Episode 19 Rip Off Britain

We asked you to tell us who has left you feeling ripped-off, and

she contacted us in your thousands, but post, e-mail, even stopping us

on the streets. And the message could not be clearer. Things

weren't right. It was costing me time and money. And it was like,

does anybody listen? unfortunately I think these

companies are more motivated by their share price, than they are by

actually looking after the customers. You've told us that with

money tighter than ever, you need to make 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 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. I mean, that's the interesting thing.

Your stories, your money. This is Rip Off Britain. Hello and welcome

to Rip Off Britain, the programme that is never afraid to take on

those companies both big and small that you say have either let you

down, or treated you unfairly. And, boy, have you given us plenty to

get our teeth into today, haven't they?! You sure have. Well, the

thing that comes over loud and clear is that you feel really

clear is that you feel really ripped off when things don't turn

out the way you expected maybe you didn't realise exactly what you'd

signed up to. Or perhaps there was a key detail that you simply

weren't told. But you know, either way, it can result in a very

unwelcome surprise later on down the line which is exactly what

happened to the people whose stories are coming up today. They

were all totally unaware of what was about to hit them and in one

case, it wasn't just the money that they ended up losing.

Also on today's programme, why forking out for an extended

warranty may not always buy you what you think. After three years

of paying so much money out, me and my wife thought it was disgusting

that we weren't gonna be offered a new television And how not knowing

a crucial detail has cost this couple thousands of pounds and

their marriage. It was our dreams just gone up in smoke, it was awful.

In a typical year, almost nine million parking tickets will be

issued in the UK. And while it's always frustrating to get one, it's

even worse when you had no idea that you were parked illegally in

the first place. Which is exactly what happened to our next viewer,

along with thousands of other drivers who all fell foul of

parking restrictions in the exact same spot. So, coincidence? Or a

sign that something is not quite right?

Passing your driving test is a rite of passage. It should mean new

horizons, independence and freedom. So when 19 year old Jamie Porter

got his license 10 months ago, he couldn't wait to make the most of

it. I love having my car and it helps me get around. I'd say I'm a

safe driver as well. Having a car makes my life so much easier for

going places and getting to work on time in the morning, then going

home. Jamie may be new to the road but already he's received something

that all drivers dread. A letter saying that he'd fallen foul of the

law. And he didn't even know he'd done it. I came downstairs and

found a letter from the London borough of Hounslow addressed to me.

And I opened it up and they told me that I had received a fine for

parking in this bus stand. And I was just kinda gutted really and it

came as such a shock to me. fine was for �110 and Jamie had got

it after dropping off a friend at Feltham Bus Station one evening in

April 2011. He'd pulled into what he'd thought was a lay-by, but it

turned out to be a bus stand. the time I was just dropping my

mate off at the station who needed a lift and I didn't know the area

at all. So I just assumed that I could just drop my passenger off

and drive away, not thinking twice about it. So why did Jamie think it

was OK to pull in where he did? Well he says he'd clocked a sign

saying that restrictions on stopping there ended at 7 in the

evening and he'd stopped at 7.21pm. So he assumed he'd be fine. Unhappy

about the fine, he went back to double-check the signs with his dad

Jim. And Jim thinks it's easy to see why any driver here might but

caught out. There's a sign up there at the end of it and it says you

can't stop from 7am to 7pm yet there's another sign over there

that says you can't stop at any time. There's warning signs that

are supposed to advise you that you can't stop or that you will be

filmed but as you can see over there the sign is hidden behind a

sign. There's a sign behind me which is facing this way. So when

you're approaching from the other direction there's no way you can

tell which signs are what or what means anything. So Jim and Jamie

appealed against the fine, arguing that the signage was unclear. They

quickly received a response from Hounslow Council, who sent him

footage from their CCTV cameras showing Jamie in the no stopping

area. The CCTV video showed me stopping for 19 seconds and I drove

off and I thought nothing of it at the time. Jamie doesn't dispute he

was there. The question is whether he should have been fined. Hounslow

Council was adamant he'd stopped illegally. They rejected his appeal

and that �110 fine remained. As far as I'm concerned, Jamie wasn't at

fault. There's so many signs here that make it so obscure, that

people can't really tell whether they can stop here or not.

Jamie isn't the only driver to have been caught on camera stopping in

exactly the same place. A month earlier, in March 2011, Jin Jhooti,

a local IT manager, was fuming when he received a penalty charge.

Because as far as he was concerned, he too had followed what the sign

said. I've seen the signs and the signs were Monday to Saturday,

seven-to-seven, and I was not in that time zone. I stopped there on

a Sunday. That's the reason I appealed. Like Jamie, Jin had no

idea there was another sign saying no stopping at all. He wasn't going

to take this lying down, and he put in a freedom of information request

with Hounslow council to see how many fines had been issued at the

same spot. He could hardly believe the answer. Well in about 20-22

months, London borough of Hounslow has issued 8,200 tickets and they

have made just under half a million pounds. I think it's disgusting.

�409,688 is the exact amount that the council earned from this one

spot. It seems that, being confused over the signs, drivers like Jin

can be a nice little earner. Although Hounslow Council doesn't

see it that way. They told us it's 'very clear from the road markings

and the sign that this is a bus stand'. And that separate signs

warn drivers that CCTV cameras are in operation. They're confident

that all the bus stands are 'well marked and enforced to keep them

clear for buses and coaches', and say that, to avoid a fine, all

drivers need to do is drop off in the car park directly opposite.

They've explained that the income raised is spent on improving

transport opportunities for the borough's elderly and disabled

residents. At the time of Jin and Jamie's infringements, they've said

no stopping was allowed at any time, but 'this was subsequently reviewed

in response to motorists' concerns'. So now, outside the hours that the

coach service runs, 'passengers can be picked up and dropped off

without drivers receiving a parking fine'. Which is all fair enough.

But if the signs really are as clear as the council maintains, is

it really just a coincidence that Jin, Jamie and more than eight

thousand other people who've been fined are convinced that they're

not? And while Jamie still feels that he's been treated unfairly,

he's determined not to let the same thing happen again. I'll make sure

that I'm more aware and definitely keep an eye out for all kind of

signs whether they're hidden or more open. And be more careful

where I drop my passengers off again. I don't think I'll be going

near the bus station anytime soon. Now, after you've shelled out

hundreds of pounds on a shiny new appliance, the last thing you want

is for it to break down, leaving you with a choice of either

replacing it, or forking out for expensive repairs. Either way, it's

more money. So it's to avoid those unexpected costs that so many

businesses will encourage you to invest in an extended warranty. But

is that always a good idea? Over five years, the cost of that cover

could be more than you realised. And if you're not careful, you may

have bought less protection than you thought. Lee and Karen Martin

love walks on the coast near where they live in South Wales. But when

they get home, they're self- confessed TV junkies. Me and my

wife are a great fan of the Xbox online scenarios. We started off

playing games a lot years ago, on the old PS3s & PS2s. But more often

than not, it's big fan of '80s horror movies, I've a big

collection of them. Five years ago, the couple decided to make their TV

experience even more pleasurable by buying the latest technology

available at the time, a brand new plasma screen TV. I was just

fortunate to come across a 50-inch plasma which was down from �2000 to

�1000. I was very impressed with it. It was a good quality picture and I

had no problems with it in the first year or so. 12 months after

purchasing the TV, Lee received a letter from Domestic and General

stating that his manufacturer's warranty was coming to an end. So

would he be interested in paying to extend it? We decided, yeah, I

think it would be cheaper to run this policy at �18 a month rather

than having to fork out what could be an expensive repair if something

went wrong. Because plasma was a relatively new product on the

market at the time. So he signed up to the extended warranty, which

worked out at around �208 a year. And Lee was glad of it when the

TV's standby function stopped working. After contacting Domestic

and General, they put us through to a firm who actually pick up and

repair the product. They dealt with our problems with no problem with

the repair and we were happy with the policy. So after two weeks

without their beloved TV, Lee and Karen were happy when it was fixed

and they got it back. However, a year later, the problem struck

again. We decided to contact Domestic and General and once again

they came and retrieved to repair the problem. Looking forward to the

same efficient services as last time, Lee waited for his TV to be

mended and returned. But a month later when it still hadn't arrived,

he called Domestic and General to see what was taking so long. This

is where I found out that there was a problem. Things had moved on

technology-wise and it might not be possible to get hold of this

product part anymore. Despite the news that the TV couldn't be

repaired, Lee was once again reassured by the fact that he had

his extended warranty, which by now had cost him �672. He'd assumed

that his old set would be replaced for free. But he was astonished

when Domestic and General said that wasn't the case. Because his

television had depreciated in value, if he wanted a like-for-like

replacement he'd have to pay them �616! Which left Lee questioning

why he'd bothered with the warranty at all. I was angry, annoyed after

that initial offer and put in a lot of complaints and eventually they

came back with a new offer of about �490 I'd have to shell out towards

a TV. But as far as I was concerned, it wasn't happening. Despite his

initial shock, Lee realised it was clearly marked in the terms and

conditions of his contract. These explained that if the insurer

decided to replace his equipment, he'd be asked to contribute 50% of

the current retail price in the first year of his policy, 60% in

the second and 70% in any years after that. It's a condition that's

not unusual in the extended warranty market. But Lee realises

that when he'd signed up he'd missed it. I don't think I'm naive

as far as policies are concerned, I usually have a pretty good head on

my shoulders. But this was a bit of an oversight. It's clear to Which?

Though. Research they carried out in January 2012 suggested that the

TV market has the worst value for extended warranties. Because

although some TVs have only a 3% chance of breaking down in the

first five years, the extended warranties sold to protect them can

often cost a third of the price of Every month we paid without fail:

after three years of paying so much money out, me and my wife thought

it was disgusting that we weren't going to be offered a new

television. Lee thinks that being asked to pay �616 pounds towards a

�630 pounds television is excessive. But his insurers Domestic and

General don't agree, telling us they're sorry he's unhappy, but all

they've done is stick to their terms and conditions. Though 99% of

their warranties DO provide a brand new replacement TV in the first

five years, Lee had "a very specific type of cover". They say

"When he took the policy out and renewed it each year, he was given

a written contract on each occasion that clearly explained the nature

of the cover, and which provided him with an opportunity to cancel."

They'd advise all customers to read their paperwork and contact them if

they have concerns. And they say all their warranties "are

constantly reviewed to ensure that they provide value for money."

Extended warranties from all suppliers are something that you

often contact us about and early this year the Office of Fair

Trading said they were concerned that customers don't always get

value for money. As a result in June they agreed undertakings with

the UK's main electrical stores to help consumers shop around and make

better informed choices. As for Lee, he's rejected Domestic and

General's offer and cancelled his policy. He's forked out �550 for a

new television and says in future, as well as watching the box, he'll

be keeping his eye on that all important small print too.

thoughts on extended warranties are, basically, if you do decide to go

for one, just make sure you chatted through to someone who actually

knows more about these things. is it ever worth getting an

extended warranty? Sarah Pennells from Savvywoman is here to ensure

that if you do go down that route, it will offer you the kind of

protection you need. The starting point when it comes to extended

warranties is whether you need one in the first place. Quite a few of

these policies won't ensure appliances once they reach a

certain age, exactly the kind of age where they are most likely to

breakdown. And some of these policies particularly the ones that

are pay-as-you-go or pay monthly - can be so expensive that you can

pay for a replacement several times over by the time the warranty runs

out. And also some policies have limitations on how much you can

claim so you may not get the full cost of a repair or replacement

just say 50 or 75% of the cost. It is worth bearing in mind that the

extended warranty doesn't replace your existing consumer rights so if

you buy something and you make a claim under your warranty and it is

not repaired properly the company should sort it out. Rip Off Britain

has been on the road again meeting you face-to-face and trying to

resolve your complaints. Inside our Pop Up Shop, a whole team of

experts has been busy answering questions on every conceivable

consumer issue. I really don't know what my rights are. What can she do

about it? There was these black insects all ove... This insurance

policy does not cover us... Sylvia Rook from Trading Standards has

been hearing how Charlotte feels that she didn't get the best seats

in the house. I bought some tickets last December for Elton John. I was

lucky enough to get front row seats. When I arrived there I could not

see anything at all. So all I could see was a mixing desk. How much did

you pay for the tickets? �105 each. 105 quid! That's a lot of money,

isn't it? For a restricted view? It's obscene. Restricted view was

about 35, �40, you could get that, but I chose to get the �100 tickets

because I wanted a front row view. What chance does Charlotte have of

getting some money back? Oh, I think you've got a very good chance

and it should be the promoter that will solve the problem. If the

promoter doesn't then you should talk to the online ticket agency as

well. Ultimately, if nobody's offering you any financial

recompense then you may have to consider going through the courts.

So Charlotte, has it put you off Elton John for life? It's a shame

because I have been to see him before and he was fantastic.

followed up Charlotte's case. The promoter says her seats weren't

sold any differently to how they would normally be at this venue,

but they're very sorry that she was disappointed, so as a goodwill

gesture they've offered her free tickets for an upcoming show by a

different performer. We've heard a lot of very personal

stories. The one that has really struck a chord with me involves

Eric, who took out �300 worth of insurance for a trip to Australia.

As Eric explained to travel expert Simon Calder, he and his wife Joan

thought the travel insurance would cover them for their big trip.

Probably just a couple of weeks or so after we'd taken the insurance,

Joan had had a bit of a pain in her back. And on the Monday we saw the

specialist and she said she's got lung cancer and it's inoperable.

You must have been devastated. Well...she died on the 17th of

February. So you contacted the insurance company. And then I just

got a simple letter saying they wouldn't be paying out. And how

much money are we talking about here? Well the overall total is

less than �2,500. It's effectively two plane tickets return to

Australia. So I then got a letter and there was a little extract from

the medical notes, this was after we'd taken out the insurance. She

had said that she'd had a bit of a pain in her back a couple of weeks

earlier and they've taken that as being therefore it was an

undiagnosed. A pre-existing condition. It's a long and very

very sad story. What's your take on it? As you will know, Eric, when

you took out the insurance you signed something to the effect of,I

declare that neither me or my wife have any pre-existing medical

condition. And as far as we knew of course that wasn't the case. You,

after this devastating personal tragedy, I imagine just want some

closure on this and the easiest way to do that is approach the airline

very directly and just say you believe that they may have some

policy for compassionate payments in such circumstances. I think it

would be a very mean spirited airline that didn't just say we

completely understand, here you are. Still to come on Rip Off Britain:

One woman's battle with the council to avoid a huge expense that she

and her neighbours say they shouldn't have to pay. It's

unbelievable. I couldn't imagine how any of us would ever be able to

raise that sort of money. And, at last, an end to the dreaded

clampers. But does that mean that our parking problems are over?

Now, these are not exactly the easiest of times to set up your own

business. Especially if through no fault of your own the odds are

stacked against you right from the start. Here's a couple who invested

everything they had in a venture that, little did they know, was

doomed to fail before they'd even opened the doors.

Hiya. Small fish and chips please. To eat now my love? Yes, please For

years Hayley Court had dreamed of owning her own business. And that

dream was finally set to become a reality when she and husband Paul

made the decision to invest in a fish and chip shop. Would you like

salt and vinegar on it my love? please. I decided to buy a chip

shop because my husband's family have been in the business and I'd

just come out of the air force after 22 years and I had a bit of

money left and I thought why not invest for my son's future. And in

March 2011, they spotted what seemed the perfect opportunity.

They saw that a business agent was advertising a year-long lease on a

fish and chip shop in Pudsey, near Leeds. When we saw the ad for the

chip shop it was very professional, it said chip shop for lease, �5,000.

The �5,000 for the lease for the chip shop we thought was a

fantastic deal. Hayley and Paul quickly set up a viewing and it

only made them keener! When I first set eyes on the chip shop I thought,

wow, it's lovely, quaint, it's in a residential area, I thought because

I'm a peoples person, I thought I could draw all the locals in!

their minds made up, Hayley's husband, Paul, arranged a meeting

with the landlord Neil Petty to make a deal. When I met Neil he

seemed to be a really good, genuine sort of guy. Seemed to know what he

was talking about, knew the area really well, lived round there all

his life, seemed you know a decent sort of fella really. When Neil

Petty spoke to my husband, he assured him the chip shop was all

ready to go. It needed a bit of paintwork and a bit of love really,

but it was all set to- to open. premises had already been run as a

fish and chip shop, and still had all the necessary fittings. So,

excited couple went ahead and signed a 12-month lease. The moment

I signed on the dotted line I felt ecstatic because it was a new start

for me and my family, because it was like we had got something

together. Me and my husband were going to fight for our marriage.

We'd been going through a rocky patch for quite some time and you

know we just thought we'd have once last go. It was sort of going to be

a new start for us really. couple gave the business agent

handling the sale �5,000 for the lease, and �1,000 deposit towards

the rent. They agreed to pay �250 per week rent to landlord, Neil

Petty. And because everything seemed in order, they didn't feel

the need to involve a solicitor. When we signed the paperwork we

just didn't think it needed a solicitor. So Hayley and Paul

picked up the keys to the business and set about making it their own.

They renamed it Jay's Chip Shop, after their son, and spent a

further �2,000 decorating and buying stock. Then at last the big

day came when they could open the doors. When my first customer

walked through the door I nearly jumped on him, I was so excited. It

was like, it was a new start; it was just lovely. To get the word

out there, that there was a new chip shop in town, they placed an

ad in the Pudsey Times. Giving an instant boost to the business.

first we were making about �150 a day but then it went up to about

�250 and I knew it would go up even more. But unfortunately, it wasn't

only prospective customers that responded to their ad. It also

prompted an unexpected call from Leeds City Council, who told the

couple the devastating news that the shop had no planning permission

to run as a hot food takeaway. So it would have to close immediately.

Leeds City Council rung me up, it was a Friday, and they said you

have to shut, that's it, there's no planning on the shop you shouldn't

be opening it as a fast food takeaway. There is issues with it,

shut your doors now. It didn't open again. The doors shut and they

stayed shut. Hayley and Paul could not understand how this could be

happening. When they called the landlord, Neil Petty, for an

explanation, he assured them that it was just a temporary glitch Neil

said everything would be OK, he had his solicitors on it, it was all

going to get sorted out, it was just going through the motions.

Maybe take a couple of weeks and everything would be fine. He didn't

answer the phone half the time, and when he did answer the phone he

just said, "No, no be calm it'll get sorted it'll get sorted." And

that's when we decided we would do our own investigating. Hayley

called the planning department at Leeds City Council to find out how

they could get the permission they needed. They told us that there was

no way the chip shop would ever open, it had been refused

permission, and he had appealed and it got refused again. It was our

dreams just gone up in smoke, it was awful. Leeds City Council told

them that planning permission had previously been refused due to the

lack of parking and because the smell of fish and chips had been

unpleasant for the locals. And in fact, the premises had only ever

been granted permission for use as a tattoo parlour. So why had Neil

Petty advertised a business that he knew was not going to be able to

operate? I was absolutely gutted that we had to shut it. I just

don't know how he can just do that to people and just walk away from

it Hayley and Paul bitterly regret not going to a solicitor and

getting their paper work checked out. If they had the problem would

have been spotted before they handed over the cash. But now,

trying to get the whole mess sorted has proved impossible. With all

their cash gone, they stopped paying the rent on what was now, to

them, a useless property. And they asked Neil Petty to refund the

�5,000 that they'd already paid him. The last time I spoke to Neil Petty

he was quite aggressive on the phone. And he said if we pursued

him for the �5,000 that he'd pursue us for the back rent. So why did

Neil Petty take �5000 for a business he knew the council would

not allow? We asked him. He insists that he'd given Paul "the full

story chapter and verse on the shop" although if he had, it seems

highly unlikely that they'd have gone ahead. He claims it was "their

marriage and lack of communication" that caused this, and that - when

he'd said he didn't have the money - it was because he hadn't at that

point realized the business agent had "assigned the money against a

different property deal". However, that business agent has told us

that he did no such thing, and that he'd given "no reason to suspect

that there was an issue with the planning consent". They stress they

had advised the couple to seek advice from a solicitor before

going ahead, but say they're "somewhat astounded" that Neil

Petty has not yet refunded their money. But for Hayley and Paul, all

this has cost them not just their business and their dreams but also

their life together. It caused a lot of arguments and in the end it

did cause the break-up of our marriage. In the end that was the

final nail in the coffin, that was it, you know, our marriage was done,

over. So from thinking everything was going to be all right and it

was a new start it was, well, it It just makes me feel sick. It was

Jays. I just don't want to look at it any more. We all make mistakes.

And big companies are no exception. It's what they do or don't do to

put those mistakes right that can leave you feeling ripped off. So

you need to know what your rights are - and where to go when you

don't think you've been treated fairly. We've put together a new,

free booklet of practical tips and advice. You can download it from

our website: bbc.co.uk/ripoffbritain. 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

Now it's bad enough having to stump up cash to fix things that really

aren't your responsibility, but imagine how you'd feel if your

suddenly faced with having to pay for something that you had

previously been told was not down to you. Well Carol Robinson finds

herself in exactly that situation. And she can't see why she should

fork out for repairs that, as far as she's concerned, are nothing to

do with her. Built to mark out borders or hold back the locals

since ancient times, walls have been at the centre of countless

battles and disputes. And while the skirmish over this wall in

Gillingham in Kent is unlikely to make the history books, it's

certainly shaping up to be an epic battle for Carol Robinson and her

neighbours. Carol has lived here since 1996. And separating the

houses from the road is a 40 foot wall erected almost 90 years ago.

But these days the condition of the wall and the pathway is causing

concern. And before any work can be done to improve things, there's

something else that urgently needs something else that urgently needs

clearing up. We're unable to get a straight answer as to who actually

owns the wall, the path, the steps, which is in such bad repair now

that it's a danger. There is nowhere to hold on to going down

the 15 steps and one day somebody is going to fall and have a major

accident there. Carol and her neighbours think that the local

council owns the land. But the council thinks otherwise. And of

course why that matters is because whoever it's decided does own the

land will have to foot the bill for the repairs. At a council meeting

in April, residents were told that the upkeep of the wall was down to

them. And it wouldn't be cheap. the public council meeting I

attended it was discussed on how much the actual cost the repair and

maintenance of the wall, the path and the fencing would come to. The

figure they came up with was �700,000. Well, it's unbelievable.

I couldn't imagine how any of us would ever be able to raise that

sort of money. All we ever receive are letters saying that we should

take responsibility, keep it maintained, do any repairs that

need doing because it is a danger and I don't see why, if we don't

own it, why we should be responsible. The council's current

stance seems at odds with what they'd told Carol not long after

she'd moved in when she'd queried where her boundaries were. I wrote

to them in 1997 and they wrote back to me and said that my boundaries

were to the property marked in red and marked with a 'T' which clearly

shows up into the wall on my front garden I do not own the path, the

wall, the fence or the steps and neither do any of the other

residents. We as residents just want to know what is legally ours

and until such times as they can prove to me and the residents that

we actually own it, we want something done about the safety and

access to our homes. To avoid an expense she and her neighbours

don't feel they should have to pay, Carol's been pouring through the

local historical archive to try and establish once and for all who has

responsibility for the land. -- poring. And she's found some

documents she thinks prove her case. Starting with this one from July

1922. Mr Steadman gave 1666 square yards of land for the road widening

provided Gillingham borough council compensated him with a payment of

�200 for loss of fruit trees. This proves, how can the residents own

this when the council paid for this land from landowners to widen the

road? Through her research, Carol's pulled together a timeline of

documents stretching back over 40 years, including letters like these

sent to the neighbours by the council itself. 1969, it appears

that the wall, the arch and the steps beneath, having been built by

the council, are maintainable by them. December 1996 - my

investigations into the matter suggest to me that both the wall

and the path are the responsibility of the highway authority, ie Kent

County Council. On top of that, it's clear from the date on the

wall that it was built five years before construction even started on

the houses. I did go to a council meeting where I was told by the

engineer that the wall had been built to protect the properties.

The first property wasn't built until 1929 so that made that reason

quite ridiculous really. contacted the council to see if

Carol's research has cleared things up and they told us: "It's a very

difficult situation for all involved but the council is working

with residents to try and determine ownership of the land and a way

forward". Which, of course, is what Carol and her neighbours want too.

So they can avoid having to pay �700,000 to make the wall and the

path safe. We just want an end to this. We want somebody to prove

either who owns the wall, who is responsible for the wall and the

maintenance of the pathway, the steps and the ramp. That's all

we're asking for. There are over 28 million cars on Britain's roads and

here's an incredible fact about them. A recent RAC report suggests

that 96% of them are parked at any one time. So with parking in such

high demand, it's perhaps little wonder that so many of you tell us

that you've run into big problems with parking companies - or even

the dreaded clampers. But with the rules on parking penalties all set

to change, could we finally be about to see an end to all those

sort of troubles? Without parking enforcement, our roads would very

quickly grind to a halt. But there's no doubt that some parking

companies can behave in a way that's left many of you feeling

that you've been treated unfairly or even ripped off. It's definitely

rip-off parking, especially round here. You just can't park anywhere

without it being really expensive, so you end up spending most of your

earned money on parking spaces. Part of my front two wheels were

outside of the box and touched the resident parking there, which was I

think was the City of Westminster or something. So it's really

frustrating to have to pay 60-odd pounds for something really minor

like that. Parking fines and parking punishments or regulations

are far too strict and I think it's really excessive and I think a lot

of people have to pay to have their car brought back from the pound and

they can't really afford it. Last year, almost 7 million parking

tickets were issued by local councils alone in the UK. And it

seems that more motorists are disputing tickets. Over 1.7 million

people did just that in 2011. And while there are no official figures

on the number of parking tickets issued on private land, experts

agree that this is likely to add up to millions more. It's these

private parking companies we get the most complaints about.

Especially as some of them won't hesitate to use pretty hard tactics

to make you hand over your cash. Maybe clamping your car faster than

they should. Or worse still, towing it away. So if you want it back,

you've little choice but to pay up. From the beginning of October, a

new law comes into effect that will ban clamping on most private land.

And that's not the only change that it's hoped will mean that drivers

will get a fairer deal. From later this year there'll also be an

independent appeals process put in place to cover private parking

companies as well, although that will still only apply to the ones

that have signed up with the industry regulator, the British

Parking Association or BPA. But while most consumers will welcome

the crackdown on clampers, the AA are worried that private parking

firms will just find other ways to get their cash. We've been

campaigning here against cowboy clampers for more than a decade and

perhaps the not so good news is the question of how many of those

clampers will then turn their hands to giving out tickets on private

land, which currently isn't really regulated, like on-street parking.

Parking is seen as a revenue stream, rather than facilitating people. So

I'm afraid many drivers are getting ripped off. Now there's one

possible saving grace because there is going to be an independent

appeals system, which will help some drivers. It's the British

Parking Association that has been given the task of setting up that

Independent Appeals Process. So I went to meet Patrick Troy, their

Chief Executive, to find out about the changes ahead and see if the AA

is right to still have concerns. I can imagine our viewers will be

jumping up and down with joy at the very idea of no clamping and no

towing on private land. It depends who you are, I would suspect, and

certainly if you've been a victim of a rogue clamper, you would be

jumping for joy, I suspect, and indeed so are we. Because we've

argued for some considerable time that clamping should be regulated.

The government's decided to ban it. But on the other hand, I mean, to

be part of the British parking association, your organisation,

it's voluntary. And there're lots of people who are not members. So

where do we stand on that side of it? Well, we've had considerable

concern about that point. And those people who are not in our scheme,

not members of our association, are likely to try all manner of things.

And as I said earlier, you're going to get these rogue clampers, but I

suspect there are going to be a few problems around that. That's the

dilemma we've got. But as I see it, it's a big, big weakness because if

the membership in your organisation is voluntary and if those who are

not members don't like the independent side of it and are

purely out to make money, um they could just opt out of your

association couldn't they and just, you know, be their own law if you

like. Yeah, absolutely, they could do, and the message we've got to

get across is don't park in those car parks that don't display that

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

more of your stories. Confused over your bills? Trying to wade your way

through never-ending small print? When they sit you down to sign up,

they don't really giv you the chance or the time to read through

all of that small print. Unsure what to do when you discover you've

lost out, and that great deal has ended up costing you money?

feel as though, because you've got a cheap deal, you are not worth

their time in the same way. might have a cautionary tale of

your own and want to share the mistakes you made with us, so that

other people don't do the same thing. I feel angry, I feel stupid

that I'd allowed this to happen to me. You can write to us: Or you can

Don't forget the Rip Off team is ready and waiting to investigate

your stories. Well, it isn't always easy to plan

for the unexpected. But as we've seen too often some people have

learned the hard way that a little more checking upfront could have

spared them a lot of hassle, and even grief, later on. And that is

so sad because you really cannot assume that even if something looks

or seems OK, that that's how it's going to pan out. And when it comes

to paperwork, do make sure that you are absolutely clear about what

you're signing up for before it's too late. And I would say is that

is all very solid advice. But that's where we have to leave it

for today, naturally. I hope you'll join us again very soon when we'll