clear all of that up.

The Financial Services Authority has guidelines

requiring anyone selling insurance to keep careful notes of their meetings

so that if later there is a dispute over what was said,

those notes can settle it.

But Countrywide weren't able to produce any such records.

As a result, when Andrew first took his case to the Financial Ombudsman Service,

he was told that there was no evidence to suggest that the policy had been mis-sold,

leaving the couple faced with 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.

On their behalf, we spoke to insurers AXA,

who reiterated that the claim was rejected because the house was not permanently occupied,

a fact that THEY'D only known about after the fire.

If they'd known that at the time of purchase,

they would not have provided cover.

And they bounced it all back towards Countrywide,

saying it was their responsibility:

But when we asked Countrywide for an explanation,

they just said that while they're:

And they didn't explain why they'd been unable to produce any notes

from the original meeting with Andrew,

as the guidelines said they should.

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

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

for this pile of rubbish.

But we kept pushing

and are delighted to say that this story does have a happy ending.

After looking at the case again,

the Financial Ombudsman Service upheld Andrew's complaint against Countrywide,

concluding that the policy was mis-sold

on the basis of all the evidence.

And then insurers AXA unexpectedly rang Andrew at work

with a change of heart.

Then she said, "AXA are going to pay for the full rebuild of your house,"

and it was just... It was like a winning lottery ticket

and I was just running round, shouting, ringing all my friends up,

saying, "Guess what? They're going to pay!"

After reviewing the case in more detail,

AXA said they understand that

Andrew answered all of the application questions honestly

and should not be disadvantaged as a result of a mis-communication

between them and Countrywide.

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

It's finally...coming to an end. We can actually start to...

Get on with our lives.

Cos our lives have been on hold for the past 18 months,

-so finally we can look to the future.

-Yeah.

Something we need to be increasingly on our guard against

is certain companies promising that in return for a fee of course,

they can win back money for us which we've paid out in the past.

So if you've ever wondered if you pay too much council tax,

you're exactly the sort of person they're after.

It was October 2010 when right out of the blue,

Jackie Roast got an intriguing phone-call with a very attractive offer.

It was from a company called Council Tax Review

who suggested that her house might have been put into the wrong council tax band.

As a result, over the 13 years since she'd moved in,

she may have been paying too much tax

and that was money that the company suggested they could get back for her.

I didn't really understand council tax banding

but I thought it might be worthwhile so we'd listened to him.

Jackie arranged a visit from someone at the company to explain more

and when he came round, he made it sound like she had absolutely nothing to lose.

He convinced me

he would need £185 for the paperwork

and then should they be unsuccessful,

that will be refundable.

It seemed perfect.

If the company was successful, Jackie would pay less tax and get money back

and if they weren't, they'd refund her her fee,

so she signed a cheque for £185

and left it to Council Tax Review to pursue her case.

The man had told Jackie that this wasn't a job

she could easily do for herself

but a couple of weeks after signing up she realised that that wasn't true

and you shouldn't need to pay anybody else to do it.

After my sister told me that she had been down to the council

and got her money back of £3,000 without any assistance from anyone,

I decided to ring the Council Tax Review people I'd been involved with

and ask for my money back.

But Jackie's attempts at getting back what she'd paid out

to Council Tax Review didn't get her very far,

despite their promise that the fee would be refundable.

It was one excuse after another.

They were constantly fobbing me off.

It's now two years since Jackie signed up with Council Tax Review.

She's seen neither a refund nor any evidence that the company

had bothered doing the work they promised in the first place.

I've retired this year, my husband's due for retirement

and I was hoping that we would have

a smaller banding to pay

and that we would have that little bit of money back in the bank.

I feel angry. I feel stupid

that I'd allowed this to happen to me.

But Jackie is by no means the only person taken in by Council Tax Review.

West Yorkshire Trading Standards received over 800 complaints about the company,

all from people who'd been told that they, too, could be in line for thousands of pounds in rebates

in return for that refundable upfront fee.

They signed up, they paid the money,

and they were finding that things weren't happening

at the sort of pace that they perhaps expected.

The man behind Council Tax Review, Jack Darrell Henry,

was found guilty of a series of offences involving unfair commercial practices.

The judge said that Henry had engaged in sharp and shoddy practices

which were a whisker away from fraud.

But while this company has been put out of business,

there are deep concerns others with similar tactics

may spring up in its place.

We've seen several examples of companies like this

where effectively they are offering a service which can actually be performed by yourself.

You've got to learn that don't sign anything if you don't want to,

take the information away by all means but have a think about it first.

The easiest way to find out if you're in the wrong council tax band

is to contact your local Valuation Office yourself.

It won't cost anything more than the price of the call

and it's absolutely free if you do it online,

something Jackie wishes she'd known when she first got that call.

I don't think I'll ever get my money back. It was in the papers.

It was a scam and I could say bye-bye to my money.

The Rip-Off Britain team has opened up a one-stop consumer advice shop.

It's the perfect opportunity to meet many of you face-to-face,

and, more importantly, for our team of experts to help tackle your consumer problems.

Gloria, isn't it great to be back in the pop-up shop

and find so many people wanting to talk to our experts?

I know. The success of it, I think, has been fantastic.

And one man who's come for advice

is former squash champion Aftab Jerwain.

He's hoping his diary of evidence will help our telecommunications expert David McLelland

get to the bottom of a dispute he's having with his phone company.

He paid 12 months line rental up front

but two months later moved house.

And despite using the same provider in his new home,

he was told the old contract was non-refundable

and he'd have to pay again for another.

I started getting the letters from their solicitors of the company.

-Threatening letters trying to scare you into submission...

-Yes.

That's a common tactic, unfortunately.

First, let me congratulate you.

You've made such a good diary and that is textbook stuff

and that will really help you later on.

According to the letter of the terms and conditions

that contract was terminated.

However, if it wasn't made absolutely clear to you that that would be the case,

you have a strong case.

In your official letter of complaint, you set out very clearly

how you want this to be resolved and if that fails, the next step after that is the ombudsman.

With this brilliant diary of information you've got here,

I'm pretty sure your case will be very clear indeed.

Some parts of Britain have been hit by disastrous floods in recent years

and, although they might not like it,

you can understand why those people who live in the worst affected areas

may now have to pay increased insurance premiums as a result.

But what if you live in an area that has never seen a proper flood in living memory

and your premiums suddenly start to soar

because, apparently, you have got an increased risk of flooding?

Well, that's exactly what happened to Nancy Herely.

She could just not understand what was going on and she asked us to investigate

and, you know, it's a good job that she did

because this time it seems that her insurance company

really did not know what they were talking about.

We're getting used to seeing images of homes underwater,

devastating floods hit parts of Britain several times last year,

most recently around Christmas, but even after the heaviest downpours,

the part of Lincolnshire where Nancy Herely and her husband, Phil, have lived for the last decade

remained unscathed.

In fact, it is 50 years since the area saw a flood.

It's an absolutely stunning part of the country.

We found a house that we absolutely love

and we found a beautiful way of life here.

When the couple moved into their farmhouse,

they arranged their home and contents insurance through Cornhill Direct.

The cover protected them for home and contents, fire and flooding.

Our first insurance policy was for £177.50.

Gradually, over the years, it crept up.

I believe in 2009, it was slightly over £300.

Over the next seven years up to 2009,

the premiums had gone up by a fairly modest £129.

And in 2007, the policy was very useful

when Nancy needed to make a claim for some storm damage.

They told us simply to get it repaired and paid everything very promptly.

We were very pleased with the treatment we had.

Or, at least, they were until 2010

when the cost of their annual insurance suddenly went up from £300 to £490.

Cornhill put it down to the fact that they had reclassified the area where Nancy's house sits

as a flood risk area.

We had never had any indication this area had suddenly become

an area of concern for the insurers with regard to the floods.

Nancy reluctantly paid the increased premium,

but the next year brought an even bigger shock.

In 2011, we received a premium request for £737.26.

We were absolutely astonished because this was a massive increase.

In two years, Nancy's policy had gone up by 141 percent

because of a risk that Nancy believed would never happen.

So, together with her neighbours,

some of whom were experiencing similar problems with their insurance companies,

she hatched a plan to fight back.

Through their local MP, they arranged a meeting with a man from the Environment Agency.

He said they too had recently reclassified the area's risk of flood

but, unlike the insurers, they had downgraded it.

He talked about the fact that it has not flooded in this area since 1957

and that the area is now being changed from a significant risk of flooding

to a moderate risk of flooding.

Insurance companies do not have to use the Environment Agency's analysis when setting premiums,

but Nancy couldn't understand why Cornhill Direct was saying the likelihood of flooding

was increasing at a time when the Environment Agency was saying the exact opposite.

They simply did not want to know that we had a government agency

that could verify that this area was in no great danger of flooding.

Nancy took her business elsewhere,

organising her home insurance with a local broker for just £264.

But she still feels aggrieved that Cornhill Direct wouldn't listen to what she was saying.

They were unwilling to look beyond what their computer screens gave them as a definition

of the area and what their underwriters would permit.

When we contacted Cornhill Direct, the story took an unexpected turn.

The company agreed that Nancy's postcode was not in an area at high risk of flooding

and they told us that when they said it was,

what they actually meant was that it was suddenly at a greater risk of subsidence

because of shrinkable clay soil in the area.

When we broke the news to Nancy, she was flabbergasted.

Subsidence!

I was told twice it was flooding.

No-one ever mentioned subsidence, no-one ever mentioned clay.

Absolutely astonishing!

I am... I am truly amazed.

I am... I am furious actually.

And the neighbours were even more amused to hear one of the company's other explanations.

In an e-mail to us, they said they'd been influenced by - wait for it -

some of the local street names on Google Maps.

"The River Witham passes her property..."

GASPS

"..and the neighbouring road have such names as

"40 Foot Bank, Ferry Lane

"and Fifteen Foot Drain.

"I think it is forgiveable for making the assumption that our stance

"was due to flood rather than any other peril."

Cornhill Direct told us they'd adjusted the premiums

after working with an external provider of geographical hazard data

so they could improve the sophistication and accuracy of their pricing

and, putting aside the inaccuracy of confusing flooding with subsidence

they are satisfied that from a technical underwriting respective,

the policy has performed exactly as intended.

They say their premiums reflect what they believe to be the risks presented to them

and they don't increase them by any more than they have to.

But Nancy is not persuaded that the new justification for the price hike holds any more water

than the old one, especially considering that she has been able to find the same type of cover

for the coming year for just £202.

They're not making the money that they think they should be making.

Therefore, they'll continue searching for a reason to punish householders

for protecting their greatest asset.

So, yes, I will tackle them on this and, yes,

I will continue to fight and I will be as loud as possible.

I'm not going away. They may think they've won, but I'm not going away.

Sometimes when you feel ripped off,

it could be you that's made a mistake.

Perhaps you didn't read the small print or realise the consequences of what you signed up to.

Whoever is at fault, when things go wrong,

you need to know what to do about it.

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

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

Or, to receive a copy in the post,

send a stamped self-addressed A5 envelope

to the address which we will give you at the end of the programme.

If you're lucky enough to have a guarantee for work that's been done on your home,

you'd think it would be obvious what it entitles you to.

But that's not always the case.

Sometimes it turns out that the guarantee you've pinned your hopes on

is no longer worth the paper it's written on.

# I could have danced all night

# I could have dance all night... #

When amateur singer Adrienne Guthrie was looking for a new place to live,

Wetherby in Yorkshire seemed the obvious choice.

I looked for a property near friends and, because most of the activities I am involved in,

the ladies' choir and one or two other activities are in Wetherby.

Adrienne had no trouble finding her ideal home.

She was sent a stack of paperwork to go with the purchase

and amongst it was some very good news.

Or so she thought.

I saw that there was a guarantee for the double glazing

for a ten-year period.

Double glazing had been installed less than two years earlier.

But Adrienne soon noticed her double glazing wasn't keeping the house is warm as she'd expected.

I hadn't been in the house very long when I realised that the kitchen was very cold

and as the cold weather came, it was just like being in an ice box.

Adrienne traced the problem to the kitchen door,

which didn't seem to have been fitted properly.

I wasn't unduly worried.

I thought that the double glazing would be covered under the guarantee

and it would just be a repair.

So Adrienne contacted the company who'd issued the guarantee,

Orion Windows Limited.

But they told her the guarantee was no good to her

because it was only valid for the customer who'd installed the glazing.

In other words, the house's previous owner.

I just couldn't believe it

and nobody could understand why the guarantee wasn't transferable

from one owner to the next and why it didn't stay with the house.

To make matters worse, a few weeks later,

there was another problem with Adrienne's double glazing.

I suddenly heard three loud cracks and when I went into the back bedroom,

the window had cracked from top to bottom.

It was very cold outside and I'm assuming it was because of the cold.

So, with two double glazing problems in just two months,

you can see why Adrienne was annoyed at the prospect of shelling out for repairs that,

because she had that guarantee, she believed should be done for free.

I don't understand why the guarantee doesn't transfer from owner to owner.

It's just ridiculous the way it is just null and void.

In fact, double glazing suppliers aren't under any obligation to supply transferable guarantees

unless they are members of the industry trade body, the Glass and Glazing Federation.

In that case, they are supposed to honour guarantees if the house changes hands.

And, funnily enough, Orion Windows Ltd is a member.

When we contacted them,

they blamed an oversight and were quick to put things right.

They made what they call very minor adjustments to sort out Adrienne's glazing

and immediately transferred the unexpired portion of their guarantee to her.

They assured us that all other guarantees would now be transferable.

We also spoke to the Glass and Glazing Federation

who reiterated that it's a mandatory requirement for all their members to provide transferable guarantees.

But when we contacted the 20 Glass and Glazing Federation members

closest to where Adrienne lives to see if they offer transferable guarantees,

four of them said they didn't.

We've passed that information on to the Federation

who said they will be reminding all their members of their obligations on this.

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

Confused over your bills?

Trying to wade through never-ending small print?

We should read it, but it's not in plain English. It should be simple.

You might have a cautionary tale of your own

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

We paid them good money to act in our best interests. They didn't.

You can write to us at:

Or send us an e-mail:

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

I think we'd all agree that it's really never good to find that you've been ripped off,

but somehow it's particularly bad when it affects your own home.

But, as ever, one way or another, it is quite often paperwork that's at the root of the problem.

Whether it's been a promise that hasn't been kept or a clause that you didn't quite understand -

and we get a lot of that, don't we?

Yes, as we've seen from our stories today, you can't always be confident

that you'll get what you thought you'd signed up to.

But doing research and ploughing through all those boring old terms and conditions

is still the best way to protect yourself and your property.

Because your home, as you know, is the most important asset that you will probably ever have

so battling through that small print really is worthwhile,

even if they don't always make it that easy for you.

That's where we've got to leave it for today.

We hope you'll join us again for more of your stories.

-Until next time, from all of us, bye-bye.

-Bye.

-Goodbye.

Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd