:00:34. > :00:40.We asked you to tell us who has left you feeling ripped-off, and
:00:40. > :00:43.she contacted us in your thousands, but post, e-mail, even stopping us
:00:43. > :00:47.on the streets. And the message could not be clearer. Things
:00:47. > :00:49.weren't right. It was costing me time and money. And it was like,
:00:49. > :00:52.does anybody listen? unfortunately I think these
:00:52. > :00:54.companies are more motivated by their share price, than they are by
:00:54. > :00:57.actually looking after the customers. You've told us that with
:00:57. > :01:01.money tighter than ever, you need to make sure that every pound you
:01:01. > :01:05.spend is worth it. How do I get my money back, cos I just think I'm
:01:05. > :01:08.entitled to it. So whether it's a deliberate rip-off, a simple
:01:08. > :01:13.mistake or a catch in the small print, we'll find out why you're
:01:13. > :01:17.out of pocket and what you can do about it.
:01:17. > :01:21.Keep asking the questions. Go to the top if you have to. We do
:01:21. > :01:25.get results. I mean, that's the interesting thing.
:01:25. > :01:29.Your stories, your money. This is Rip Off Britain. Hello and welcome
:01:29. > :01:32.to Rip Off Britain, the programme that is never afraid to take on
:01:32. > :01:38.those companies both big and small that you say have either let you
:01:38. > :01:46.down, or treated you unfairly. And, boy, have you given us plenty to
:01:46. > :01:49.get our teeth into today, haven't they?! You sure have. Well, the
:01:49. > :01:51.thing that comes over loud and clear is that you feel really
:01:51. > :01:54.clear is that you feel really ripped off when things don't turn
:01:54. > :01:57.out the way you expected maybe you didn't realise exactly what you'd
:01:57. > :02:00.signed up to. Or perhaps there was a key detail that you simply
:02:00. > :02:03.weren't told. But you know, either way, it can result in a very
:02:03. > :02:06.unwelcome surprise later on down the line which is exactly what
:02:06. > :02:09.happened to the people whose stories are coming up today. They
:02:09. > :02:16.were all totally unaware of what was about to hit them and in one
:02:16. > :02:18.case, it wasn't just the money that they ended up losing.
:02:18. > :02:21.Also on today's programme, why forking out for an extended
:02:21. > :02:25.warranty may not always buy you what you think. After three years
:02:25. > :02:28.of paying so much money out, me and my wife thought it was disgusting
:02:28. > :02:31.that we weren't gonna be offered a new television And how not knowing
:02:31. > :02:39.a crucial detail has cost this couple thousands of pounds and
:02:39. > :02:42.their marriage. It was our dreams just gone up in smoke, it was awful.
:02:42. > :02:47.In a typical year, almost nine million parking tickets will be
:02:47. > :02:50.issued in the UK. And while it's always frustrating to get one, it's
:02:50. > :02:53.even worse when you had no idea that you were parked illegally in
:02:53. > :02:56.the first place. Which is exactly what happened to our next viewer,
:02:56. > :03:02.along with thousands of other drivers who all fell foul of
:03:02. > :03:09.parking restrictions in the exact same spot. So, coincidence? Or a
:03:09. > :03:14.sign that something is not quite right?
:03:14. > :03:17.Passing your driving test is a rite of passage. It should mean new
:03:17. > :03:20.horizons, independence and freedom. So when 19 year old Jamie Porter
:03:20. > :03:26.got his license 10 months ago, he couldn't wait to make the most of
:03:26. > :03:32.it. I love having my car and it helps me get around. I'd say I'm a
:03:32. > :03:36.safe driver as well. Having a car makes my life so much easier for
:03:36. > :03:41.going places and getting to work on time in the morning, then going
:03:41. > :03:47.home. Jamie may be new to the road but already he's received something
:03:47. > :03:55.that all drivers dread. A letter saying that he'd fallen foul of the
:03:55. > :03:58.law. And he didn't even know he'd done it. I came downstairs and
:03:58. > :04:02.found a letter from the London borough of Hounslow addressed to me.
:04:03. > :04:06.And I opened it up and they told me that I had received a fine for
:04:06. > :04:12.parking in this bus stand. And I was just kinda gutted really and it
:04:12. > :04:15.came as such a shock to me. fine was for �110 and Jamie had got
:04:15. > :04:18.it after dropping off a friend at Feltham Bus Station one evening in
:04:18. > :04:22.April 2011. He'd pulled into what he'd thought was a lay-by, but it
:04:22. > :04:26.turned out to be a bus stand. the time I was just dropping my
:04:26. > :04:32.mate off at the station who needed a lift and I didn't know the area
:04:32. > :04:39.at all. So I just assumed that I could just drop my passenger off
:04:39. > :04:49.and drive away, not thinking twice about it. So why did Jamie think it
:04:49. > :04:50.
:04:50. > :04:53.was OK to pull in where he did? Well he says he'd clocked a sign
:04:53. > :05:00.saying that restrictions on stopping there ended at 7 in the
:05:00. > :05:04.evening and he'd stopped at 7.21pm. So he assumed he'd be fine. Unhappy
:05:04. > :05:09.about the fine, he went back to double-check the signs with his dad
:05:09. > :05:15.Jim. And Jim thinks it's easy to see why any driver here might but
:05:15. > :05:18.caught out. There's a sign up there at the end of it and it says you
:05:18. > :05:21.can't stop from 7am to 7pm yet there's another sign over there
:05:21. > :05:25.that says you can't stop at any time. There's warning signs that
:05:25. > :05:28.are supposed to advise you that you can't stop or that you will be
:05:28. > :05:32.filmed but as you can see over there the sign is hidden behind a
:05:32. > :05:34.sign. There's a sign behind me which is facing this way. So when
:05:34. > :05:38.you're approaching from the other direction there's no way you can
:05:38. > :05:42.tell which signs are what or what means anything. So Jim and Jamie
:05:42. > :05:44.appealed against the fine, arguing that the signage was unclear. They
:05:44. > :05:47.quickly received a response from Hounslow Council, who sent him
:05:47. > :05:50.footage from their CCTV cameras showing Jamie in the no stopping
:05:50. > :06:00.area. The CCTV video showed me stopping for 19 seconds and I drove
:06:00. > :06:02.
:06:02. > :06:10.off and I thought nothing of it at the time. Jamie doesn't dispute he
:06:11. > :06:20.was there. The question is whether he should have been fined. Hounslow
:06:21. > :06:21.
:06:21. > :06:25.Council was adamant he'd stopped illegally. They rejected his appeal
:06:25. > :06:29.and that �110 fine remained. As far as I'm concerned, Jamie wasn't at
:06:29. > :06:32.fault. There's so many signs here that make it so obscure, that
:06:32. > :06:35.people can't really tell whether they can stop here or not.
:06:35. > :06:38.Jamie isn't the only driver to have been caught on camera stopping in
:06:38. > :06:41.exactly the same place. A month earlier, in March 2011, Jin Jhooti,
:06:41. > :06:45.a local IT manager, was fuming when he received a penalty charge.
:06:45. > :06:49.Because as far as he was concerned, he too had followed what the sign
:06:49. > :06:52.said. I've seen the signs and the signs were Monday to Saturday,
:06:52. > :07:02.seven-to-seven, and I was not in that time zone. I stopped there on
:07:02. > :07:04.
:07:04. > :07:09.a Sunday. That's the reason I appealed. Like Jamie, Jin had no
:07:09. > :07:13.idea there was another sign saying no stopping at all. He wasn't going
:07:13. > :07:16.to take this lying down, and he put in a freedom of information request
:07:16. > :07:23.with Hounslow council to see how many fines had been issued at the
:07:24. > :07:26.same spot. He could hardly believe the answer. Well in about 20-22
:07:26. > :07:36.months, London borough of Hounslow has issued 8,200 tickets and they
:07:36. > :07:39.
:07:39. > :07:42.have made just under half a million pounds. I think it's disgusting.
:07:42. > :07:48.�409,688 is the exact amount that the council earned from this one
:07:48. > :07:54.spot. It seems that, being confused over the signs, drivers like Jin
:07:54. > :08:04.can be a nice little earner. Although Hounslow Council doesn't
:08:04. > :08:08.
:08:08. > :08:12.see it that way. They told us it's 'very clear from the road markings
:08:12. > :08:17.and the sign that this is a bus stand'. And that separate signs
:08:17. > :08:20.warn drivers that CCTV cameras are in operation. They're confident
:08:21. > :08:24.that all the bus stands are 'well marked and enforced to keep them
:08:24. > :08:27.clear for buses and coaches', and say that, to avoid a fine, all
:08:27. > :08:29.drivers need to do is drop off in the car park directly opposite.
:08:29. > :08:31.They've explained that the income raised is spent on improving
:08:31. > :08:35.transport opportunities for the borough's elderly and disabled
:08:35. > :08:38.residents. At the time of Jin and Jamie's infringements, they've said
:08:38. > :08:48.no stopping was allowed at any time, but 'this was subsequently reviewed
:08:48. > :08:49.
:08:49. > :08:52.in response to motorists' concerns'. So now, outside the hours that the
:08:52. > :08:58.coach service runs, 'passengers can be picked up and dropped off
:08:58. > :09:02.without drivers receiving a parking fine'. Which is all fair enough.
:09:02. > :09:05.But if the signs really are as clear as the council maintains, is
:09:05. > :09:07.it really just a coincidence that Jin, Jamie and more than eight
:09:07. > :09:10.thousand other people who've been fined are convinced that they're
:09:10. > :09:20.not? And while Jamie still feels that he's been treated unfairly,
:09:20. > :09:29.
:09:29. > :09:32.he's determined not to let the same thing happen again. I'll make sure
:09:32. > :09:35.that I'm more aware and definitely keep an eye out for all kind of
:09:35. > :09:43.signs whether they're hidden or more open. And be more careful
:09:43. > :09:52.where I drop my passengers off again. I don't think I'll be going
:09:52. > :09:56.near the bus station anytime soon. Now, after you've shelled out
:09:56. > :09:59.hundreds of pounds on a shiny new appliance, the last thing you want
:09:59. > :10:02.is for it to break down, leaving you with a choice of either
:10:02. > :10:05.replacing it, or forking out for expensive repairs. Either way, it's
:10:05. > :10:07.more money. So it's to avoid those unexpected costs that so many
:10:07. > :10:11.businesses will encourage you to invest in an extended warranty. But
:10:11. > :10:15.is that always a good idea? Over five years, the cost of that cover
:10:15. > :10:22.could be more than you realised. And if you're not careful, you may
:10:22. > :10:26.have bought less protection than you thought. Lee and Karen Martin
:10:26. > :10:36.love walks on the coast near where they live in South Wales. But when
:10:36. > :10:36.
:10:36. > :10:45.they get home, they're self- confessed TV junkies. Me and my
:10:45. > :10:52.wife are a great fan of the Xbox online scenarios. We started off
:10:52. > :10:55.playing games a lot years ago, on the old PS3s & PS2s. But more often
:10:55. > :11:02.than not, it's big fan of '80s horror movies, I've a big
:11:02. > :11:04.collection of them. Five years ago, the couple decided to make their TV
:11:04. > :11:07.experience even more pleasurable by buying the latest technology
:11:07. > :11:10.available at the time, a brand new plasma screen TV. I was just
:11:10. > :11:14.fortunate to come across a 50-inch plasma which was down from �2000 to
:11:14. > :11:18.�1000. I was very impressed with it. It was a good quality picture and I
:11:18. > :11:20.had no problems with it in the first year or so. 12 months after
:11:20. > :11:23.purchasing the TV, Lee received a letter from Domestic and General
:11:23. > :11:33.stating that his manufacturer's warranty was coming to an end. So
:11:33. > :11:33.
:11:33. > :11:37.would he be interested in paying to extend it? We decided, yeah, I
:11:37. > :11:40.think it would be cheaper to run this policy at �18 a month rather
:11:40. > :11:43.than having to fork out what could be an expensive repair if something
:11:43. > :11:46.went wrong. Because plasma was a relatively new product on the
:11:46. > :11:50.market at the time. So he signed up to the extended warranty, which
:11:50. > :11:56.worked out at around �208 a year. And Lee was glad of it when the
:11:56. > :12:00.TV's standby function stopped working. After contacting Domestic
:12:00. > :12:07.and General, they put us through to a firm who actually pick up and
:12:07. > :12:10.repair the product. They dealt with our problems with no problem with
:12:10. > :12:13.the repair and we were happy with the policy. So after two weeks
:12:13. > :12:18.without their beloved TV, Lee and Karen were happy when it was fixed
:12:18. > :12:24.and they got it back. However, a year later, the problem struck
:12:24. > :12:27.again. We decided to contact Domestic and General and once again
:12:27. > :12:30.they came and retrieved to repair the problem. Looking forward to the
:12:30. > :12:38.same efficient services as last time, Lee waited for his TV to be
:12:38. > :12:43.mended and returned. But a month later when it still hadn't arrived,
:12:43. > :12:47.he called Domestic and General to see what was taking so long. This
:12:47. > :12:50.is where I found out that there was a problem. Things had moved on
:12:50. > :12:57.technology-wise and it might not be possible to get hold of this
:12:57. > :13:00.product part anymore. Despite the news that the TV couldn't be
:13:00. > :13:03.repaired, Lee was once again reassured by the fact that he had
:13:03. > :13:11.his extended warranty, which by now had cost him �672. He'd assumed
:13:11. > :13:13.that his old set would be replaced for free. But he was astonished
:13:13. > :13:16.when Domestic and General said that wasn't the case. Because his
:13:16. > :13:19.television had depreciated in value, if he wanted a like-for-like
:13:19. > :13:27.replacement he'd have to pay them �616! Which left Lee questioning
:13:27. > :13:30.why he'd bothered with the warranty at all. I was angry, annoyed after
:13:30. > :13:34.that initial offer and put in a lot of complaints and eventually they
:13:34. > :13:37.came back with a new offer of about �490 I'd have to shell out towards
:13:37. > :13:40.a TV. But as far as I was concerned, it wasn't happening. Despite his
:13:40. > :13:50.initial shock, Lee realised it was clearly marked in the terms and
:13:50. > :13:53.
:13:53. > :13:56.conditions of his contract. These explained that if the insurer
:13:56. > :14:00.decided to replace his equipment, he'd be asked to contribute 50% of
:14:00. > :14:03.the current retail price in the first year of his policy, 60% in
:14:03. > :14:05.the second and 70% in any years after that. It's a condition that's
:14:05. > :14:10.not unusual in the extended warranty market. But Lee realises
:14:10. > :14:13.that when he'd signed up he'd missed it. I don't think I'm naive
:14:13. > :14:21.as far as policies are concerned, I usually have a pretty good head on
:14:21. > :14:30.my shoulders. But this was a bit of an oversight. It's clear to Which?
:14:30. > :14:34.Though. Research they carried out in January 2012 suggested that the
:14:34. > :14:37.TV market has the worst value for extended warranties. Because
:14:37. > :14:40.although some TVs have only a 3% chance of breaking down in the
:14:40. > :14:50.first five years, the extended warranties sold to protect them can
:14:50. > :14:50.
:14:50. > :14:54.often cost a third of the price of Every month we paid without fail:
:14:54. > :14:57.after three years of paying so much money out, me and my wife thought
:14:57. > :15:00.it was disgusting that we weren't going to be offered a new
:15:00. > :15:02.television. Lee thinks that being asked to pay �616 pounds towards a
:15:02. > :15:05.�630 pounds television is excessive. But his insurers Domestic and
:15:05. > :15:08.General don't agree, telling us they're sorry he's unhappy, but all
:15:08. > :15:11.they've done is stick to their terms and conditions. Though 99% of
:15:11. > :15:14.their warranties DO provide a brand new replacement TV in the first
:15:14. > :15:18.five years, Lee had "a very specific type of cover". They say
:15:18. > :15:21."When he took the policy out and renewed it each year, he was given
:15:21. > :15:24.a written contract on each occasion that clearly explained the nature
:15:24. > :15:27.of the cover, and which provided him with an opportunity to cancel."
:15:27. > :15:32.They'd advise all customers to read their paperwork and contact them if
:15:32. > :15:38.they have concerns. And they say all their warranties "are
:15:38. > :15:40.constantly reviewed to ensure that they provide value for money."
:15:40. > :15:43.Extended warranties from all suppliers are something that you
:15:43. > :15:45.often contact us about and early this year the Office of Fair
:15:45. > :15:50.Trading said they were concerned that customers don't always get
:15:50. > :15:53.value for money. As a result in June they agreed undertakings with
:15:53. > :16:00.the UK's main electrical stores to help consumers shop around and make
:16:00. > :16:05.better informed choices. As for Lee, he's rejected Domestic and
:16:05. > :16:08.General's offer and cancelled his policy. He's forked out �550 for a
:16:08. > :16:17.new television and says in future, as well as watching the box, he'll
:16:17. > :16:20.be keeping his eye on that all important small print too.
:16:20. > :16:23.thoughts on extended warranties are, basically, if you do decide to go
:16:23. > :16:27.for one, just make sure you chatted through to someone who actually
:16:27. > :16:30.knows more about these things. is it ever worth getting an
:16:30. > :16:33.extended warranty? Sarah Pennells from Savvywoman is here to ensure
:16:34. > :16:38.that if you do go down that route, it will offer you the kind of
:16:38. > :16:43.protection you need. The starting point when it comes to extended
:16:43. > :16:46.warranties is whether you need one in the first place. Quite a few of
:16:46. > :16:49.these policies won't ensure appliances once they reach a
:16:49. > :16:52.certain age, exactly the kind of age where they are most likely to
:16:52. > :16:55.breakdown. And some of these policies particularly the ones that
:16:56. > :16:59.are pay-as-you-go or pay monthly - can be so expensive that you can
:16:59. > :17:02.pay for a replacement several times over by the time the warranty runs
:17:02. > :17:06.out. And also some policies have limitations on how much you can
:17:06. > :17:12.claim so you may not get the full cost of a repair or replacement
:17:12. > :17:14.just say 50 or 75% of the cost. It is worth bearing in mind that the
:17:14. > :17:18.extended warranty doesn't replace your existing consumer rights so if
:17:18. > :17:21.you buy something and you make a claim under your warranty and it is
:17:21. > :17:24.not repaired properly the company should sort it out. Rip Off Britain
:17:24. > :17:34.has been on the road again meeting you face-to-face and trying to
:17:34. > :17:37.
:17:37. > :17:39.resolve your complaints. Inside our Pop Up Shop, a whole team of
:17:39. > :17:49.experts has been busy answering questions on every conceivable
:17:49. > :17:53.consumer issue. I really don't know what my rights are. What can she do
:17:53. > :17:57.about it? There was these black insects all ove... This insurance
:17:57. > :18:00.policy does not cover us... Sylvia Rook from Trading Standards has
:18:00. > :18:06.been hearing how Charlotte feels that she didn't get the best seats
:18:06. > :18:09.in the house. I bought some tickets last December for Elton John. I was
:18:09. > :18:15.lucky enough to get front row seats. When I arrived there I could not
:18:15. > :18:20.see anything at all. So all I could see was a mixing desk. How much did
:18:21. > :18:24.you pay for the tickets? �105 each. 105 quid! That's a lot of money,
:18:25. > :18:28.isn't it? For a restricted view? It's obscene. Restricted view was
:18:28. > :18:31.about 35, �40, you could get that, but I chose to get the �100 tickets
:18:32. > :18:35.because I wanted a front row view. What chance does Charlotte have of
:18:35. > :18:38.getting some money back? Oh, I think you've got a very good chance
:18:38. > :18:41.and it should be the promoter that will solve the problem. If the
:18:41. > :18:43.promoter doesn't then you should talk to the online ticket agency as
:18:43. > :18:46.well. Ultimately, if nobody's offering you any financial
:18:46. > :18:50.recompense then you may have to consider going through the courts.
:18:50. > :18:54.So Charlotte, has it put you off Elton John for life? It's a shame
:18:54. > :18:57.because I have been to see him before and he was fantastic.
:18:57. > :19:00.followed up Charlotte's case. The promoter says her seats weren't
:19:00. > :19:03.sold any differently to how they would normally be at this venue,
:19:03. > :19:06.but they're very sorry that she was disappointed, so as a goodwill
:19:06. > :19:09.gesture they've offered her free tickets for an upcoming show by a
:19:09. > :19:13.different performer. We've heard a lot of very personal
:19:13. > :19:16.stories. The one that has really struck a chord with me involves
:19:16. > :19:20.Eric, who took out �300 worth of insurance for a trip to Australia.
:19:20. > :19:26.As Eric explained to travel expert Simon Calder, he and his wife Joan
:19:26. > :19:29.thought the travel insurance would cover them for their big trip.
:19:29. > :19:36.Probably just a couple of weeks or so after we'd taken the insurance,
:19:36. > :19:39.Joan had had a bit of a pain in her back. And on the Monday we saw the
:19:39. > :19:46.specialist and she said she's got lung cancer and it's inoperable.
:19:46. > :19:55.You must have been devastated. Well...she died on the 17th of
:19:55. > :19:58.February. So you contacted the insurance company. And then I just
:19:58. > :20:02.got a simple letter saying they wouldn't be paying out. And how
:20:02. > :20:05.much money are we talking about here? Well the overall total is
:20:05. > :20:11.less than �2,500. It's effectively two plane tickets return to
:20:11. > :20:15.Australia. So I then got a letter and there was a little extract from
:20:15. > :20:19.the medical notes, this was after we'd taken out the insurance. She
:20:19. > :20:22.had said that she'd had a bit of a pain in her back a couple of weeks
:20:22. > :20:30.earlier and they've taken that as being therefore it was an
:20:30. > :20:35.undiagnosed. A pre-existing condition. It's a long and very
:20:35. > :20:38.very sad story. What's your take on it? As you will know, Eric, when
:20:38. > :20:41.you took out the insurance you signed something to the effect of,I
:20:41. > :20:49.declare that neither me or my wife have any pre-existing medical
:20:49. > :20:52.condition. And as far as we knew of course that wasn't the case. You,
:20:52. > :20:55.after this devastating personal tragedy, I imagine just want some
:20:55. > :20:58.closure on this and the easiest way to do that is approach the airline
:20:58. > :21:07.very directly and just say you believe that they may have some
:21:07. > :21:10.policy for compassionate payments in such circumstances. I think it
:21:10. > :21:20.would be a very mean spirited airline that didn't just say we
:21:20. > :21:20.
:21:20. > :21:24.completely understand, here you are. Still to come on Rip Off Britain:
:21:24. > :21:28.One woman's battle with the council to avoid a huge expense that she
:21:28. > :21:32.and her neighbours say they shouldn't have to pay. It's
:21:32. > :21:36.unbelievable. I couldn't imagine how any of us would ever be able to
:21:36. > :21:45.raise that sort of money. And, at last, an end to the dreaded
:21:45. > :21:48.clampers. But does that mean that our parking problems are over?
:21:48. > :21:52.Now, these are not exactly the easiest of times to set up your own
:21:52. > :21:57.business. Especially if through no fault of your own the odds are
:21:57. > :22:00.stacked against you right from the start. Here's a couple who invested
:22:00. > :22:08.everything they had in a venture that, little did they know, was
:22:08. > :22:14.doomed to fail before they'd even opened the doors.
:22:14. > :22:18.Hiya. Small fish and chips please. To eat now my love? Yes, please For
:22:18. > :22:21.years Hayley Court had dreamed of owning her own business. And that
:22:21. > :22:28.dream was finally set to become a reality when she and husband Paul
:22:28. > :22:32.made the decision to invest in a fish and chip shop. Would you like
:22:32. > :22:35.salt and vinegar on it my love? please. I decided to buy a chip
:22:35. > :22:39.shop because my husband's family have been in the business and I'd
:22:39. > :22:43.just come out of the air force after 22 years and I had a bit of
:22:43. > :22:46.money left and I thought why not invest for my son's future. And in
:22:46. > :22:49.March 2011, they spotted what seemed the perfect opportunity.
:22:49. > :22:56.They saw that a business agent was advertising a year-long lease on a
:22:56. > :23:02.fish and chip shop in Pudsey, near Leeds. When we saw the ad for the
:23:02. > :23:05.chip shop it was very professional, it said chip shop for lease, �5,000.
:23:05. > :23:09.The �5,000 for the lease for the chip shop we thought was a
:23:09. > :23:15.fantastic deal. Hayley and Paul quickly set up a viewing and it
:23:15. > :23:18.only made them keener! When I first set eyes on the chip shop I thought,
:23:18. > :23:22.wow, it's lovely, quaint, it's in a residential area, I thought because
:23:22. > :23:25.I'm a peoples person, I thought I could draw all the locals in!
:23:25. > :23:31.their minds made up, Hayley's husband, Paul, arranged a meeting
:23:32. > :23:37.with the landlord Neil Petty to make a deal. When I met Neil he
:23:37. > :23:39.seemed to be a really good, genuine sort of guy. Seemed to know what he
:23:39. > :23:44.was talking about, knew the area really well, lived round there all
:23:44. > :23:47.his life, seemed you know a decent sort of fella really. When Neil
:23:47. > :23:52.Petty spoke to my husband, he assured him the chip shop was all
:23:52. > :23:57.ready to go. It needed a bit of paintwork and a bit of love really,
:23:57. > :24:07.but it was all set to- to open. premises had already been run as a
:24:07. > :24:12.fish and chip shop, and still had all the necessary fittings. So,
:24:12. > :24:16.excited couple went ahead and signed a 12-month lease. The moment
:24:16. > :24:19.I signed on the dotted line I felt ecstatic because it was a new start
:24:19. > :24:22.for me and my family, because it was like we had got something
:24:22. > :24:25.together. Me and my husband were going to fight for our marriage.
:24:25. > :24:29.We'd been going through a rocky patch for quite some time and you
:24:29. > :24:32.know we just thought we'd have once last go. It was sort of going to be
:24:32. > :24:35.a new start for us really. couple gave the business agent
:24:35. > :24:38.handling the sale �5,000 for the lease, and �1,000 deposit towards
:24:38. > :24:41.the rent. They agreed to pay �250 per week rent to landlord, Neil
:24:41. > :24:47.Petty. And because everything seemed in order, they didn't feel
:24:47. > :24:51.the need to involve a solicitor. When we signed the paperwork we
:24:51. > :24:56.just didn't think it needed a solicitor. So Hayley and Paul
:24:56. > :24:59.picked up the keys to the business and set about making it their own.
:24:59. > :25:06.They renamed it Jay's Chip Shop, after their son, and spent a
:25:06. > :25:10.further �2,000 decorating and buying stock. Then at last the big
:25:10. > :25:14.day came when they could open the doors. When my first customer
:25:14. > :25:19.walked through the door I nearly jumped on him, I was so excited. It
:25:19. > :25:23.was like, it was a new start; it was just lovely. To get the word
:25:23. > :25:27.out there, that there was a new chip shop in town, they placed an
:25:27. > :25:31.ad in the Pudsey Times. Giving an instant boost to the business.
:25:31. > :25:35.first we were making about �150 a day but then it went up to about
:25:35. > :25:37.�250 and I knew it would go up even more. But unfortunately, it wasn't
:25:37. > :25:40.only prospective customers that responded to their ad. It also
:25:40. > :25:43.prompted an unexpected call from Leeds City Council, who told the
:25:43. > :25:53.couple the devastating news that the shop had no planning permission
:25:53. > :25:56.to run as a hot food takeaway. So it would have to close immediately.
:25:56. > :25:59.Leeds City Council rung me up, it was a Friday, and they said you
:25:59. > :26:04.have to shut, that's it, there's no planning on the shop you shouldn't
:26:04. > :26:13.be opening it as a fast food takeaway. There is issues with it,
:26:14. > :26:17.shut your doors now. It didn't open again. The doors shut and they
:26:17. > :26:21.stayed shut. Hayley and Paul could not understand how this could be
:26:21. > :26:23.happening. When they called the landlord, Neil Petty, for an
:26:23. > :26:27.explanation, he assured them that it was just a temporary glitch Neil
:26:27. > :26:33.said everything would be OK, he had his solicitors on it, it was all
:26:33. > :26:37.going to get sorted out, it was just going through the motions.
:26:37. > :26:41.Maybe take a couple of weeks and everything would be fine. He didn't
:26:41. > :26:44.answer the phone half the time, and when he did answer the phone he
:26:44. > :26:48.just said, "No, no be calm it'll get sorted it'll get sorted." And
:26:48. > :26:51.that's when we decided we would do our own investigating. Hayley
:26:51. > :26:54.called the planning department at Leeds City Council to find out how
:26:54. > :26:59.they could get the permission they needed. They told us that there was
:26:59. > :27:01.no way the chip shop would ever open, it had been refused
:27:01. > :27:05.permission, and he had appealed and it got refused again. It was our
:27:05. > :27:07.dreams just gone up in smoke, it was awful. Leeds City Council told
:27:08. > :27:11.them that planning permission had previously been refused due to the
:27:11. > :27:15.lack of parking and because the smell of fish and chips had been
:27:15. > :27:20.unpleasant for the locals. And in fact, the premises had only ever
:27:20. > :27:23.been granted permission for use as a tattoo parlour. So why had Neil
:27:23. > :27:30.Petty advertised a business that he knew was not going to be able to
:27:30. > :27:34.operate? I was absolutely gutted that we had to shut it. I just
:27:34. > :27:37.don't know how he can just do that to people and just walk away from
:27:37. > :27:41.it Hayley and Paul bitterly regret not going to a solicitor and
:27:41. > :27:45.getting their paper work checked out. If they had the problem would
:27:45. > :27:49.have been spotted before they handed over the cash. But now,
:27:49. > :27:52.trying to get the whole mess sorted has proved impossible. With all
:27:52. > :27:56.their cash gone, they stopped paying the rent on what was now, to
:27:56. > :28:03.them, a useless property. And they asked Neil Petty to refund the
:28:03. > :28:06.�5,000 that they'd already paid him. The last time I spoke to Neil Petty
:28:06. > :28:12.he was quite aggressive on the phone. And he said if we pursued
:28:12. > :28:15.him for the �5,000 that he'd pursue us for the back rent. So why did
:28:15. > :28:21.Neil Petty take �5000 for a business he knew the council would
:28:21. > :28:25.not allow? We asked him. He insists that he'd given Paul "the full
:28:25. > :28:29.story chapter and verse on the shop" although if he had, it seems
:28:29. > :28:32.highly unlikely that they'd have gone ahead. He claims it was "their
:28:32. > :28:36.marriage and lack of communication" that caused this, and that - when
:28:36. > :28:38.he'd said he didn't have the money - it was because he hadn't at that
:28:38. > :28:48.point realized the business agent had "assigned the money against a
:28:48. > :28:51.
:28:51. > :28:54.different property deal". However, that business agent has told us
:28:54. > :28:57.that he did no such thing, and that he'd given "no reason to suspect
:28:57. > :29:00.that there was an issue with the planning consent". They stress they
:29:00. > :29:02.had advised the couple to seek advice from a solicitor before
:29:02. > :29:08.going ahead, but say they're "somewhat astounded" that Neil
:29:08. > :29:11.Petty has not yet refunded their money. But for Hayley and Paul, all
:29:11. > :29:19.this has cost them not just their business and their dreams but also
:29:19. > :29:23.their life together. It caused a lot of arguments and in the end it
:29:23. > :29:27.did cause the break-up of our marriage. In the end that was the
:29:27. > :29:32.final nail in the coffin, that was it, you know, our marriage was done,
:29:32. > :29:42.over. So from thinking everything was going to be all right and it
:29:42. > :29:49.
:29:49. > :29:54.was a new start it was, well, it It just makes me feel sick. It was
:29:54. > :30:03.Jays. I just don't want to look at it any more. We all make mistakes.
:30:03. > :30:06.And big companies are no exception. It's what they do or don't do to
:30:06. > :30:10.put those mistakes right that can leave you feeling ripped off. So
:30:10. > :30:12.you need to know what your rights are - and where to go when you
:30:12. > :30:18.don't think you've been treated fairly. We've put together a new,
:30:18. > :30:22.free booklet of practical tips and advice. You can download it from
:30:22. > :30:25.our website: bbc.co.uk/ripoffbritain. Or to
:30:25. > :30:28.receive a copy in the post, send an A5 stamped and self-addressed
:30:28. > :30:33.envelope to the address that we'll give you at the end of the
:30:33. > :30:36.Now it's bad enough having to stump up cash to fix things that really
:30:36. > :30:38.aren't your responsibility, but imagine how you'd feel if your
:30:39. > :30:48.suddenly faced with having to pay for something that you had
:30:49. > :30:51.
:30:51. > :30:54.previously been told was not down to you. Well Carol Robinson finds
:30:54. > :30:57.herself in exactly that situation. And she can't see why she should
:30:57. > :31:00.fork out for repairs that, as far as she's concerned, are nothing to
:31:00. > :31:03.do with her. Built to mark out borders or hold back the locals
:31:03. > :31:06.since ancient times, walls have been at the centre of countless
:31:06. > :31:08.battles and disputes. And while the skirmish over this wall in
:31:08. > :31:12.Gillingham in Kent is unlikely to make the history books, it's
:31:12. > :31:14.certainly shaping up to be an epic battle for Carol Robinson and her
:31:14. > :31:18.neighbours. Carol has lived here since 1996. And separating the
:31:18. > :31:21.houses from the road is a 40 foot wall erected almost 90 years ago.
:31:21. > :31:28.But these days the condition of the wall and the pathway is causing
:31:28. > :31:34.concern. And before any work can be done to improve things, there's
:31:34. > :31:36.something else that urgently needs something else that urgently needs
:31:36. > :31:40.clearing up. We're unable to get a straight answer as to who actually
:31:40. > :31:44.owns the wall, the path, the steps, which is in such bad repair now
:31:44. > :31:48.that it's a danger. There is nowhere to hold on to going down
:31:48. > :31:50.the 15 steps and one day somebody is going to fall and have a major
:31:51. > :31:58.accident there. Carol and her neighbours think that the local
:31:58. > :32:01.council owns the land. But the council thinks otherwise. And of
:32:01. > :32:07.course why that matters is because whoever it's decided does own the
:32:07. > :32:10.land will have to foot the bill for the repairs. At a council meeting
:32:10. > :32:16.in April, residents were told that the upkeep of the wall was down to
:32:16. > :32:19.them. And it wouldn't be cheap. the public council meeting I
:32:19. > :32:24.attended it was discussed on how much the actual cost the repair and
:32:24. > :32:29.maintenance of the wall, the path and the fencing would come to. The
:32:29. > :32:32.figure they came up with was �700,000. Well, it's unbelievable.
:32:32. > :32:42.I couldn't imagine how any of us would ever be able to raise that
:32:42. > :32:44.
:32:44. > :32:47.sort of money. All we ever receive are letters saying that we should
:32:47. > :32:50.take responsibility, keep it maintained, do any repairs that
:32:50. > :32:56.need doing because it is a danger and I don't see why, if we don't
:32:56. > :32:59.own it, why we should be responsible. The council's current
:32:59. > :33:09.stance seems at odds with what they'd told Carol not long after
:33:09. > :33:19.
:33:19. > :33:23.she'd moved in when she'd queried where her boundaries were. I wrote
:33:23. > :33:26.to them in 1997 and they wrote back to me and said that my boundaries
:33:26. > :33:30.were to the property marked in red and marked with a 'T' which clearly
:33:30. > :33:33.shows up into the wall on my front garden I do not own the path, the
:33:33. > :33:36.wall, the fence or the steps and neither do any of the other
:33:36. > :33:40.residents. We as residents just want to know what is legally ours
:33:40. > :33:43.and until such times as they can prove to me and the residents that
:33:43. > :33:46.we actually own it, we want something done about the safety and
:33:46. > :33:49.access to our homes. To avoid an expense she and her neighbours
:33:49. > :33:52.don't feel they should have to pay, Carol's been pouring through the
:33:52. > :33:55.local historical archive to try and establish once and for all who has
:33:55. > :33:58.responsibility for the land. -- poring. And she's found some
:33:58. > :34:01.documents she thinks prove her case. Starting with this one from July
:34:01. > :34:03.1922. Mr Steadman gave 1666 square yards of land for the road widening
:34:03. > :34:13.provided Gillingham borough council compensated him with a payment of
:34:13. > :34:17.
:34:17. > :34:20.�200 for loss of fruit trees. This proves, how can the residents own
:34:20. > :34:25.this when the council paid for this land from landowners to widen the
:34:25. > :34:27.road? Through her research, Carol's pulled together a timeline of
:34:27. > :34:33.documents stretching back over 40 years, including letters like these
:34:33. > :34:36.sent to the neighbours by the council itself. 1969, it appears
:34:36. > :34:46.that the wall, the arch and the steps beneath, having been built by
:34:46. > :34:50.
:34:50. > :34:53.the council, are maintainable by them. December 1996 - my
:34:53. > :34:56.investigations into the matter suggest to me that both the wall
:34:56. > :34:59.and the path are the responsibility of the highway authority, ie Kent
:34:59. > :35:02.County Council. On top of that, it's clear from the date on the
:35:02. > :35:06.wall that it was built five years before construction even started on
:35:06. > :35:14.the houses. I did go to a council meeting where I was told by the
:35:14. > :35:17.engineer that the wall had been built to protect the properties.
:35:17. > :35:24.The first property wasn't built until 1929 so that made that reason
:35:24. > :35:34.quite ridiculous really. contacted the council to see if
:35:34. > :35:35.
:35:35. > :35:38.Carol's research has cleared things up and they told us: "It's a very
:35:38. > :35:41.difficult situation for all involved but the council is working
:35:41. > :35:44.with residents to try and determine ownership of the land and a way
:35:44. > :35:47.forward". Which, of course, is what Carol and her neighbours want too.
:35:47. > :35:51.So they can avoid having to pay �700,000 to make the wall and the
:35:51. > :35:54.path safe. We just want an end to this. We want somebody to prove
:35:54. > :35:57.either who owns the wall, who is responsible for the wall and the
:35:57. > :36:07.maintenance of the pathway, the steps and the ramp. That's all
:36:07. > :36:14.
:36:14. > :36:17.we're asking for. There are over 28 million cars on Britain's roads and
:36:17. > :36:25.here's an incredible fact about them. A recent RAC report suggests
:36:25. > :36:28.that 96% of them are parked at any one time. So with parking in such
:36:28. > :36:31.high demand, it's perhaps little wonder that so many of you tell us
:36:31. > :36:36.that you've run into big problems with parking companies - or even
:36:37. > :36:40.the dreaded clampers. But with the rules on parking penalties all set
:36:40. > :36:44.to change, could we finally be about to see an end to all those
:36:44. > :36:52.sort of troubles? Without parking enforcement, our roads would very
:36:52. > :36:55.quickly grind to a halt. But there's no doubt that some parking
:36:55. > :36:58.companies can behave in a way that's left many of you feeling
:36:58. > :37:04.that you've been treated unfairly or even ripped off. It's definitely
:37:04. > :37:08.rip-off parking, especially round here. You just can't park anywhere
:37:08. > :37:12.without it being really expensive, so you end up spending most of your
:37:12. > :37:16.earned money on parking spaces. Part of my front two wheels were
:37:16. > :37:19.outside of the box and touched the resident parking there, which was I
:37:19. > :37:21.think was the City of Westminster or something. So it's really
:37:21. > :37:30.frustrating to have to pay 60-odd pounds for something really minor
:37:30. > :37:33.like that. Parking fines and parking punishments or regulations
:37:33. > :37:37.are far too strict and I think it's really excessive and I think a lot
:37:37. > :37:40.of people have to pay to have their car brought back from the pound and
:37:40. > :37:43.they can't really afford it. Last year, almost 7 million parking
:37:43. > :37:45.tickets were issued by local councils alone in the UK. And it
:37:45. > :37:49.seems that more motorists are disputing tickets. Over 1.7 million
:37:49. > :37:51.people did just that in 2011. And while there are no official figures
:37:51. > :37:55.on the number of parking tickets issued on private land, experts
:37:55. > :37:57.agree that this is likely to add up to millions more. It's these
:37:57. > :38:00.private parking companies we get the most complaints about.
:38:00. > :38:03.Especially as some of them won't hesitate to use pretty hard tactics
:38:03. > :38:10.to make you hand over your cash. Maybe clamping your car faster than
:38:10. > :38:16.they should. Or worse still, towing it away. So if you want it back,
:38:16. > :38:23.you've little choice but to pay up. From the beginning of October, a
:38:23. > :38:27.new law comes into effect that will ban clamping on most private land.
:38:27. > :38:34.And that's not the only change that it's hoped will mean that drivers
:38:34. > :38:36.will get a fairer deal. From later this year there'll also be an
:38:36. > :38:39.independent appeals process put in place to cover private parking
:38:39. > :38:42.companies as well, although that will still only apply to the ones
:38:42. > :38:44.that have signed up with the industry regulator, the British
:38:44. > :38:47.Parking Association or BPA. But while most consumers will welcome
:38:47. > :38:50.the crackdown on clampers, the AA are worried that private parking
:38:50. > :38:53.firms will just find other ways to get their cash. We've been
:38:53. > :38:57.campaigning here against cowboy clampers for more than a decade and
:38:57. > :39:00.perhaps the not so good news is the question of how many of those
:39:00. > :39:02.clampers will then turn their hands to giving out tickets on private
:39:02. > :39:12.land, which currently isn't really regulated, like on-street parking.
:39:12. > :39:13.
:39:13. > :39:22.Parking is seen as a revenue stream, rather than facilitating people. So
:39:22. > :39:24.I'm afraid many drivers are getting ripped off. Now there's one
:39:24. > :39:27.possible saving grace because there is going to be an independent
:39:27. > :39:30.appeals system, which will help some drivers. It's the British
:39:30. > :39:36.Parking Association that has been given the task of setting up that
:39:36. > :39:39.Independent Appeals Process. So I went to meet Patrick Troy, their
:39:39. > :39:44.Chief Executive, to find out about the changes ahead and see if the AA
:39:44. > :39:47.is right to still have concerns. I can imagine our viewers will be
:39:48. > :39:57.jumping up and down with joy at the very idea of no clamping and no
:39:58. > :39:58.
:39:58. > :40:01.towing on private land. It depends who you are, I would suspect, and
:40:01. > :40:04.certainly if you've been a victim of a rogue clamper, you would be
:40:04. > :40:08.jumping for joy, I suspect, and indeed so are we. Because we've
:40:08. > :40:15.argued for some considerable time that clamping should be regulated.
:40:15. > :40:17.The government's decided to ban it. But on the other hand, I mean, to
:40:17. > :40:20.be part of the British parking association, your organisation,
:40:20. > :40:24.it's voluntary. And there're lots of people who are not members. So
:40:24. > :40:31.where do we stand on that side of it? Well, we've had considerable
:40:31. > :40:34.concern about that point. And those people who are not in our scheme,
:40:34. > :40:37.not members of our association, are likely to try all manner of things.
:40:37. > :40:41.And as I said earlier, you're going to get these rogue clampers, but I
:40:41. > :40:48.suspect there are going to be a few problems around that. That's the
:40:48. > :40:51.dilemma we've got. But as I see it, it's a big, big weakness because if
:40:51. > :40:54.the membership in your organisation is voluntary and if those who are
:40:54. > :40:57.not members don't like the independent side of it and are
:40:57. > :41:00.purely out to make money, um they could just opt out of your
:41:00. > :41:03.association couldn't they and just, you know, be their own law if you
:41:03. > :41:06.like. Yeah, absolutely, they could do, and the message we've got to
:41:06. > :41:09.get across is don't park in those car parks that don't display that
:41:09. > :41:12.logo. Here at Rip Off Britain, we're always ready to investigate
:41:12. > :41:15.more of your stories. Confused over your bills? Trying to wade your way
:41:15. > :41:19.through never-ending small print? When they sit you down to sign up,
:41:19. > :41:22.they don't really giv you the chance or the time to read through
:41:22. > :41:25.all of that small print. Unsure what to do when you discover you've
:41:25. > :41:28.lost out, and that great deal has ended up costing you money?
:41:28. > :41:32.feel as though, because you've got a cheap deal, you are not worth
:41:32. > :41:35.their time in the same way. might have a cautionary tale of
:41:35. > :41:38.your own and want to share the mistakes you made with us, so that
:41:38. > :41:44.other people don't do the same thing. I feel angry, I feel stupid
:41:44. > :41:54.that I'd allowed this to happen to me. You can write to us: Or you can
:41:54. > :41:58.
:41:58. > :42:05.Don't forget the Rip Off team is ready and waiting to investigate
:42:05. > :42:09.your stories. Well, it isn't always easy to plan
:42:09. > :42:12.for the unexpected. But as we've seen too often some people have
:42:12. > :42:17.learned the hard way that a little more checking upfront could have
:42:17. > :42:20.spared them a lot of hassle, and even grief, later on. And that is
:42:20. > :42:27.so sad because you really cannot assume that even if something looks
:42:27. > :42:30.or seems OK, that that's how it's going to pan out. And when it comes
:42:30. > :42:39.to paperwork, do make sure that you are absolutely clear about what
:42:40. > :42:43.you're signing up for before it's too late. And I would say is that
:42:43. > :42:46.is all very solid advice. But that's where we have to leave it
:42:46. > :42:49.for today, naturally. I hope you'll join us again very soon when we'll