Episode 17 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 street.

And the message could not be clearer.

There's too much focus on profit and less on customer care.

It's so hard to complain. Companies make it so difficult to complain.

You told us with money tighter than ever,

you need to be sure that every pound counts.

All my money is very hard earned,

so when I go to spend it, I expect value for money.

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.

Your stories, your money. This is Rip-Off Britain.

Hello, welcome to Rip-Off Britain,

the series that battles on your behalf

when you've had a problem that you can't resolve

or you've ended up out of pocket

regardless of whether it's by a very small amount or hundreds of pounds.

It's really large sums of money that are in dispute in the stories we've investigated for today's programme.

And what makes that worse is that the people involved would say that the reason they've lost out

is because of the actions or indeed mistakes of someone else.

So for them, the situations they've ended up in are absolutely not their fault

and yet they don't seem to be able to get anywhere trying to sort it all out.

So we'll see if we can get to the bottom of what's gone on

and look into how to stop the same thing happening to you.

Coming up on today's show,

a man who relied on the experts but now feels that they've cost him dearly.

Quite simply, building regulations got it wrong

and it's cost us nearly £50,000 to fix.

The mystery of why none of the checks made when buying this car

turned up the crucial fact that it was stolen.

I've lost money on my car. Now I'm losing more money trying to find out what's happening about this car.

And I just don't know what to do.

Plus we're back at our pop-up shop, dishing out advice to the consumers of Liverpool.

I guess these days we're all aware the face of banking has changed completely over the last 20 years.

The chances are you won't even see a face at all

because these days the banks really would like us to do our transactions online or even over the phone.

Anything rather than at a local branch.

And while most of the advances with internet banking and faster payment systems are good news,

there's also a very serious pitfall that you probably won't have realised.

Just one wrong click of the mouse

made not by you but by somebody else

can mean that hundreds of pounds are lost forever

with absolutely no way of putting things right.

Ann Couston is a very busy mum.

I have nine birth children aging from 12 to 29.

We've been foster carers for the last eight years

and we're adopting a three-year-old who's been with us since he was born

and has additional special needs and who we love to bits!

Looking after such a big family is a full-time job

and anything that can make life a little bit easier is a good thing.

And for Ann, internet banking has been particularly useful.

At least until now.

I find internet banking is such a beneficial thing to have.

We're in a fairly rural location. We don't have a bank here.

It's about five miles to the nearest town.

I've obviously got a large family and I've got foster children

so it's not easy to get to a bank in town.

So when Ann had to transfer some money to help her 26-year-old son, Murray,

she knew that she could simply log on and sort everything out online.

Murray graduated from university and this was his first job that he'd just got.

He needed to get a flat in Glasgow.

He didn't have money saved himself at that stage.

So that he could get in quickly, we agreed that we would help him with the deposit and rent online.

The landlady of the flat emailed the details of her account number and sort code

so that Anne could transfer the money to her via online banking.

Thanks to the faster payments system,

which most banks use to transfer money between accounts,

the £900 should have been in the landlady's Bank of Scotland account

in just two hours.

But days later, there was no sign of it

so Anne called the landlady to check the account details she'd been given.

We realised that on the email she had got just one digit wrong on her account number.

The sort code was right and I'd put her name in right,

but she'd just made a mistake of one digit.

That simple single-digit mistake

would turn out to have far reaching repercussions.

But, worried about where the money had gone,

Ann called her own bank, The Clydesdale.

They said if the account name and number didn't tally,

it should be bounced back into my account.

Reassured that apparently the mistake could be rectified,

Ann waited for her money to be returned.

But it didn't appear.

And it didn't arrive in the landlady's account, either.

By the end of the week, I phoned them back again

and said, "It's still not come back."

And they said, "Oh, actually, because the wrong account number existed,

"it would have been paid to that account. It doesn't matter that the name didn't tally."

And so our money was gone to somebody else.

Ann's £900 had been transferred into the bank account of a complete stranger.

Unsurprisingly, she was devastated.

£900 is a huge amount of money

especially since it was coming up to Christmas.

We have a large family.

And we really couldn't spare it.

I didn't have another £900 to pay.

So why did Ann's payment go missing?

It's all down to what some would say is a flaw in the faster payments system.

Faster payments speeds up transactions between accounts

and it's made banking an awful lot easier for millions of people since it was introduced in 2008.

But when you're transferring money,

there is no requirement for banks to check anything more than the sort code and the account number

of the account to which you're sending it.

So, even if you have provided the name of the account holder as well,

the bank does not need to check if it matches up.

Which means if just one wrong digit is entered

even if, as in Ann's case,

that is the number that you've been given,

then the money can be sent straight into the wrong account.

Luckily for Ann and her son, the landlady was very supportive.

She took responsibility for providing the wrong account details

and allowed Murray to move into the flat while she tried to get her bank, the Bank of Scotland, to help.

But because the money had never gone anywhere near her account,

the bank would not discuss the matter with her.

It was down to Ann to get the money back.

So, once again, she called her bank, The Clydesdale.

I contacted the online support centre again

and they put in a missing payments trace through the faster payments system

and they then had to wait 14 days for a reply from the Bank of Scotland.

14 days went by

and Ann's bank did not receive a response.

So they wrote to the Bank of Scotland, enclosing a letter to the person

who had the £900 transferred into their account,

requesting that the cash be returned.

What happened, we don't know whether the client never got it or just ignored it.

But the final response from the Bank of Scotland was

"We can't get any response from the customer. Case closed."

That's it!

The Bank of Scotland told Ann that in theory she could deal directly with the account holder

who'd mistakenly got her money.

The only snag with that is because of Data Protection rules,

they can't tell her anything about who that person is!

I think it is right that people's data should be protected

and I wouldn't want my bank to give my details to anyone else.

So it's completely right that the bank didn't give me the details.

But you can't raise a small claim against someone whose name you don't know!

So we were just left completely unable to get the money back.

Ann could pursue legal action, forcing the bank to reveal details of who's got her money.

But as it would most likely cost her more than she's owed, she's decided against it.

And when she went to the Financial Ombudsman Service,

they couldn't help either because neither bank has actually done anything wrong.

They haven't actually broken any rules, but they haven't got any heart.

Plus it's just simple justice.

It's just not fair

that the bank should take the money and there's no way of getting it back

when any of us can make a simple mistake.

It wasn't fraud or deceit or anything like that.

It was just a simple error.

I just fail to understand why we can't get it back.

If this was the bank's £900, I've absolutely no doubt

that they would be getting it back straight away.

So, what could Ann have done differently?

Unfortunately, the short answer is "Not a lot".

All that you can do to protect yourself as much as possible

from a situation like Ann's when you're making an online bank payment

is to thoroughly check and then double check the account details of the recipient.

And ask them to confirm them if you're at all unsure.

But for Ann, extraordinary as it sounds,

no-one can help her get her £900 back.

We asked the two banks involved "Why not?"

Ann's bank, The Clydesdale, said

they'd asked the Bank of Scotland to ask the person who got the money

to authorise a reversal. But...

Though they'd passed on a second letter explaining that the funds had been received in error,

the customer has not sent a reply.

And as the bank says, they...

For their part, the Bank of Scotland reiterated that they have done all they can

to try and get their customer to return the money. And that...

But again, they say they cannot just take it.

So "with regret" they have had to tell Ann that the case is closed.

But Ann would like to see the transfer system changed

to make it possible for account numbers to be cross-referenced with account names.

That way, if a mistake is made with just a single digit,

it would show up, could be corrected

and no-one would lose their money.

It's really frustrating that the bank could have just done a simple check

of the name against the account number

and it would have saved us £900 and saved all this frustration and hassle.

So I've come to meet Neil Aitkin from the Payments Council

to find out just why these issues cannot be addressed.

Neil, we live in the 21st century, not the 18th century.

Computers can do all sorts of amazing things.

Why is it not possible to marry up the account number and sort number with the name of the recipient

and thereby avoid so many of these problems?

There's good reason that payments are addressed by the number.

If you think about it, when you're using names,

there can be lots of variation which would make it difficult

and actually introduce a different set of problems if that's how you addressed the payments.

And actually, if you double check the sort code and account number,

you can be certain that the payment will get to the right place.

That doesn't answer the question why you can't marry up the number with the name.

It's a technical thing.

The sort code and account number are, in law,

the way that the payment has to be addressed.

Change the law! We have been looking into this over the last year

and we've found we're gathering the data on how many cases there are of this.

Early indications are that it's a really small number.

It's an unfortunate position and obviously it isn't an easy situation to find yourself in,

but all is absolutely not lost.

You do have recourse through the courts to try and get that money back.

Most of us will have heard the parable that says

"The wise man builds his house upon the rock."

If you're planning any sort of extension to your home,

it may not be quite so obvious what sort of ground you'll be building on.

Which is why you have to rely on an expert to tell you.

That's what Ian Carney did.

But unfortunately, that didn't stop things going terribly wrong.

Ian, by the way, is a professional animator,

so you'll see that he's given us some help in telling his story.

This could represent any suburban street.

But behind these rows of happy homes

lies a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of building a house extension.

And how even when you think you've followed all the right procedures,

things may not work out as planned.

For professional animator Ian Carney and his wife Wendy,

their dream extension has turned into a nightmare.

We've got a broken home. We've ploughed thousands into it

and we had nowhere to turn.

The impact on the family has been massive for the last year.

It's basically brought our relationship between myself and Ian to our knees.

They just slowly grind you down, grind you down, grind you down.

And you don't realise how much it does until you start going into it all again.

Ian and Wendy's extension was supposed to be the final stage

of a 16-year project to build their perfect home.

We had these big plans to build on one side

go up into the loft and build on the other side.

We've been here 16 years now and this was the last part, getting this extension finished

to provide a lovely home for our family.

The plans were drawn up by an architect

and approved by the local authority Waverley Borough Council.

The next thing needed was to make sure that everything met with the building regulations,

a legal requirement for all building work.

Building regulations were introduced in 1965

and then amended in 1984

to ensure that all buildings meet the same standards of safety and quality.

At different stages of a project,

an inspector will make sure that builders are sticking to the regulations

and the construction is progressing in a safe and responsible manner.

I thought we didn't really need the architect to see it through.

Building regulations would suffice.

They're the policemen for building projects.

They provide a safe minimum standard.

If it doesn't pass them, you don't get a completion certificate.

Simple as that.

There were several key stages throughout the work

at which the building regulations inspector was scheduled to visit.

One of the early ones was when a hole was dug. A very important moment!

If you get that wrong, everything else is going to be wrong.

And unfortunately, so it proved.

So the builders dug by hand the foundations.

The building regulations inspector came along to assess the foundations

and he had a little joke with the builders, saying, "You didn't need to go down that deep!"

The building inspector said in his written report

that the ground was composed of firm cohesive sand

and that the foundation depth of 1.2 metres was perfectly adequate.

Ian and his builder were reassured by the inspector's visit.

But Ian has subsequently been told

that his house was not constructed just on firm, cohesive sand.

The ground was also made up of very silty clay.

Our ground, if you go down a foot and a half is clay.

There's lots of it. Sticky stuff.

The building inspector's written down "firm, cohesive sand".

You can see why Ian thought he was on safe ground

with the foundations he had based on the building inspector's report.

But, Ian says, experts have told him

that the clay upon which his extension was built

is classed as being of high to very high shrinkability.

This means that when the soil is wet it will expand

and when it's dry, it will shrink.

This ground movement can be influenced also

by the roots of nearby trees and shrubs as well as the weather.

But the significance of all of this

is something that Ian only realised

when his extension was almost complete

and a different buildings inspector visited to sign it off.

We had a dry summer and I started to notice some hairline cracks appearing.

I didn't want to make much of them, but they started getting bigger and bigger.

So when I finally got the building regulations inspector round

to give us sign off and completion,

I pointed them out to them

and he said, with a sharp intake of breath,

you need to get your insurance company onto that.

Very worried, Ian did exactly what the inspector suggested.

The insurance company sent a specialist to dig some test holes next to the extension.

They identified the problem as clay shrinkage subsidence

and, in Ian's case, a large damson tree in his neighbour's garden next to the extension

appears to have exacerbated the problem.

It was clear that the foundations simply were not deep enough.

I was astonished. The foundations were just too shallow.

They only went down one metre. They should have gone down two metres.

Despite having been officially signed off,

the foundations were only half as deep as they needed to be.

Sadly for Ian, the evidence was easy to see.

This is one of the cracks that appeared in my daughter's bedroom.

And here's the other one. Quite a big crack, this one,

which is basically showing the whole of the extension

is rotating away from the house that way.

Falling down the hill.

Worse was to follow. Ian's insurance company concluded that

the shallow foundations were a design fault

and refused to pay to put things right.

But as the foundations depth had been improved by the buildings inspector,

Ian asked for help from Waverley Borough Council.

They advised him to employ a structural engineer to build a case

so that they could put it to their insurance company.

He produced a report which says that the foundations aren't deep enough.

The way to rectify that is to underpin that entire length

which then gives us the foundations that should have been there in the first place.

I was starting to think, "Hang on, this is going to cost a few thousand pounds."

So with both the reports saying that the foundations weren't deep enough,

the building regulations inspector's own report putting down the wrong soil type

there in black and white, we thought it was an open and shut case.

Unfortunately for Ian, it wasn't that simple.

Although he feels it's the council who should pay to repair the foundations,

because they sent round the building inspector,

the council is adamant it is not their liability

and the law is on their side.

That's thanks to a court case in 1990

which found that it's down to the homeowner to make sure a project meets building regulations,

not the buildings inspector.

So even when, like Ian, you feel you relied on their expert opinion,

if something goes wrong, it will still be you who has to cover the cost.

So you need to really do your homework

and make sure you're across every detail yourself

before starting any work.

With both the council and his insurers refusing to help,

Ian has had to spend £38,000

on underpinning the house to keep it standing,

as well as forking out a further £10,000 on professional fees.

So in total, he's down £48,000, money he feels he should never have had to pay.

Quite simply, building regulations got it wrong

and it's cost us nearly £50,000 to fix.

We contacted Waverley Borough Council about Ian's case.

They told us they're...

After a thorough investigation, they find no evidence that they are responsible for the cracking

or that they failed to adhere to the required guidelines.

Their insurers found they do not have a legal liability.

Furthermore, the local government ombudsman in his final decision in March

agreed that...

But as a gesture of goodwill,

they've made a partial refund of the building regulation costs.

Although Ian's wife Wendy is very angry at how things have turned out,

it's at least a relief that the repairs are now complete.

We've stuck together and the family as a unit have come through it.

The foundations on the house are solid as they are with us now,

which is a nice ending,

but it would be nice if Waverley would hold their hands up

and say that they had a huge part to play in this.

Ian and Wendy's 16-year project to build their dream home

has finally come to an end.

But the financial and the emotional stresses will be with them for ever.

The Rip-Off Britain pop-up shop is back open for business.

This year, we headed to Liverpool where, for one weekend only,

we were joined by a team of experts to give out as much consumer advice as we possibly could.

They'll help you find out what's gone wrong

and get in touch with the company that's doing this.

And we were delighted so many of you got just the help you needed.

We're really pleased that somebody was able to see us today.

He gave us some good advice and we've got two options to go away and look at.

Really pleased with the feedback I've been given.

I think I have to accept I'm not going to receive any funds back. Life goes on.

It was extremely useful. We've got the direction we need to go in now.

Outside on the streets we also ran advice workshops.

At this one, communications expert David McLelland took to the stage

to share some top tips on how to use your mobile abroad

without ending up with shock bills when you get home.

There are some ways that you can carry on using your phone pretty much as you would do here.

But you've got to ask for them first of all.

Two volunteers here.

We even roped in some passing shoppers to help out.

After you've booked your holiday, phone up your operator,

the person you pay your mobile phone bill to.

Phone them up and tell them where you're going.

Ask them, "How much is it going to cost me?"

Because you're using your phone on someone else's network,

it costs you money to receive a call so find out how much that costs.

Voicemail. You'll be charged for that,

so ask your mobile phone operator how much your voicemail will cost and how to get to it.

Even Gloria's been caught out by unexpected charges for voicemail abroad.

Guess how much they were per shot? Go on.

Nearly five quid a shot. Goodness me.

I thought I was picking up my messages for free,

I was actually paying all those. In the end, I fought it and got it off.

Because I didn't know that's what it would cost me.

If you're going to be connecting to a wireless network when abroad

and doing a lot of downloading and stuff,

turn off your data roaming.

Because then there's no way if your wireless network drops off

that you will get charged for that data.

And David had a great bit of advice regarding information that your provider now has to give you

so you can keep track of what you're spending while you're away.

Make sure you're opted in to the text messages that your mobile operator has to send you by law

to tell you when you're approaching spending caps.

This is something that's relatively new over the last year or so.

But if you're getting close to say 50 euros or 40-something pounds.

they have to send you a text message to tell you you're approaching your spending cap.

And then another one to tell you that you've reached that.

Three top tips there. That should mean that you come back from holiday

and you won't be worried about a big bill dropping through your letterbox.

Still to come on Rip-Off Britain.

The laws may have changed,

but are some private parking companies still trying to have everything their own way?

I cannot understand why they could not use a bit of discretion in this case

and perhaps not issue the ticket in the first instance.

Of all the things you might worry about if you were buying a second-hand car,

you probably wouldn't expect what happened to Mark Thompson.

Mark did absolutely everything right with the purchase,

making all the checks he should have done.

But somewhere along the line, someone else made a mistake

that's ended up costing him hundreds of pounds

and resulted in some very unwelcome attention from the police.

Mark Thompson has always had a soft spot for cars.

And there's one in particular that's always set his pulse racing.

I saw a Ford Escort RS Turbo on the internet.

That's a car like I've always wanted.

In November 2012, it seemed his dream car was within reach

when he saw the exact model he wanted for sale online.

So straightaway, Mark got in touch with the seller.

I phoned the guy up. He seemed spot on on the phone.

So I was very interested in the car by this time.

The following day, I drove down, had a look at the car,

met the bloke, had a look at the paperwork.

Everything was how it should be.

Just to be sure everything was as it seemed,

Mark decided to do his own research into the history of the car

so that he could be confident that everything stacked up.

He did a vehicle history check on the vehicle

by texting the details to one of several companies that specialise in doing this kind of search,

flagging up if a car has previously been stolen or written off

or if it has any outstanding finance on it.

When I texted, it came back as OK.

It had had a few owners, but it wasn't stolen. It seemed genuine enough.

Mark was further reassured when he was able to insure the vehicle before purchase.

The insurance I got was fine. It was within reason.

I didn't see anything of a stolen vehicle or anything like that.

Happy the car wasn't hiding a past that would come back to haunt him,

Mark handed over £1,950 in cash to the seller.

I bought the car in good faith. The guy took us to his house.

So it wasn't meeting on the A1 or owt like that.

Finally Mark was on the road in the car he'd always wanted.

I loved driving it. I've never had a car like that,

so yeah, loved it. Really did.

Just what I wanted.

But just days later,

Mark had a very unpleasant surprise.

I got pulled over by the police.

They told me that the car was stolen.

I was like, "It's not stolen. I've got the log book, insurance documents, MOT."

I even had the car text check on my phone

which I showed them, dated.

Reassured by everything he was able to tell and show them,

the police sent Mark on his way.

The police pretty much said, "If you don't hear anything in a couple of days, don't worry about it.

"It's obviously a mistake."

But a few days later, Mark was pulled over again.

I showed them all my documents, my car text check,

insurance, everything else, and he pretty much said the same thing.

There must be some kind of mistake.

But by this time, I'm starting to feel a bit concerned

as to why this car keeps flagging up.

And when he was stopped by the police for a third time,

he really began to worry.

Checked all my details, took bits of paper and things

but he was still baffled as to why this was flagging as a stolen vehicle.

Then things came to a head just as Mark was settling down to enjoy a quiet family Christmas.

I pulled into the street, and as I parked up

there was a van pulled in front of us

and he asked us to go in the back of the van and have a conversation

as to what was going to happen with my car.

And then he told us that I was going to lose the car

cos it needed to be taken to a vehicle test centre

for them to make sure that the car wasn't a ringer

and it was the actual car that's stolen.

I was shocked. Devastated. I really was.

On Christmas Eve of all days, they took the car off us.

With no car, and the worry that he'd never see it again,

Mark had a distinctly unhappy Christmas.

It just made things really hard over Christmas, it really did.

The next day I had my parents and things to go to.

I had to take my child places.

All of that I couldn't do. Well, I did do, but with great expense.

Taxi fares, and asking people for lifts and things.

Just all unnecessary.

And when the police finally confirmed that the car was definitely stolen,

Mark was thoroughly confused.

After all, he'd gone out of his way to check that the car hadn't got a murky past

before he'd handed over any cash.

How can you do so much to safeguard yourself in buying a car

and yet it still turns out to be stolen.

I just don't understand how this could have happened.

Determined to get to the bottom of what had happened,

Mark contacted the company he'd used to check out the history of the car.

I contacted the HPI company and straightaway they were on the ball

wanting to know how this has happened.

They were totally baffled and straightaway wanted to know

information about me, information about the car,

information about the person I bought the car off, what I could give them.

The company gets its information from the databases of the DVLA,

the government agency that registers details of all drivers and vehicles

so they, too, were confused.

And Mark's faith in the fact that he was able to insure the vehicle was misplaced.

Insurers don't check the history of the car you're looking to insure.

It's your responsibility.

But Mark had done all he could to ensure his car was legit,

so why had none of his checks flagged up that it wasn't?

All other checks had relied on the DVLA's information,

which should be the most accurate.

But no problem had shown up.

Mark has tried contacting the DVLA to see if they can shed light on the situation,

but it hasn't got him closer to an explanation.

Been passed from pillar to post.

When you're phoning the DVLA, it's not cheap from mobile phones.

That's annoying us more. I've lost money on my car,

now I'm losing more money trying to find out what's happening about this car.

And I just don't know what to do.

Whoever's to blame, it isn't Mark.

But he's the one who's lost out by a huge amount.

Nobody wants to say, "This was my fault. We accept liability for it."

Because in my eyes, I've lost £3,500

when you consider the car, the price of having it fixed in the garage,

insurance, tax, a new CD player I put in.

Everything like that that I lost. I lost everything I'd put into the car.

We asked all the parties concerned how this could have happened.

All of them insisted their databases were accurate and up-to-date.

And the company that did the vehicle history check stressed...

It was categorically not recorded on the motor insurance anti-fraud and theft register.

The police say as soon as a vehicle is recorded as stolen on their systems

that information goes straight to the DVLA.

But part of the confusion seems to be that at the time the vehicle was originally stolen,

its then owner had been working away, resulting in a delay in the crime being reported.

During that period, the car had already been sold on

and the DVLA, at that point having no reason to believe the car was stolen,

had issued a new registration certificate to the person who bought it.

That would explain why, when the car was eventually sold on again, to Mark,

it had all the correct documentation and could be taxed and insured.

But, as the DVLA say...

In the end, whatever muddles there may have been along the way,

none of this is of any comfort to Mark.

As he's now had to borrow money to buy another car,

the cost of all this continue to add up.

It's just made us feel sick. It really has. Really angry.

I just... All I want is an answer

as to how this has happened

and to prevent it from happening again.

We've put together a free booklet of tips and advice

to help safeguard your money.

You can download it from our website:

For a hard copy,

send a stamped, self-addressed A5 envelope

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

You'll also find on the website

lots more information on the topics we tackle on the programme

with plenty of tips on how to save money and avoid being caught out.

For years, you've been telling us about problems with parking companies.

They always seem a bit too keen to slap a ticket on your windscreen

without you actually knowing that you've necessarily done anything wrong.

So it seemed like good news when last year, new rules came in to clarify the law

when it comes to parking on private land

and to simplify the process if you want to appeal charges

that you think may be unfair.

So, what difference has all of that made so far?

Well, it's thrown up some pretty dramatic numbers

in terms of how many motorists have been able to make a successful appeal

and get their penalty overturned.

More than half, in fact.

But it hasn't yet put an end to situations like that of our next case.

For John and Betty Ambrose,

this little Citroen is their lifeline.

Since becoming disabled in 2006,

I find walking any great distance

or having to stand, for instance, at a bus stop waiting for a bus

is very, very painful.

The car allows us to live our lives.

John's disability means that he can display a blue disabled badge in the car

allowing him to park in disabled parking bays.

I hope we can find a decent parking space.

It was a trip to the cinema with the grandchildren last October

that started the chain of events that caused them to write to us.

John parked the car in the disabled bay at the cinema's free car park.

He thought he'd put the blue badge out as usual before heading inside.

But whilst they were enjoying the film,

he was given a parking ticket

for parking in a disabled bay without showing his blue badge.

It was dark when we came out

so we didn't immediately notice the parking ticket.

If we had done so,

then obviously we could have seen whether or not the badge was up.

Although it is free to park in this car park, it is still monitored

and at the time John and Betty got their ticket,

it was managed by a private parking company.

John feels that if he hadn't put the blue badge out,

his car tax disc makes it clear that it's owned by someone who is registered disabled.

I cannot understand why they could not use a little bit of discretion in this case

and perhaps not issue the ticket in the first instance.

Now, you may be thinking this simply boils down to a disagreement

between the couple and the parking company.

But it's more interesting than that.

Because since the laws covering parking on private land changed in 2012,

there's a process that parking companies are supposed to follow

if you want to appeal a ticket.

But you've been telling us that the procedure is not always followed.

John and Betty did want to appeal,

but their ticket said if they didn't pay up within 14 days,

the charge would increase from £60 to £100.

So, to avoid paying that high amount

when they sent off their letter of appeal, they also enclosed a cheque for £60

to cover the cost if the appeal failed.

The cheque was not an admission of guilt,

it was just that I was very concerned

that if I didn't pay on time,

I would start racking up extra costs.

I stated to them that the fact that I was enclosing the money

was purely to avoid further costs

and not an admission of guilt.

But a week later, the company wrote to say they had rejected his appeal.

They said that it was his responsibility to check that the blue badge was on display.

While they sympathised with his situation,

the parking charge was correctly issued.

With the cheque already cashed, in their view, the matter was now closed.

In the letter, they stated that I had a further seven days to produce evidence.

The letter also said that I had the right to appeal to POPLA.

POPLA, or Parking On Private Land Appeals

is a new independent body

set up as a result of last year's new parking laws

giving drivers another place to turn to if there's a dispute over a ticket and the company won't budge.

But there are two things that need to happen

before POPLA can look into your case.

First, the company concerned has to be a member of the industry body

the British Parking Association.

Around 700 private parking firms are

including the one that gave John his ticket.

Plus, if the parking firm reject your first appeal,

they have to issue you with what's called a verification code

and in this case, that was not included in the letter.

The penultimate sentence is,

"Your independent appeal number

"(for tickets issued after 1st October 2012) is..."

There's then a blank space.

And they hadn't given me the number

which made me very frustrated

because they said I had the right to appeal

but they hadn't given me the tools with which to exercise that right.

So John wrote back to the parking company

who sent back what appeared to be a standard response,

suggesting that he could appeal to POPLA

but again omitting that vital code that he'd need to do exactly that.

I then emailed back the same day

expressing my frustration and, by this time, anger,

and I asked again for the verification code.

Again the company responded with what John considered to be an automated response.

So he decided to contact POPLA himself.

I felt I'd take the bull by the horns

and appealed directly.

But POPLA's response wasn't as helpful as John hoped.

They told him that without the code they simply could not hear his appeal.

I emailed back to them

and said that, "If you had read my letter,

"you will see that I have tried without success to get the code

"and part of my complaint to yourselves

"is the fact that they won't issue me this code

"and what I'm asking you to do is get them to issue me with a code

"or to take up my appeal without a code."

And when John contacted the parking company once again

he got yet another standard reply,

saying he had seven days to send any extra evidence that he had for his appeal

or he could go to POPLA,

which is all he wanted to do in the first place

if only they'd given him the code!

I now felt that I was caught in the middle of a total farce.

What's the problem in issuing it to me?

If it's at the end of the day I'm proved to be guilty of the offence

then, OK, I'll put my hands up to it.

But I feel I have a genuine reason to appeal.

Well, we contacted the parking company on John's behalf.

They sent a photo that proved that he had not, in fact, on this occasion,

displayed his blue badge.

Which was...

And they say the information on the tax disc

does not prove that the car was being driven by a disabled person.

But although they feel that they had made clear that the case was closed and his appeal rejected...

..they have arranged to refund the payment.

So John's story has a happy ending.

But other drivers have told us that they, too,

have had problems in receiving that all-important verification code

so that they can appeal to POPLA.

The British Parking Association

puts that down to the fact that the industry has just been through...

They say their members should be complimented

on how quickly they've adapted.

But if you are given the code to appeal,

it really can make a difference.

Appeals are free, and in POPLA's first four months,

of almost 2,000 cases they've heard that were eligible for further appeal

more than half were resolved in favour of the driver.

It's worth getting the process in perspective.

Because less than one per cent of parking tickets issued

by operators are appealed against.

So we're talking about a very small proportion of overall tickets.

But if you do want to dispute your parking ticket,

there are a few things to bear in mind.

Both the motorist and the operator need to provide evidence to POPLA

to show what their case is.

Always a good idea to take photographs

or have a witness back your story up.

The adjudicator is really just looking to see

what the balance of probability is

between the operator on the one hand and the motorist on the other.

Of course, the best advice is to make sure that you double-check

all the parking signs and regulations in the first place.

And in John and Betty's case,

they'll be making sure they always display the parking badge.

'We're extremely careful when we go down there now.

'We double-check we've put the badge up every time.'

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

You could write to us:

Or send us an email:

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

As we've heard, when you end up losing money,

it can be the apparent injustice which sticks in the throat

as much as the amount itself.

It doesn't help when it seems that the odds are really stacked against you

trying to get things resolved.

And while in some cases that's because the situation may not be as clear-cut as you'd hoped,

but in others, it does feel as if more could be done to help,

especially if you've lost out through no fault of your own.

And that is so true.

Please do keep telling us when you think you've had a raw deal

and we'll see if there's anything we can do to fight your corner.

I'm afraid that's it for today.

But we'll be seeing you again very soon with even more of your stories.

Until then, from all of us, bye-bye. Bye. Bye.

Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd