Episode 12 Rip Off Britain

We asked YOU to tell us what's left you feeling ripped off

and you contacted us in your thousands.

You've told us about the companies you think get it wrong

and the customer service that simply isn't up to scratch.

There's a lot of blurb written down,

but in practice, the words are absolutely meaningless.

I mean, people just can't afford these prices. It's ridiculous.

You've asked us to track down the scammers who stole your money.

And investigate the extra charges that you say are unfair.

They're in a win-win situation

and you're in a lose-lose situation.

If you don't do something about it, I think it's your own fault.

And when you've lost out but nobody else is to blame,

you've come to us to stop others falling into the same trap.

So whether it's a blatant rip-off, or a genuine mistake...

We're here to 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 and welcome to Rip-Off Britain.

Now, this is a programme that fights your corner

when you don't think that you've been fairly treated.

And we have some corking examples of that on the programme today.

But in the sort of situations we'll be hearing about,

what can make things particularly frustrating

is that however fed up you might feel,

it doesn't necessarily mean whoever you've been dealing with

has actually done anything wrong.

Each of our stories involves some sort of decision

that the people on the receiving end would say is unreasonable.

But the companies or official bodies they're up against,

and they're the kind of organisations all of us might deal with every day,

would argue that they're completely within their rights

to take the line that they have,

even if it means leaving you out of pocket

or stuck with the long-term repercussions of some you really disagree with.

So, if you have ever felt aggrieved at having to pay for something

that you really didn't think you should have,

some of today's stories really will strike a chord with you,

especially as frankly anyone of us

could very easily end up in the same situation.

So, I hope we're going to have plenty of advice to make sure

that if the same thing does happen to you,

you will know exactly what to do next.

Coming up: why extending or improving your home

could push your council tax bill through the roof...

They're basically saying that it is two separate properties,

which we don't feel it is.

..how a missing car key

left this woman thousands of pounds out of pocket,

when her car was stolen...

The insurance company said without the spare key,

they would not pay out the claim.

..and more on-the-spot advice at our pop-up shop.

As the saying goes, an Englishman's home is his castle.

And every year, we spend billions of pounds

making our homes bigger and better,

some of us choosing to add an extra room or two,

by perhaps converting the loft or maybe building above the garage,

or even transforming downstairs by creating a big extension.

But whatever the reason,

the whole point is you're adding to the home you've already got,

rather than going to all the bother of moving to a new one.

But, you know, that smart new extension or annexe

can have an unexpected and very expensive consequence.

It could mean that as far as the local authority is concerned,

you are the proud owner of not one, but two houses.

And if what you thought was just a bit more space

is classed as an entirely separate property,

you may find yourself hit with a second council tax bill.

Martin Strange and his partner Ciaran O'Hagan

moved to this bungalow in Dorset just before Christmas in 2011.

Compared to their old house, it has one big advantage

that instantly convinced them it was right for them...

..space.

Not least because of this very versatile bit at the back.

There's the extension in question, that contains a bedroom,

en suite facilities and a utility room that we used it for.

The bungalow had been extended by the previous owners

ten years before Martin and Ciaran bought it.

It had passed all building regulations

but had not been inspected the Valuation Office Agency.

That's the government body that checks that you're paying the right amount of council tax.

And when Martin and Ciaran bought the property,

it prompted the Valuation Office Agency

to ask if someone could come and have a look.

After they left, we received a report from them

and they said that the extension,

they want to classify that as a separate annexe,

therefore liable to its own separate council tax.

The Valuation Office Agency didn't believe

that the bungalow was just one property.

They were saying this extension is a self-contained unit,

it's got its own separate bedroom with en suite facilities,

they classified the utility space as being a kitchen,

because there was a sink in there as well,

and they were saying we could just plug in a microwave, therefore we've got cooking facilities

and it's also got these patio doors here, as well.

So they were saying that was an entranceway to the extension.

So, on top of their existing council tax bill,

Martin and Ciaran were being told they would have to pay a second one

just for the extension.

We just couldn't believe it when that letter came through.

Because if you look at this property, it's an extension.

And everyone else, all our friends, family who arrive here,

they just see it as an extension

-so, we were absolutely livid, weren't we?

-Yeah, furious.

In addition to the £1,540 a year that they paid in council tax

for the rest of the bungalow,

the extension would cost the couple another £868 a year,

despite the fact that they only used it as a guest bedroom

and a utility room.

Their argument to that was that it's the potential use for that area.

It doesn't matter what it's being used for at the moment.

In the two years since,

Martin and Ciaran have paid almost £2,000 in extra council tax.

They also tried appealing the decision.

But when their appeal was unsuccessful,

they decided the only solution was to fork out even more money

to convert their property again so that they could convince the

Valuation Office Agency that their home really is just one dwelling.

We've taken out the tumble dryer, the washing machine,

the sink, removed all the power points.

And we've put a wall in as well.

By just changing the character of that room,

the Valuation Office Agency have classed it as just one property now.

But even that decision in April 2014 had a sting in its tail.

The Valuation Office Agency raised the council tax band

of the whole property,

so Martin and Ciaran are still left paying hundreds of pounds a year

more than they expected when they first bought the house.

Now, it's estimated by the government

that over 24,000 homes in England alone have an annexe.

So, this extra council taxation

could really affect an awful lot of people.

Sue Meyer and Paul Meredith decided to build an extension

after Sue's mum moved in with them a few years back.

But as soon as they put the house on the market at the end of 2013,

the same thing happened to them.

Along came an extra council tax bill.

Paul and Sue, maybe we'll just start by demonstrating

really how you extended the house?

Yeah, the original house was that section over there which was

built in the 1960s and we've basically extended it by putting

two rooms up above which was an old garage.

So, the downstairs bit was a garage?

This was a garage which we turned into a living room

and we basically extended it by putting two rooms above.

What really is the Valuation Office saying to you?

They're basically saying that it is two separate properties,

which we don't feel it is.

On what grounds?

On the grounds we all live together.

There's only one lot of facilities going in, services,

telephone and as I say, to us, it's just one house.

Even so, the Valuation Office Agency deemed the extension

a separate property entirely.

The extension doesn't include new external entrances

because both doors at the front were in the original house

but Paul and Sue have added a bedroom with en-suite,

converted the garage into a sitting room, and changed the old

utility room into an overflow kitchen area and breakfast room.

-So now we're in the new part of the extension.

-That's right.

And how much are you being charged for effectively two rooms?

1,230-something pounds.

-To be precise.

-Yeah.

So, really, that's a lot of money for just two rooms, isn't it?

It is, yes.

When you were getting permission to add on what you have,

did anybody at any stage ever say that perhaps you were

opening yourself up to having two council tax bills

because this could be regarded as two houses?

No, we weren't informed at all.

No, all the correspondence we had regarding planning

from the architects, from the council.

Nothing was ever mentioned with regard to two separate bandings

-on this property.

-And did you ever raise the issue yourself?

No, because we never thought it was relevant

because we treat it as one house. You know, it's one family home.

If you have an extension,

the last thing you'll want is to suddenly find yourself landed

with an unexpected extra bill, especially years after it was built.

So we asked planning expert Ian Woodward-Court

to visit Sue and Paul's house to shed some light on it all.

If you're just building an extension with an extra bedroom,

then that's unlikely to start being classed as a true annexe.

If you put in extra bathrooms and kitchens,

you start erring towards it being self-contained

and then the Valuation Agency will get interested.

But then it brings me to this house

-because there are no separate utilities.

-Yep.

The actual facilities were all there originally,

they just added up and, of course, did add on an extra bathroom,

so what is the weakness here then in this scenario?

Having walked around the house earlier,

I think the real shame is they have...

It does feel like they've got two separate kitchens,

if that was just one big kitchen, there might not be an issue here.

What would you like to see happening?

Well, what most councils provide now is pre-application advice.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure many councils at that meeting

will flag up the issue of council tax.

Every local authority have their planning policies

and really all it needs to be is a sentence or two

in there about the potential for a council tax liability.

It's not clear how many houses nationwide

may have been affected in this way.

But I've come to Sue and Paul's local authority in Hereford

to see what they can do to make homeowners more aware

of the risk that this could happen.

Very good of you to see us. How are you?

'Tony Johnson is the leader of the council.'

The main cry seems to be "nobody told us,

"we didn't know that we might be liable for two tax bills."

So, surely there must be responsibility

somewhere in the planning?

There's no formal requirement placed on us

to provide such notification, but the point you raised is a very good one.

And whilst it's not been done in the past, we'd be very happy to

make sure that in future anybody that applies to this authority

for an extension or an annexe to the house,

we will draw to their attention the fact that this application

could bring with it an additional council tax liability.

So you're giving us the assurance that will happen in the future?

Here in Herefordshire it will happen.

So, that's a really good result for anyone in the area planning

an extension in the future.

But I'm afraid it comes too late for Sue and Paul

who are very disappointed they were not made aware of this in advance.

We put their case and Martin and Ciaran's

to the body that checks the level of council tax,

the Valuation Office Agency or the VOA.

And they reiterated that in both cases

the adapted layout of the buildings meant that,

in the eyes of the law, each had become two separate dwellings.

And they pointed out

that when Martin and Ciaran's property was marketed,

it was actually advertised as having a one bedroom annexe.

The VOA then went on to explain that they always make their decisions

based on the physical characteristics of a building,

rather than whether anybody lives in the extension,

or whether it has a separate postal address or utilities.

They told us that if a homeowner disagrees with the decision,

they can always ask for a review

and if they're still not happy with the decision,

there's an independent valuation tribunal which they can go to.

But there is good news for people like Sue and Paul and anyone else

who's genuinely using their extension as a granny annexe.

In April 2014, the law was changed

so that if you have a family member living in this type of extension

they could get a 50% reduction to the second council tax bill.

And if they're over 65, or disabled,

they will be exempt from paying altogether.

But if, like Martin and Ciaran,

your extra space was added just to make your home bigger,

then there's no such reduction available.

And while the second round of changes they've made to the property

has led to their home being classed as just one dwelling again,

they had no idea that this situation could ever even arise.

We bought this bungalow on the understanding

that we were told by both the estate agents and the solicitors

that it's one property.

That's what we bought it on and if we had been told otherwise,

we would've walked away from it.

Now, here's a question to make you go hot and cold all over.

Have you ever lost your car keys?

And do you know for sure where the spare key is,

or if you even have one at all?

Well, for one Rip-Off Britain viewer, not having a spare key for her car

has led to a host of problems that, if she can't sort them out,

will leave her hugely out of pocket.

Mention the name Dagenham, East London,

and there's one particular car brand which will typically spring to mind.

This is where the line starts at Dagenham.

Fords call it a carousel,

a worker's merry-go-round on which the belly of the car is built.

Nicola Baker is a teacher in the town.

Normally her attention's taken up with the rigours of marking

and lesson planning.

But when her mind does turn to transport, her choice of wheels

has inevitably been influenced by her home and her dad, Frank.

He worked at the Dagenham car plant for 35 years,

so, little wonder that when she bought a car it was a Ford Fiesta.

Love driving the car, windows down, especially when it was hot,

being a bright red car it was very easily noticeable

so, all my friends liked it, as well.

But then, in the early hours of one morning in May 2013,

Nicola's pride and joy was stolen from outside her house.

Her neighbour, Keith, saw it happen.

What do you remember that morning, Keith?

4:30, alarm went off, went to the window

and I saw it pull from there going that way.

And then they just...

raced off.

With no sign of the car, Nicola called her insurer

One Call Insurance, to report the theft.

They asked her to send them the logbook,

a list of things that were left inside the vehicle,

along with the main key and any other keys she might have.

Nicola didn't think she had a spare key

so she just sent everything else off instead.

While the claim was being processed, Nicola borrowed her parents' car

just like she had when she was a teenager.

I thought, "I'll be paid out soon and I'll be able to have a new car."

But it would turn out that Nicola would be driving her parents' car

for a lot longer than any of them expected.

One Call Insurance had told her that she'd either get a new car

or the value of the car in cash, but they couldn't process the claim

until the police had sent them their report.

Months passed and Nicola repeatedly called One Call

and the police to find out why the report wasn't being sent through.

I'm ringing up regularly,

asking to find out what's happening with my claim.

One week I speak to someone

and then he's not working there the next week,

he might have given me some information,

I'm then told that the information he gave me was incorrect,

I then speak to someone else the following week.

Nobody seemed able to explain to Nicola properly

what was behind the delay.

Finally, almost five months after the car was stolen,

One Call received the report.

I was so thrilled that the police report had arrived

at the insurance company, I thought, "OK, this is going to be it."

But a further three and a half months passed

and One Call still hadn't paid out on Nicola's claims.

Eventually, they told her why.

She hadn't returned the spare car key.

I get a phone call to say without the spare key to the car

the claim will not be going through.

I didn't actually remember getting a spare key

when I bought the car, but when the insurance company spoke to Fords,

on the log it says that I had two keys.

Still unsure that she even had a spare key at all,

Nicola thought that if there was one, it could only be in one place.

The keys are always kept at Mum and Dad's house in their kitchen

so I went to the kitchen, took out the key that was in there,

the only key, that must be the spare key to my car.

Sent off the spare key to the car thinking, that's that done,

a bit sooner to getting the money.

But the insurance company told her that the key she'd sent

wasn't the spare key for her car

because it didn't match the main key she'd already sent.

And to Nicola's utter astonishment,

for that reason her claim was rejected.

The insurance company accused her of making a false claim.

The insurance company have said without the spare key

and the spare key that I had didn't fit the car,

they would not pay out the claim for the car.

Keen to get to the bottom of what could have happened, Nicola asked

the insurer to send back the key she thought could've been her spare.

After all, if it wasn't her key,

it must have been the spare for one of her parents' cars.

But they didn't return it.

I asked for the car key back, to have as my property.

It's not been sent back, so I still haven't got it.

Nicola can't understand why her insurer hasn't explained

what they mean by a false claim

and she says it feels like the finger is being pointed at her.

I didn't arrange the theft of my own car.

I've never done anything that's dodgy. I'm not going to start now.

They don't believe me and that's why they're not paying out.

So, Nicola is now stuck with no car, and nothing to show for the £10,000

she spent on it less than two years ago.

All because she couldn't be sure

whether she ever had a spare key for the car.

So, here's a couple of little questions for you to think about.

Do you remember how many keys came with your car?

And would you be able to tell me where your spare key is right now?

Finance expert James Daley believes Nicola's right to feel

that she's been treated unfairly.

And he's never before come across a claim being

turned down for this reason.

If an insurance company asks you to send a spare key then yes,

send it to them, but if you've lost it, that is perfectly acceptable,

you just need to let them know you have lost it.

That can't be used as evidence that you've made a fraudulent claim

unless they've got something to back it up with.

One Call's refusal to pay out

doesn't just mean Nicola's out of pocket.

It could also have a serious impact

on her ability to get car insurance in the future

as she'd have to declare that she's previously had insurance withdrawn.

But James thinks there could yet be a solution.

She needs to write a stern letter to her insurance company and say,

"Look, my car was stolen.

"There's no evidence that I was fraudulent here.

"I accidently sent you the wrong key, as it happens I've lost

"the spare key. If you don't pay me out immediately

"I am going to take this claim on to the Financial Ombudsman Service."

That's a free service, it's independent, and I would be amazed

if they didn't uphold this case in favour of the customer.

When we put all that to One Call Insurance on Nicola's behalf,

they stood by their decision that she does not have a valid claim.

They told us that they too had advised Nicola to take her complaint

to the Financial Ombudsman Service but as she hadn't done this,

they have referred the matter to the Ombudsman themselves.

And they don't consider it appropriate to comment further

while they wait for the Ombudsman's decision.

But while it's good news that the case is being looked at

by the Ombudsman,

Nicola still can't quite believe that her predicament boils down to her

not being sure where she might have put a spare car key.

First of all it was annoyance,

annoying how long it had taken for the claim to go through.

Then it was frustration

because obviously no-one seemed to want to listen to me.

The fact that the insurance company have made me feel

that I've had something to do with this claim.

For now, Nicola can only dream of the time

that she can afford her own car again.

And in the meantime, she'll just have to keep on borrowing her dad's.

Still to come on Rip-Off Britain -

the railway works that have split a community in half,

and locals say have had a devastating affect

on their lives and businesses.

To have this done to us, you know, we've got all that extra expense

which nobody's going to compensate us for.

It's just like being ripped off.

Once again, we've opened up our pop-up shop.

And, this year, we've come to one of the biggest shopping centres

in the West Midlands.

Yes, for one weekend only,

we've brought our team of experts on the road

to offer advice on all kinds of things -

you come along, we'll try to help.

As Julia says, we've brought along the entire team to make sure

that we give you all the tools and information that you need

to ensure that, the next time you hand over your cash,

you're not ripped off.

-Hi, how are you?

-Hello.

-Thanks very much for coming.

'After being told that the vouchers she'd been bought for her birthday

'were no longer valid, Debra Bate called in

'to see Trading Standards expert Sylvia Rook.'

My 40th birthday was last year

and a group of friends bought me some vouchers for a beauty salon.

Before I could use them, the salon changed hands

and the new salon refused to honour the vouchers.

And I contacted the previous owner

and they refused to refund the value of the vouchers, either.

So I'm left with £55 worth of beauty salon vouchers that I can't use.

What assurance did the previous owner give you

that the vouchers would actually be valid?

When I found out that she was selling the business,

I contacted her and she said

that it had been agreed in the transfer of the business

that the new salon would honour the vouchers.

But, when I went to the salon, they refused to.

And you didn't have anything in writing to that effect, did you?

-No.

-No. So what about that, then, Sylvia?

It's a really sad story,

and it's one of these stories we get quite a lot,

where a business has gone bust and a new business takes over

and it doesn't have to take over liabilities

of the previous business.

But the company didn't go bust,

they just sold that part of the business.

The business is still going, they're still operating,

but just not in that shop.

Well, certainly the original business is in breach of contract.

The new business doesn't have to honour it.

It's very unfortunate.

Unless there was something in writing,

saying that they would honour vouchers.

They're a separate legal entity.

So then you're back to look at the previous owner.

Because you could argue they're in breach of contract

and, if they were a present, the person that has to make the claim

is the person that bought the vouchers.

And if you find out that somebody's going out of business,

if they say somebody else will take on the liability,

don't trust them unless you've got something in writing.

I think on moral grounds, surely, you go back and say,

"Look, there is no legal contract for the new owner,

"but you took the money, I haven't had the treatment..."

All I want, really, is what's fair,

and it doesn't seem right that one company can sell vouchers,

sell the business and then nobody has the responsibility.

-At least you've got a couple of routes to go.

-Yeah.

It's always worth trying, because you lose nothing by trying.

The thing is you look beautiful anyway,

so you don't need that beauty treatment.

THEY LAUGH

'Meanwhile, out in our workshop area,

'legal expert Gary Rycroft and Julia were busy entertaining the crowds.'

Music!

MUSIC: YMCA by Village People

# It's fun to stay at the YMCA

# It's fun to stay at the YMCA... #

'Julia, don't give up the day job!

'But the hard hats and dance routine

'were to catch the attention of passing shoppers

'as Gary dished out tips and advice

'on how to avoid being ripped off by bogus tradesmen.'

It's always a good idea

to have something written down in black and white

and a good quality tradesmen will be more than happy

to give you a contract that sets out

the work that they're going to do for you,

who's going to be responsible for making good things that go wrong,

whether they're insured and also when payments are going to be made

cos, clearly, you want to know when you to have to pay for it.

Does your home insurance cover if any building work goes wrong

or does that not count?

No, it doesn't, because you're asking someone

to come in and carry out work on your behalf,

so you really want to know that a builder, plumber has insurance...

Oh, so they've got to be insured.

..so that you can pursue them for a claim

if they do something that causes your property to go down in value.

'Gary wrapped things up with another quick tip

'to help if something DOES go wrong.'

What about things like taking before and after photographs?

Photos are wonderful.

It's a really good idea to take before and after photos and videos.

Nothing's better than keeping track of it as it moves along

so, if it all goes wrong in the end, and you need to make a claim in law

in the county court, you've got the evidence that you need

-to prove your case.

-Good advice.

-Thank you.

We're all used to hearing complaints about Britain's railways.

But, for some of the people getting most steamed up

about our rail network, it's not about delays or fares.

In fact, they may not have even stepped on a train.

They're angry about the effect

that repairs and improvements to the rail service

have on their homes and businesses -

work that sometimes begins with very little notice

and can drag on for weeks.

Tim Webb's family have lived

and worked on this farm in Wiltshire for around 60 years.

Farming to me is very, very important.

It's a good way of life and I enjoy it a lot

but, this year, we had something happen

that was nothing we were ever prepared for.

In March, the farm faced one of the biggest challenges in its history.

Network Rail, who run and maintain Britain's railway tracks,

closed the nearby bridge at Dauntsey Lock.

This bridge not only links the local villages of Lyneham and Dauntsey,

it also sits slap bang in the middle of the fields

that the Webb family work.

The closure was to allow the line between Bristol and London

to be electrified, which should result in faster journeys

when travelling between the two cities.

At first, even though the works were scheduled to last five months,

Tim wasn't too worried, as there are three other smaller roads

to reach the land on the other side of the bridge.

When they said they were going to shut the bridge, I thought,

"Oh, yeah, that won't be too bad."

But, you know, when it did actually happen,

it was a lot worse than we ever, ever imagined it would be.

Three weeks after the bridge closure,

Wiltshire County Council also shut the three alternative routes

after complaints from residents about the high volume of traffic

and unsuitable heavy vehicles using them.

All of which meant that this pretty part of the country

was suddenly a divided one -

with what residents say had a catastrophic effect

on their lives and businesses.

Tim and his neighbours were forced to make a 20-mile detour

to get from one side of the bridge to the other.

The journey used to take Tim a matter of minutes.

Now, it was taking up to an hour each way.

With the bridge shut, it takes an extra 20 miles.

With the tractor only doing 16mph, you know,

you're talking two hours a day extra to get to where you...

there and back, so I mean, you know, it's not very good at all.

And the bridge closure didn't just cost Tim time.

He also claims he suffered a drop of about 20% in passing trade

at his farm shop since the closure began in March.

We're all small, independent businesses.

You know, we're not multinational companies, we make our own money -

but to have this done to us, you know,

we've got all that extra expense

which nobody's going to compensate us for.

It's just like being ripped off.

Other local businesses, while recognising the need for the work,

say they were disastrously affected, too.

We're finding it very difficult to do deliveries.

The 24-mile round detour is horrendous for staffing costs,

extra fuel, and you cannot pass those costs onto the customer.

You can't do a bouquet of flowers for £20

and ask for £15 delivery charges.

So our business is absorbing all those extra costs

and we're struggling.

The difficulties for businesses on both sides of the tracks here

is part of a much bigger national picture.

And it's a picture the people here were powerless to halt.

The works were part of a much-needed upgrade of the country's railways.

Although the electrification of the network

has been ongoing for decades,

the UK still lags behind the rest of Europe

when it comes to providing a modern rail network.

Time for nursery, love. Ready?

But local resident Andy Humm speaks for many

when he says that, in situations like this,

where communities are affected in a major way,

more should be done by Network Rail to help.

The diversions are really a pain in the neck.

We've got issues with emergency services, education, buses.

There's been a lack of thought,

a lack of consideration to the local community

in the way that it was managed.

Andy takes it in turns with his wife to take their granddaughter, Lilly,

to nursery three times a week.

They live in Lyneham,

but the nursery is situated on the Dauntsey side of the tracks.

So what was an easy journey became an 80-minute round trip.

That's two journeys, that's obviously 44 miles.

Three days, you're looking about, on average,

about another 150 miles per week.

That's actually working out to be £18 a week,

which is quite a lot of money

when you're trying to do the best for your grandchild.

Locals here feel they've had a pretty raw deal.

And Network Rail does have an awful lot of freedom

when it comes to doing work of this sort.

They're what's known as statutory undertakers.

That might sound grim,

but what it actually means is that,

like energy and communication companies,

they have special privileges when it comes to development work,

and can sidestep normal planning regulations and rules.

If you lose money as a result of negligence

by a statutory undertaker, you can apply for compensation.

But individuals aren't eligible

if they just have to make longer journeys.

And, for businesses,

a drop in passing trade doesn't qualify you either.

So it looks as if these residents will get nothing

for the inconvenience caused by the bridge closure.

I feel rather annoyed and upset

in the fact that we're not benefitting.

And we've been hit hard.

Financially, we've been hit hard.

When we contacted Network Rail,

they told us that electrifying the Great Western Main Line

will "improve the journeys of millions of people."

But, of course, that work can't be done without creating

"extra clearance for overhead power lines,"

something that often requires road closures.

They told us they sympathised with local businesses

over the reduction in passing trade,

but that there is, unfortunately,

"no legal basis for a claim for compensation,"

and it is "vital for taxpayers"

that the project is delivered "as efficiently as possible."

They also said that they

"worked closely with Wiltshire County Council"

to plan the work in a way that "caused minimal disruption"

and they made sure residents "were kept informed throughout."

But Tim and Andy don't think that residents

were informed enough about the work.

For Network Rail, I think lessons need to be learned

in the fact that they do need to talk

and involve the community more so than they have done in the past.

TRAIN HORN

Well, since we filmed in Dauntsey,

the bridge has reopened - ahead of schedule!

So, while they remain annoyed, residents did at least

get three weeks less disruption than was originally on the cards.

If you'd like more advice

on any of the situations we investigate on the programme,

all you have to do is to log on to our website -

bbc.co.uk/ripoffbritain -

and there you'll find a huge range of practical information

on everything from cold calling and how to check a company's credentials

to warnings on the latest scams to look out for.

You'll also find hints and tips

from the experts and workshops at our pop-up shop,

some of which can really save you money.

With more cars than ever on British roads,

keeping the traffic moving

while also keeping drivers, passengers and pedestrians safe

is quite a big challenge.

So playing their part is everything from speed bumps

and one-way systems to traffic calming and bus lanes.

They're often monitored by an army of traffic cameras

that record your number plate and then trigger a system

that sends a fine directly to your home a few days later.

Now, if it's a fair cop, then you might just pay the fine,

chalk it down to experience

and vow to drive a bit more carefully next time.

But what happens if you don't think you broke the rules?

Well, across the country,

thousands of drivers are in exactly that situation,

after cameras caught them driving in bus lanes

that they say they didn't even know were there.

For hundreds of years, the medieval city of York

was confined firmly inside the city walls.

And, although the city has long since spread beyond those walls,

the heart of town is still crammed into narrow streets and bridges

that are no wider now than they were when horses and carts pounded them.

And that makes things tough for York's 200,000 residents.

Among them, Nigel Rhodes.

At times, it can become a bit of a nightmare...

with the congestion.

Nigel volunteers for a local charity,

driving elderly people in and out of York city centre.

But, on one trip in August 2013, he hadn't realised

that York Council had introduced new rules

to calm congestion in the city.

I came straight through the lights at green and proceeded up here,

just going about my business, never saw no cameras, never saw any signs.

The council's new rules meant that they would now be responsible

for enforcing traffic restrictions, rather than North Yorkshire Police,

and camera enforcement would be used to monitor

the new bus lanes where Nigel had driven -

along Coppergate and also around the city's Lendal Bridge -

to ensure that, during the daytime, only buses and taxis were allowed.

All other cars were banned.

But the first Nigel knew about that was a week later,

when he was sent a £60 fine.

He insists he couldn't see anything

to tell drivers that new measures were in place.

But even now, weeks later, Nigel still thinks the Coppergate cameras

could catch out drivers who don't know that they're there.

Like, where that bus is now and that car's behind there,

how can they see that sign there?

The driver is on right-hand side and he's right behind that bus.

And then, when the bus pulls off when he's behind him,

there's no way as he goes across there

that he knows that he's not allowed to go into Coppergate.

The signs ARE there,

but it may be that, driving along here,

you wouldn't have spotted them either.

So, while the restrictions that caught out Nigel are in York,

there are similar situations happening in towns and cities

right across the country.

Because there are plenty of other councils

who've brought in part-time bus lanes

as a way of tackling heavy traffic

and, at the same time, plenty of other drivers who -

like Nigel - say the new rules have NOT been made clear.

Motoring lawyer Nick Freeman, famously known as "Mr Loophole",

says it's crucial that when councils introduce new regulations like this,

they have enough signs for drivers to spot.

If there is a serious congestion problem,

and the council feel that they need to have bus lanes,

they need to comply with the appropriate provisions

and appropriate legislation and they need to make sure

that these bus lanes are properly signed and properly demarked.

But that isn't always the case.

And certainly in York, there are lots of drivers

who'd agree with Nigel that the signs were NOT sufficiently clear.

The new rules led to 57,000 motorists receiving penalty charges,

netting the council a total of £1.3 million.

Even the local tourist board joined in the row,

raising concerns that unsuspecting tourists were being fined.

And many drivers, Nigel included,

felt so strongly about this that they refused to pay

and took their case to the traffic penalty tribunal -

a free, independent adjudication process

that's the final port of call for anyone disputing a parking

or bus lane penalty that's been issued by their local council.

The adjudicator agreed with Nigel,

and others who'd complained at the same time,

that the signage on Coppergate and Lendal Bridge was NOT adequate.

And in August 2014, a year after Nigel drove over Lendal Bridge,

City of York Council made a big decision.

Just as this programme was being finished, they told us that,

subject to their normal approval procedures,

they plan to refund all motorists who were fined

for driving over Lendal Bridge.

And they'll open up an application process for people to do that.

They point out the bridge restrictions

were only in place for a six-month trial, which has NOT been extended.

But they say that, on Coppergate,

while the traffic cameras might have been new,

the restrictions had been in place for quite some time,

so the council told us that they intend to challenge

the Traffic Penalty Review's decision on the signage here.

But they added that the traffic cameras have since been removed.

Some believe it can suit local authorities

to have confusing rules and regulations around bus lanes,

as those caught out can provide useful funds

to cash-strapped councils' coffers.

The reason that Lendal Bridge didn't work

was because the signage was described,

on an appeal by a traffic adjudicator, as being inadequate.

Motorists tend to be law-abiding citizens -

they're not going to knowingly drive in a bus lane,

knowing that it's going to be recorded on camera,

knowing that it's going to cost them hard-earned cash.

But York isn't the only city where there's been controversy

over whether the new rules around bus lanes

have been signposted well enough.

In fact, it's happened across the country.

In Birmingham, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal ruled

that signage was not adequate at a number of city centre bus lanes,

leading the council to review 18,000 penalties

but, despite the ruling, they've only refunded 218 drivers.

In Essex, the county council agreed to repay or cancel

30,000 fines issued from bus lanes in Colchester.

And, in Bath, the council refunded 7,200 penalty charge notices,

totalling more than £200,000,

after they acknowledged that some motorists found it difficult

to adjust to the changes and to alter their normal travel patterns.

It seems that, nationwide, there's a lot of confusion -

and embarrassment -

that does nothing to solve the problems that the bus lanes

were designed for in the first place.

The whole purpose of having a bus lane

is not to set a trap to the motorist.

The purpose, the spirit behind the bus lane

is to ensure that you have a bus lane for buses to use.

I think the difficulties that councils have at the moment

is that they're cash-strapped, and motorists are an easy target -

they tend to just pay up without question -

and it fills their urgently-needed coffers, which are empty.

Nigel is glad that he didn't pay up without question,

and he thinks more drivers should do as he did

and appeal any fine they consider unfair and he hopes that,

thanks to motorists like him appealing their tickets,

everyone might soon get their money back.

Well, it was a complete rip-off

and I just hope the people of York get their money back.

Here at Rip-Off Britain,

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

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.

Well, as we've just seen,

it can feel like a real David and Goliath battle

to get decisions such as the ones in today's programme overturned,

especially if you can't understand why that decision

was made in the first place.

I must say, I did find some of those stories

rather surprising and extremely interesting.

But I'm sure we've given you plenty of food for thought

should you find yourself going through something similar,

especially if you're planning on building an extension

or that granny annexe!

But, on that note, that's where we have to leave you for today,

but do please keep telling us who you think has treated you unfairly

and we'll keep trying to get to the bottom of what's gone on.

And, indeed, you can contact us through our website...

..where you'll also find lots of tips and advice from our experts,

as well as details of how you could take part in future programmes,

including a very special week of live programmes

that we've got coming up that we'd love you to get involved in.

But, for now, thanks for watching and you'll see you us all very soon.

-Bye-bye.

-BOTH: Bye-bye.