Episode 5 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, email, 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 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. That's the interesting thing.

'Your stories. Your money. This is Rip-Off Britain.'

Hello and welcome to Rip-Off Britain,

where it's our mission to get to the bottom of why you feel

you've been let down by the companies you do business with.

And to find out if the way you've been treated is fair.

Because there can't be many of us who haven't, at some stage,

felt totally bamboozled by the terms and the conditions

we've been presented with when we're signing up for some sort of service.

And that is certainly what happened with people whose stories

we're about to be told today.

Yeah, they've all found themselves caught out by small print

they either didn't read, or even if they did,

it wasn't sufficiently clear to them.

So, if you're one of those people who can't bear to plough through

all that boring old paperwork, when you hear what happened

in some of these cases, you may just change your mind.

Later in the programme, a contract quite a few of you

have contacted us about,

with a particularly costly sting in the tail.

I'm really, truly gutted that I feel embarrassed,

and I feel that I'm in the same position as many hundreds of people.

The families hit with huge care home fees they didn't expect.

'Just because it's legal,

'doesn't make it morally or ethically right.

'This is charging the dead, really,'

for a service they've not had.

And more of your problems solved on the spot, at our pop-up shop.

The next step is the ombudsman,

and with this brilliant diary of information that you've got here,

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

If you're having to face the very difficult subject

of moving a relative into a care home,

it can be a very stressful time.

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

getting your head around the paperwork

may not seem to be a top priority.

And indeed it could be that the terms and conditions

aren't especially clear.

Many care homes have a clause in their contract which,

if you're not expecting it,

can come as a particularly unwelcome surprise later on.

As it did for the families in our next story.

Now, they had absolutely no idea at all

that when their relatives died, they would be hit with a bill

for hundreds of pounds.

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

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

It was while Isobel Wilkerson was grieving for her grandmother

that she was hit with an unexpected bill.

What made it worse was that the whole situation was a direct result

of the death of 93-year-old Olive.

Isobel has fond memories of when former nurse Olive was in her prime.

She was a very strong character. Knew her own mind.

Very loving towards my mum.

And she was very outspoken, as well.

But Isobel's grandmother suffered from dementia.

And three years ago, the family felt that they had no choice

but to put Olive in a care home.

But choosing one they liked wasn't easy.

We looked at lots of homes around Cambridge and some of them,

I wouldn't put my dog in.

But we found a local one which was lovely.

Olive received exceptional treatment at the home they chose.

The cost was £650 a week,

which included accommodation,

food and drink, and round-the-clock care

She settled really well.

They were absolutely brilliant,

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

where she was being looked after really well, and she loved it.

Olive spent a happy 2½ years there,

but in March, 2011, she passed away.

It was probably over a three-week period, she just went to her bed

and became very, very poorly.

And she basically just slipped away, and the staff were brilliant.

Isobel cleared Olive's room the very next day.

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

for the two weeks AFTER Olive had died -

at a cost of £1,365!

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

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

and she said it's quite common that these clauses

are put into contracts, and some homes can charge up to four weeks.

So it was classed as legal.

And, unfortunately for Isobel, it did say

in the terms and conditions

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

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

I enquired to the home about it and was informed that it was

a period to allow the family time to clear the room,

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

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

because it covered not just the cost of accommodation,

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

even laundry done on the premises.

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

she hadn't used.

'I couldn't understand how it could be legal that you could

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

I could have understood if they'd have charged a percentage of the fee

to allow us time to clear the room, etcetera, but not for the whole lot.

What frustrated Isobel even more was that she normally

paid the fees from Olive's pension, which had stopped once she died.

As soon as she's taken her last breath,

her pension and her Attendance Allowance stopped,

so she has no more income.

But is still expected to pay bills.

In fact, it's not at all unusual for care homes to have

this sort of charge.

Helen English and Rob Sewell's father, Jack, was 93

when he moved into a retirement home.

At home, he began to really struggle.

And it was a very difficult decision indeed.

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

but we just couldn't see any alternative.

They found an ideal home close by,

at a cost of £637 per week,

with an initial deposit of £2,760.

But, after three months there,

Jack died.

We immediately, in two or three days, cleared everything from his room,

made the funeral arrangements,

and it was all quite straightforward.

Or it was, until they noticed that the home had deducted nearly £2,000,

the equivalent of three weeks' care, from their initial deposit.

The home claimed that this was part of the contract,

and indeed, there it was.

"They require one month's notice of a termination".

"They require one month's notice of a termination."

We felt that the money, or most of it, should have been given back to us

because Dad was in no position to give a month's notice of termination,

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

Rob and Helen had read the terms and conditions,

but now feel that they weren't clear.

Because they hadn't realised the clause

about "termination of residency" also applied to death.

They're not completely clear

and they certainly don't specifically mention what happens

in the event of the resident dying.

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

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

which they say are often

not drafted in "plain, intelligible language".

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

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

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

"clear and prominent" in the contract,

so that consumers are fully aware of them.

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

It's absolutely horrible to think

that you're a family member

who's experiencing all the distress of a bereavement

and then suddenly, out of the blue,

you get a bill you weren't expecting to get

for quite a large sum of money.

'When people go into a care home, it's often at a time of crisis

'and so it's all a bit of a rush.

'It's very easy then to overlook

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

It is really important that care homes do everything they can

to bring the small print to families' attention,

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

Which, of course, neither family we spoke to

says happened in their case.

So, we asked both of the care homes

involved whether they think the charges were fair

and made sufficiently clear.

Only the one Olive lived in replied,

saying that the costs of their care are...

with this fee...

and...

They say it's "unfortunate"

that Isobel doesn't feel it was clearly explained.

But Isobel, Helen and Rob

remain angry and upset about the charges that they've had to pay.

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

'you've to do the best for the person'

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

'My dad would be very upset about it.

'He would've been horrified, I think,'

if he'd known that this would happen.

Now deals that offer you cashback when you spend

have, of course, become increasingly popular,

and it's not difficult to see why.

Because, at a time when every single penny counts,

the prospect of being given money back

when you pay your bills is very, very appealing.

And, for many people, that cashback promise can be the deciding factor

when choosing which company or service you're going to go with.

But, sadly, it's a promise that doesn't always come true.

Although plenty of retailers like to use cashback deals

to encourage shoppers to part with their money,

there's one area where, over the last few years,

they've been especially common. And that's the mobile phone industry.

We've heard from lots of people who say they only signed up

to the phone deal they're on

because it came with the promise of regular cashback payments.

And Wendy Embisu is one of them.

Last October, she was cold-called by the company,

Excell Communications (Shropshire) Ltd,

offering what sounded like a great deal

on a new contract for her mobile phone.

The deal that Excell were offering was a better price

than the one that I was with on 02.

It was more minutes and more texts

and it included a phone that could connect to the internet,

which I didn't have at the present time.

The deal was simple.

Wendy would sign up with Excell Communications (Shropshire) Ltd,

who would put her on a two-year contract with Orange.

Now, the normal cost of that tariff would be £55 a month.

But every month for the first year,

Excell Communications would give her £35 cashback.

So, overall, she'd end up paying just £20 a month.

'It sounded a very good deal, yes. I was a little bit wary'

because it perhaps sounded too much of a good deal,

but I did ask quite a lot of questions

and I was convinced that it was a genuine offer.

So, confident she was getting a bargain,

and after receiving the paperwork from Excell Communications,

Wendy made her first payment of £55 to Orange, and her new phone arrived.

The phone arrived. It looked great, in a little pack.

It came with the first month's cashback, a cheque for £35.

It seemed everything was going smoothly.

Until Wendy called Excell Communications

to arrange for her number to be transferred to Orange.

'When I phoned them, up it was a recorded message on the phone.'

The recorded message said that

Excell Communications (Shropshire) Ltd

'had gone into administration.'

And things only got worse from there.

The £35 cashback cheque bounced at the bank.

So, with Excell Communications in administration, she contacted Orange.

And they told her some very unwelcome news.

As far as they were concerned, her arrangement with Excell

was absolutely nothing to do with them.

But her monthly contract was.

And they'd still be expecting her to pay them the full £55 a month

for the next two years.

But, with no chance of the £35 cashback she'd signed up to,

that was far more than Wendy was willing to pay.

Orange are trying to make me pay the full £55 a month, plus VAT,

and what I agreed to was to pay £20 a month through Excell.

It's estimated that around 9,000 other customers

signed up with Excell Communications,

purely because of the cashback promise.

Without that, most of them would never have agreed

to the contract in the first place.

I certainly wouldn't have agreed to pay £55 plus VAT for a mobile phone.

'I'm a single parent with a young son at home

'and it's too great a price'

for me to be paying.

This isn't the first time that companies using cashback deals

to sign people up to Orange and other networks have gone bust,

leaving customers with lengthy contracts they just didn't want.

In fact, so many people were affected by the collapse of companies,

Dialamobile and Mobile4free,

that the regulator, Ofcom,

launched an investigation into cashback schemes

and mis-selling across the mobile market.

They introduced new rules for companies to make sure customers

know exactly what they're signing up to.

And at our pop-up shop, one of our experts,

Sylvia Rook, told us that Trading Standards

often hear from people

who've been unable to get their money on cashback deals.

In many cases, this is because the company has gone bust,

but sometimes they don't honour the deal at all.

The conditions of these deals can be very difficult to understand,

and quite often it's very difficult to comply with,

as you may need to put in a claim

within one day of a specific date and a specific time.

Such deals with cashbacks should be made a lot clearer to consumers

and should not be offered,

unless it's backed by some sort of guarantee to ensure

that the consumer will get their money back at the end of a scheme.

Meanwhile, Wendy is left with a phone

which she's never used and no longer wants

because of a contract she can't afford to pay.

Now, she's offered to send Orange the phone back

and because she just wants to be freed from the contract,

she hasn't paid them any of the monthly charges.

So the company is now chasing her for the money

that, as far as they're concerned, cashback or not,

she agreed to pay.

I think I must have written about 20 times to Orange.

'They're completely un-moving.

'I haven't received any of the benefits that I agreed to.

'I have not had one single amount of cashback,

'I haven't used the phone'

and I'm left being chased by debt collectors

for something that, essentially, I haven't had.

Orange has agreed a slightly reduced rate

with some of the Excell Communications customers -

but Wendy, I'm afraid, is not one of them.

We asked Orange about their deals with third-party companies.

And why they can't be more flexible with customers like Wendy

if they don't get what was expected.

They reiterated that cashback offers are run and promoted

by independent businesses, and not them,

so they're...

They say that when Excell went into administration, they worked

to ensure that...

but that, as Wendy hasn't paid her bill since the first month,

she has...

But of course, it's not payments that Wendy's after,

she just wants to be released now from her contract.

On which point, Orange say that although they...

they believe they've...

However things end up being sorted, the experience has left Wendy

wary of signing up to offers

that could end up just too good to be true.

Having gone through this with Excell and with Orange,

I really would not recommend that anybody

take on anything that offers incentives

such as cashback schemes.

'It's an absolute minefield.'

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 come in to talk to our experts?

The success of it has been fantastic.

What I've been impressed with is the way

that so many people now have actually collated information.

They've documented when they've spoken to individuals, timed it,

they've written down dates. It makes such a difference

when they want to make a claim against a company.

One man who's done exactly that

is former squash champion, Aftab Jawaid.

He's hoping his diary of evidence

will help our telecommunications expert, David McClelland,

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

He paid 12 months' line rental upfront,

but two months later, he 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 letters from their solicitors.

The threatening letters trying to scare you into submission?

Yes, that's a common tactic, unfortunately.

But first of all, let me just congratulate you.

You've made such a good diary, a good record, textbook stuff,

and that will really help you later on.

According to the letter of the terms and conditions that

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.

And with this brilliant diary of information that you've got here,

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

And you're a champion,

so maybe you will be a world champion complainer

and someone who actually gets a result!

THEY LAUGH

Coming up on Rip-Off Britain...

The woman being chased for thousands of pounds

because she didn't spot a clause in the small print.

'I feel very angry with myself. I feel really frustrated,

'and I just want to warn other people'

not to fall into the same trap

as I did and to make sure they read every single bit of their contract.

Next, what appears to be the solution to a problem

that we've had more complaints about

since our last series than just about anything else.

And that is, how to get out of a timeshare contract

that you no longer want.

A place in the sun near beautiful beaches

that you can go back to year after year.

You can see why, in the '80s, timeshare seemed an ideal way

to take the hassle out of planning your holidays.

But, 30 years on, many of the people

who so eagerly bought into that dream

now find themselves desperate for a way out.

As Rip-Off Britain has reported before.

With their annual fees alone

now costing more than an entire holiday from a travel agent,

the members we heard from decided enough was enough.

They wanted out of their contracts,

even if it meant writing off the thousands of pounds

they'd spent on points.

Over the last few months, hundreds of you have written to us saying,

although you'd like to cancel your timeshare contract,

it's just not that simple -

leading people like Peter Gregson into even more trouble.

He bought his timeshare in 1990.

And for many years, was very happy.

'The memories I have are very pleasant.'

We had some very good holidays.

We went to many places with them. We exchanged to America,

to places in Europe, and some very good family holidays.

But, as time went on,

and the annual maintenance fee rose from £200 to £1,000,

Peter's enthusiasm faded, and he decided he wanted to cancel.

'The reason I wanted to get out of it'

was not only because of the high maintenance fees

and the escalating costs of those fees, but the air fares went up,

the whole holidays went up

and it became very expensive to take a family abroad.

However, when Peter took a closer look at his timeshare contract,

he realised, as we hear all too often, that he'd signed

a lifelong commitment.

And it didn't look as if there was any easy way out.

Then in October, 2010, he got a cold call from a company

called International Timeshare Refund Action, or ITRA,

who seemed to be offering him an exit strategy.

In their adverts, the company says they can help

"unhappy timeshare owners".

And on the phone to Peter,

they also told him that they were planning a court case

to free people from their contracts.

They sounded like the answer to his prayers.

'They led me to believe that they'd already had'

some success in America

with taking other timeshare companies to court

regarding the mis-selling of timeshares in general.

Peter was given an appointment to meet a specialist ITRA consultant.

There, he was told that he would be offered a more immediate way out of

his timeshare commitments with the help of a company

that worked with them, Personal Travel Group Limited.

That company's ads promised personal independence,

freedom and flexibility -

which matched the information given to Peter at the meeting.

I was convinced by the salesman that this was the answer to my prayers

and that they would take the timeshare over

'and that my responsibility had finished.'

Peter was told that he'd have to pay Personal Travel Group

a fee of £8,000.

But, as it meant he'd finally be free of his timeshare,

and those ongoing maintenance fees, he thought it was worth it.

£8,000 seemed to me to be quite a reasonable amount to have to pay,

compared to the £20,000

that I might have had to pay, or I would have had to pay,

had I retained the timeshare for another 20 years.

There were other promised benefits, too,

such as what appeared to be the opportunity to buy

cut-price holidays and even act as an agent,

selling holidays on their behalf. So Peter signed a contract,

paid his £8,000,

and sent off the ownership deeds to his timeshare.

Not only was I getting out of the timeshare,

which I desperately wanted to do,

but also there was the possibility of a refund after the legal action.

For months, he heard nothing,

so Peter contacted Personal Travel Group

who reassured him that all was fine.

But that was completely untrue.

It turned out that Personal Travel Group

hadn't taken his timeshare off his hands at all.

Peter still owned it and was still liable for all the fees.

But he only realised that in December last year,

when he received a bill for the maintenance fees on the timeshare

that he thought he was now rid of. Peter was gutted.

Not only did I still own the time share,

but I'd lost the £8,000 that I'd paid to PTG.

My wife and I have been married for 46 years,

and in that time, we've never had to keep anything from each other,

but this was such a major item that I decided that it was prudent

to keep it from her until after Christmas.

When he tried calling Personal Travel Group

for an explanation of what they'd done with his money,

he was told they'd gone bust.

I discovered just before Christmas

that the PTG had gone into liquidation

and that I'd lost my £8,000.

As he tried to understand what had happened,

Peter discovered that the timeshare re-sale that he'd been offered

had never really been an option.

You just can't transfer the contract in this way.

And all that the £8,000 he'd handed over had bought him

was membership of a holiday club offering reduced-price travel.

I feel very bad and bitter about PTG

because it was they that took the £8,000

and seemingly conned me out of the £8,000.

Peter was also angry at the company that started all of this off -

International Timeshare Refund Action.

After all, they had directed him

towards Personal Travel Group in the first place.

So, when they'd first rung up,

why hadn't they been clearer about exactly what he'd be getting into?

That's a question that the Advertising Standards Authority

has considered, too.

In January, 2011, they ruled that ITRA's ads were misleading,

because they failed to make clear that respondents to their offer

could be asked to buy into another product.

But when we contacted International Timeshare Refund Action,

they didn't see that any of this was down to them.

They insisted that all they're doing

is trying to get people to register interest

in their future court action.

And, while they do licence other companies to run the meetings,

where that happens, as far as they're concerned,

anything else sold to people at those meetings is...

..and nothing to do with them.

They say they...

.."for any company with whom it does business,

"which for whatever reason is placed into liquidation."

We also tried various ways

of contacting people connected to the Personal Travel Group.

None of them replied.

Fortunately for Peter, he'd paid the £8,000 on his Barclaycard,

so, after months of uncertainty and stress,

he has now been given a full refund

under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, 1974,

as Barclaycard agreed that there was a clear breach of contract.

He's still worried

that there are plenty of other desperate timeshare owners

who could find themselves in the same boat.

I'm really truly gutted, that I feel embarrassed, and I feel

that I'm in the same position as many hundreds of people

'who are still trying to resolve the issue of timeshare ownership.'

After out last series of Rip-Off Britain,

many thousands of you sent in for

our Rip-Off Britain Guide to Getting a Good Deal.

So this year, we've written a new, expanded guide with practical advice

on topics that are covered in this series.

Like PPI, cold calls and supermarket deals,

as well as updated tips and information on avoiding rip-offs

and how to get a better deal.

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

Or, to receive a copy in the post,

send a stamped, self-addressed A5 envelope

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

As I hope you know by now, we love hearing from you,

and an area where we've been especially keen to hear your stories

this year is when it comes to problems with the small print.

Perhaps a clause in a contract that's caught you out,

or terms and conditions that could have been much, much clearer.

Because, sometimes, missing even a few small words

can cause you a really big problem.

Which is exactly what happened to a number of people who got in touch

after signing up with one particular company.

And discovering, unfortunately too late,

a clause that can leave you seriously out of pocket.

It's 18 months since Usha Obhrai opened up

this hair and beauty salon in Wembley.

OK, I've got one appointment at 11 o'clock which is free.

She bought the business

after taking redundancy from her job as an accountant.

I thought it would be a good idea -

completely different to what I've been doing in the past.

What I actually enjoy most about the job is socialising,

actually, to get customers coming.

They love to have a chat and you get to know them.

That's the enjoyable part of it.

But six months later, after spending £40,000

setting up the business, the reality of running it began to take its toll.

'You are committed six days a week, basically,

'you're here from Monday to Saturday.

'But I find Sunday is taken up with paperwork'

and doing the accounts

and VAT returns and all the rest of it, so really

'it's a seven-day job.

'I'm not getting any younger, so to say!

'I'm 62 and I've been working for the last...over 40 years'

and I feel now's the time to enjoy myself.

So Usha decided to sell up.

She put her details on a website that lists businesses for sale

and very quickly received a call,

not from a prospective buyer, but a company called

Phoenix Business Agents Ltd, based in Oxfordshire,

and not to be confused with other companies with similar names.

They claimed that they could sell Usha's business for her -

and even better, they could do it fast.

My first question was, "How much is it going to cost me?"

They assured me there would be nothing to pay upfront.

The only cost will be when they sell the business,

so I thought to myself, "I've got nothing to lose, why not?"

The company sent round a salesman to discuss things further.

When he arrived, Usha was surprised at the high value

he put on the business - over £99,000.

I said, "It's a bit high. If you put it for that amount,

"I doubt you'll get any viewings at all."

He said, "No, no, no, I assure you, you know, we've got thousands

"of buyers, cash buyers, looking for this type of business in the area."

Next, another surprise. As well as a fee of £6,000,

if they were successful in selling the business,

Usha would need to pay Phoenix an upfront marketing fee of £600,

payable as soon as she signed up.

But satisfied that it would be refundable after six months

if there was no sale, she didn't read as thoroughly

as she could have done the rest of the contract -

a mistake she'd very soon come to regret.

He said, "If you do it now, we'll put it on the market,

"say tomorrow, you know, straight away,

"and, you know, you'll be able to sell, just like that."

So, in that sense, I was pressurised

and I didn't really get time to read the contract.

Remember, Phoenix had promised a quick sale.

So after paying the £600 marketing fee by credit card,

Usha waited for the viewings and the flood of "cash buyers"

she had been promised.

But when, after six weeks, she hadn't had the interest she'd expected,

she reduced the price by more than half, to £40,000,

in the hope that that might attract buyers.

You know, it just wasn't happening,

all the claims they made. I couldn't go to anybody else,

as well, because obviously, it was on a six-month contract and I felt

I was really stuck in a situation where I couldn't get out.

So at the end of the six months she was tied into,

disappointed that the company's marketing of her salon

had only resulted in one viewing,

Usha decided to cancel and ask for that refundable £600 back.

But when she did, she was horrified to receive from the company

not the expected refund,

but a demand for another fee,

of £3,000.

I was absolutely shocked by it, you know.

I spoke to one of their secretaries.

She said, "Oh, it's in the clause." I said, "What clause?"

She said, "It's on the back of the contract."

When Usha checked, there it was in black and white,

a clause saying that if she cancelled at any time,

even outside of the initial six-month period,

she would have to pay a termination fee of £3,000.

She had signed the contract without even noticing it.

The frustrating thing is £3,000 is written in words, not in figures.

Me being an accountant, I would expect to see any amount

with a pound sign and figures first, then the words in brackets.

But this was not the case.

If that was the case, I probably would have picked it up quickly.

For Usha, it seemed like the best option

was to stay on the company's books.

That way, she'd lose the £600 upfront fee that she'd hoped

to have refunded, but at least she wouldn't have to fork out £3,000.

But when she called Phoenix Business Agents Ltd

to say that she no longer wanted to cancel,

they told her it was too late.

As far as they were concerned, she couldn't now change her mind

and she'd have to pay that £3,000.

Usha feels that means the company is in a win-win situation.

Um, so basically, they're just sitting on a gold mine.

Usha refused to pay

and now the debt collectors are chasing her for the money.

So are the charges fair and would a court force her to pay them?

Let's ask a lawyer.

In relation to the £600 pounds, I think she has to let that go.

That seems to be attributable to the marketing Phoenix have undertaken.

The £3,000,

I can't see what that relates to and in order

for that to be valid, Phoenix would have to show it relates to some form

of loss they've suffered and I can't see that it relates to any loss.

Phoenix Business Agents Ltd disagree with Usha's version of events

and insist that she couldn't have felt pressured in any way,

because according to their records, they had two meetings with her

before she signed up.

Usha disputes that, but it's why they say she had...

..their terms and conditions.

They are confident she...

..and that...

..in this regard.

They say their valuation was based on information that Usha provided,

and that their termination fee is to cover...

They only pursue it in "rare" cases such as this,

where, according to them...

..or it is...

And they say that every year, they help sell dozens of small businesses,

with complaints...

To them maybe, but not to us.

We've spoken to a number of other people who have told us

that their experience of Phoenix Business Agents

is remarkably similar to Usha's.

And Usha herself says she'll never sign a document again

without reading it thoroughly first.

'I feel very angry with myself, as well.'

I feel really frustrated and I'm having sleepless nights over it.

My blood pressure's gone up and I just want to warn everybody,

other people, not to fall into the same trap as I did

and to make sure they read every single bit

of their contract in future, which I have started doing now.

Well, of course, Usha is by no means alone in being caught out

by the small print and it's a common complaint

at a time when, from what you've been telling us, terms and conditions

just seem to be getting longer and more complicated and more confusing.

So how can you avoid being tripped up by the small print?

Marie Clair, from the Plain English Campaign,

is here to spell it out.

If you're going to challenge any terms and conditions,

then you need to be sure, from the beginning, that you haven't

signed or ticked the box, unless you really do understand them.

If you don't read them, you're giving away your right

to challenging them at a later stage.

Make sure that there is something about the cancellation date

that is clearly detailing how you cancel,

how much time you have to cancel, if there is a cooling-off period,

and who you need to contact in order to cancel.

Somewhere within the terms and conditions,

there should be contact details for the supplier.

Make sure that you have those contact details

and that they are active before you need to use them.

So what about privacy policies?

That's the area where your personal details - your name, address,

telephone number, date of birth, even - can be recorded and,

if you don't opt out, then those details can be passed on

to other suppliers, without you realising who they are.

If you feel that the terms and conditions are unclear in any way

and, if particularly, the wording or the length of the documents

makes it difficult for you to understand the content,

then don't feel that that's your fault.

You have a responsibility to understand those words,

but the supplier has a responsibility to make sure

that they are understandable in the first place.

Here at Rip-Off Britain,

we're always ready to investigate more of your stories.

Confused over your bills?

Trying to wade through wodges of small print

that leave you totally confused?

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

It should be simple. ABC, you know, very basic stuff.

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

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

You get home, you get your bill and it's, like, £70,

when it's meant to be £35.

And it's just, basically, you just get ripped off, don't you?

You might have a cautionary tale of your own and want to share

the mistakes you made with us, so others don't do the same.

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

We're particularly keen to hear from you

if you've had a problem when travelling abroad or on holiday.

Did your airline let you down?

Been stung by hidden charges when booking your holiday online?

Or did your travel insurance fail to give you the expected protection?

You can write to us at...

Or send us an e-mail to...

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

The reality is that companies and businesses can so often

stick to telling us that old phrase,

"It's all in the terms and conditions"

so you could be forgiven for thinking that some of them use it

as a bit of an excuse, a smokescreen for why they haven't

bothered making all their small print just easier to understand.

I think it's true to say that, in most of the cases we hear about,

if you just can't get out of a contract, it's usually because

you didn't spot a key detail relating to termination restrictions

until it was, unfortunately, too late.

But when quite a few other people find themselves in exactly

the same boat, well, you can't help wondering if the relevant

details were not actually made clear enough in the first place.

Quite right. Well, the best advice remains to always make sure

you DO read all that small print.

There's no doubt that some businesses could do a bit more

to make the process easier.

That's it for today. Keep sending us your stories

and join us when we look into more of them soon.

Until then, from all of us...

ALL: Bye-bye.

Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd