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 is not up to scratch.'

They should be looking after their customers and they don't.

Loyalty to the customers is a very low priority.

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

'investigate the extra charges you say are unfair.'

Big companies, big corporations are more into the money and the numbers

than they are about the people.

'And when you've lost out, but no-one else is to blame,

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

It genuinely feels like I'm getting ripped off.

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

'we're here to find out why you are 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,

the series that's here to make sure

that whatever you spend your money on,

you're not paying over the odds,

because I think we'd all agree,

wouldn't we, that there's nothing more galling

than discovering someone else

is paying a lot less for something than you are.

It can drive you insane sometimes,

so that's why today's programme is

all about people fighting against being overcharged.

They would say that they're out of pocket after being billed

for far more than they should have been, in some cases for years.

So now they're determined to hold to account the companies and the

organisations they believe are responsible.

And if there's one thing we love on this programme,

it's someone who's made a stand to help others around them save money.

We really do love that, don't we? We do.

Which is just what I found when I

visited a council estate in Sheffield.

Now, I came away with some really valuable knowledge,

and it could well pay off for you, too.

Coming up: why this man is the Robin Hood of water bills,

determined to help his neighbour save as much money as he has.

Your estimated bill is ?214.50. That's almost ?300...

Yes! ..less!

Oh, God, it's the best news I've had in a long time.

And they've saved hundreds of pounds by regularly switching their energy

company, but this canny couple nearly came a cropper after their

supplier caused a problem that they didn't see coming.

I was absolutely stunned.

I just didn't know what to think.

I'm angry, angry, very angry.

I guess for most of us,

a good chunk of our annual spending goes on paying utility bills.

And while with gas and electricity it should be fairly easy to work out

what we owe, because, put quite simply, you pay for what you use.

It isn't always quite as straightforward with water.

And when one Rip-off Britain viewer started to suspect that he was

perhaps paying more than he should have been for his water,

it started a whole chain of events that has led to him trying to slash

his neighbour's bills as well as his own.

Hello, Michael. Hello, are you all right?

Yes. This is a man on a mission.

After discovering how much less he could pay for his water,

Michael Johnson wants to stop his neighbours pouring their hard-earned

cash down the drain too, by telling them what savings they could make.

Now, do you know how much you pay on your water bill?

Yes. How much do you pay?

?7.69 a week.

7.69. How does that compare then, Michael?

Right, so, basically, this year you'll be paying ?384.50.

So, you should be paying ?203.94.

Crikey. Well, that's a big difference, isn't it?

Michael has lived in a council flat in the Langsett Estate in Sheffield

for the last 20 years.

And he's always kept a careful eye on his finances.

Michael, do you reckon you're somebody

who's pretty conscious about how much

you spend on your household bills?

I try to be.

Every light bulb in my flat is an energy saver.

I've got a block that you put in your water tank, your toilets,

to save water. I've got an adapter in my shower, to save water.

Well, yeah, I've got things like that, you know what I mean?

But even Michael hadn't always paid much attention to his water bill,

because it was just added to the rent payments

that he made to the council every week.

In any case, he knew that, unlike gas or electricity,

you can't change your water supplier.

Even so, that ?11.10 weekly payment adds up to more than ?550 a year,

which seemed a lot for a cost-conscious single man

living in a council flat.

Particularly when he found out

what some of his friends were being charged.

I was talking to some chaps at work, and one chap says,

"Well, I'm paying sort of ?600.

But there's, like, five of them in a house.

And I thought, "Well, I'm paying ?550."

Intrigued as to why, living alone,

he was paying almost the same as a family of five,

Michael started doing some research

and he soon found that there are only

two ways by which customers can be charged for their water in the UK.

The tried and tested method still used by most of us,

where the water companies charge you based on the rateable value of your

house, or you pay according to your actual usage,

which is usually measured by a meter.

So Michael went online and found an app from the

Consumer Council for Water,

which gives an idea of how much your bill

might be if you did have a meter installed.

So this is your water meter...

What is it? Water meter calculator?

Yeah, it's Consumer Council for Water,

and it's a water meter calculator.

Basically, you put in your water company,

which is from a drop-down list.

Yeah, so we got Yorkshire.

So we've got Yorkshire water, there we go.

Right. Number of people in household.

One. One. And if you know how much you're paying at the moment,

you put that in. Well, mine, with the council, is ?555.

Right. 555.

Right. There we go.

And then press calculate up there.

Wow! Estimated bill for me this year.

?192.79 instead of 555!

It's one heck of a saving.

With savings like that, Michael was keen

to have a water meter installed,

but he needed permission from the council first.

Once that had been granted,

Yorkshire Water came round within a week,

but it turned out that the layout of his building

meant that a meter could not be fitted. But all was not lost.

Instead, he was able to apply to the water company for his charges to be

adjusted, so that they would be based on an

estimate of what he would have

paid if a meter had been put in.

Their charge for this year is ?203.94.

As opposed to 555?

?555 through Sheffield Council.

So you're saving ?300 plus?

?350 approximately, yeah.

If I had done it years ago, I mean... Quids in!

..I could have had a car by now!

THEY LAUGH

Michael is now paying his bill direct

to his local water company instead of the council.

But he doesn't remember either of them ever telling him

that there were ways that he could significantly

bring down the amount that he pays.

And he thinks they very easily could have done,

especially as his ?350 a year saving

includes a single person discount

that Yorkshire Water has been offering for nearly a decade.

You didn't know about that? I never knew about that.

I never knew whatsoever. Nobody ever told you about it?

Nobody told me about it.

No. From 2007, this discount came in, through Yorkshire Water.

Right, we're now in 2016.

Yeah, which is nine years.

Nine years ago. Yeah. That must have set the alarm bells ringing,

didn't it? It did.

Annoyed that he's been paying hundreds of pounds a year

more than he needed to, and potentially many thousands of pounds

over the time in his flat,

Michael now wants to make sure that his neighbours aren't paying

too much for their water either.

Starting with 72-year-old pensioner, Carol Lee.

Carol, now, I know you're a neighbour here of Mike.

Do you mind if I ask you, do you pay your water bill through the council,

through your rent? I pay it every week through rent, yes.

And do you know how much you pay for your water?

It's ?10.02.

And you live on your own here? Yes, I do. Right.

Do you mind if Michael sees if he can work out whether or not he can

save you any money on that?

Yes, yeah. Are you up for saving money?

I am, yeah! Aren't we all!

So Michael sets to work with the app that crunches all the figures.

So we've got here, this is a water calculator, this,

but this is just estimated, this, all right?

So, number of people in the household, which is one person.

Right? That will calculate this.

Let's see what you might be able to... Ooh!

Your estimated bill is ?214.50.

Per year. That's for a year.

Yeah. Wow.

That's almost ?300 less.

Yes, oh, God, yeah!

How do you feel about that? I'm really happy.

It's the best news I've had in a long time!

It's a holiday, isn't it? You're right there.

So you'll be down the council tomorrow morning?

I certainly will. Asking for a weet...

Asking for a "weeter meter"!

I want one of those as well!

'It's potentially a great result for Carol.

'But as Michael continues to spread the word,

'it seems unlikely that he'll ever get back any of the money that,

'as far as he's concerned, he's overpaid over the last 20 years.'

Michael, tell me what you want

now that you know you were paying too much,

and you've got a much better bill?

Do you want a refund going back 20 years?

I don't think I'm going to manage to get a 20-year refund,

but definitely something.

Because, you know,

I mean, the money's gone somewhere, hasn't it?

I mean, I've not got it.

It's cost me. So, yeah.

Hopefully, I might get some back, I'm not going to hold my breath.

Now, while Sheffield Council may not benefit financially from collecting

water payments, Michael does feel it could have made tenants,

particularly those like him in single occupancy,

more aware of the other options that are available to them through the

water company itself.

And when we spoke to the council, it told us it will now do that.

Previously, the council's annual rent review letter had included a

letter from Yorkshire Water, asking tenants to get in touch if they had

any queries about their charges.

But following Michael's discovery,

the council says it will now encourage tenants more explicitly to

contact their water supplier to make sure they are getting the best deal.

We also contacted Yorkshire Water,

which stressed its commitment to keeping bills as low as possible

and said it was pleased that Michael was able to reduce his.

It added that all customers,

including those billed through their local authority,

are able to request a water meter free of charge,

something 26,000 people did in 2015.

And if one can't be fitted, as happened in this case,

an assessed charge can be calculated that has the potential to also

result in a lower bill.

But the company reiterated that it does let customers like Michael know

about the option of water meters in that annual letter

that's sent out through the council.

Now, a water meter won't help everyone save money,

but it is usually the best option for anyone who lives alone.

And as Andrew White from the Consumer Council for Water explains,

probably around half of all homes

that don't currently have a meter might

be better off having one.

As a very broad rule of thumb,

if there is less people in your property than you have bedrooms,

then it's definitely worth checking out whether you would benefit.

And you can very easily do that

using the same calculator that helped

Michael work out his savings.

You can find it on the

Consumer Council for Water's website and we've

added a link to it on our website, too.

People can go on there and easily, within about five minutes,

just enter some details about the amount of water they use

and that will give them a pretty accurate indication

of what they will pay if they were to have a water meter installed.

And if you do get a meter,

and it turns out to be more expensive than you'd expect,

you still have at least 12 months to change your mind.

You have a minimum of at least one year

after that meter's been installed

to decide, "Actually, I'd like to go back to the old system,

"I want to go back to unmeasured charges."

And if you choose to do that,

then they'll put you back onto the old system.

So while exploring the meter option could pay off for anyone,

if Michael's experience is anything to go by,

it may be especially useful for the hundreds of thousands of people

across the UK who pay their water bill

through a local authority or housing association.

Those organisations generally will inform tenants that a

meter is available.

But it may not be immediately obvious

just how one could help you save

money or how much that saving could be.

With the onus on customers to make the checks for themselves,

Michael is determined to ensure that people where he lives are aware of

what they need to do.

So what are you hoping as a result of this programme and as a result of

the fact that you brought this to people's notice?

What do you want to happen now?

What I want to happen now is for people

to start realising how much money they're paying out unnecessarily.

But especially if they are single and they're paying it

through the council rent.

Have it checked out. So if they can save, like me, ?350 on just one

item, on water,

it's a lot of money for them,

do you know what I mean?

You know, it's a fact that we wouldn't be here without all the

e-mails and letters that you send us.

They really are the backbone of the programme.

And when the viewer in our next film got in touch,

we simply had to investigate the story.

TELEVISION: 'Are you trying to save money on your energy bills?'

Now, how many times have you heard us say that one of the simplest

ways to save money is by switching your energy supplier?

TELEVISION: 'Comparing energy providers! Oh, joy.'

It's something Terence Woodings from Blackpool has

certainly taken on board.

Over the past four or five years, we've been with E.ON,

we've been with Flow, we've been with the Co-op and Extra Energy.

This year, we changed to npower,

because theirs was the cheapest tariff.

Well done you. And by changing their energy provider every 12 months,

Terence and his wife Lesley have saved themselves a lot of money.

In 2012, we were paying ?147 a month.

We're now paying ?96 a month.

I would reckon, on average, we must have saved round about ?200 a year,

which is, to me, a lot of money.

I could do a lot of good with that.

But not everyone's as switching-savvy as these two.

In fact, more than half of us still haven't switched at all.

I've never switched my energy suppliers.

The reason being because it's just far too complicated.

It does feel like it's a long job,

it's a mission and you have to contact people and phone up

and all these long things.

It does feel like an effort.

For the sake of maybe saving ?50 or ?100 a year,

I don't really think it's worth the effort and the hassle of changing.

But actually, switching really shouldn't be any hassle at all and

not doing so really does mean you're losing out,

as has recently been confirmed by one of the biggest investigations

ever conducted into the energy industry.

TELEVISION: 'Now gas and electricity companies

'are to be forced by the energy regulator

'to help cut millions of household bills.

'They're also asking for clearer information on bills,

'a wider range of tariffs and moves

'to encourage more people to switch suppliers.'

The two-year study by the Competition and Markets Authority

found that a whopping 70% of customers

of the big six energy companies

are paying too much for their gas and electricity.

That's usually because they've stuck to the supplier's standard tariffs,

which typically work out the most expensive.

As a result, their bills are probably 30% higher than they could

be, which means that, as a nation,

we are paying those companies a colossal

?1.4 billion more than we need to.

No wonder industry regulator Ofgem has announced new plans to encourage

more of us to shop around.

Not that Terence needs any encouragement

on that front, of course.

He looks for any excuse to shave money off his bills.

But sorry to say, his most recent energy switch

had a very nasty sting in its tail.

About three months after we'd taken the tariff from npower,

I applied for a credit card.

And it was refused, and I was devastated.

To Terence's amazement,

the explanation turned out to be

that when he'd applied for dual fuel with

npower it had run two credit checks on him,

and his credit rating had been damaged as a result.

My credit score has always been very high, but then I found

that these entries had reduced my credit score substantially.

The higher your credit score,

the easier it is for you to borrow at lower interest rates.

A low score, however, could affect

your ability to get a loan, mortgage,

or as Terence found, a credit card.

Dumbfounded that simply switching his energy provider

could have had such a damaging effect,

he complained to npower,

which replied that it was the company's normal practice to make

two separate checks for a dual fuel tariff.

I was absolutely stunned.

I just didn't know what to think.

Angry, angry, very angry, because

if we were the sort of people that didn't pay our bills,

and we owed money all over,

we had County Court judgments, then, yeah, fine,

I could understand that, but that isn't the case.

We pay our bills. And that's when the couple contacted us.

To help Terence and Leslie find out what's gone on

and what they can do

to sort it out, we've put them in touch

with finance expert Hannah Maundrell.

What we want to know is why has this happened with npower?

Why have they damaged his credit rating?

So, when you apply for a new energy tariff,

energy companies have started doing a credit check on you.

And some of them do something called a hard search,

which is like a full credit check on your credit report.

Yeah. And what that tells them is that if you're going to be paying

by monthly direct debit,

that you've managed credit well in the past

and that they know they can trust

you to make those payments in the future.

There are two kinds of credit check.

What's called a soft search,

in which a company takes a look at your credit file

but doesn't go into detail,

and a hard search, which makes a thorough assessment

of whether you're a good credit risk.

But, as happened here,

those hard checks can reduce your credit score and leave footprints on

your file showing that you've applied for credit.

The more of those that show up in a short space of time,

the more money a new lender might assume you have tried to borrow.

You'll see two entries there, because the energy company

has searched for your gas and also your electricity.

What it's done is shown that

you've applied for these new energy tariffs, so that a future lender

looking at your, you and your credit history,

can see that you've had that happen,

and that you've applied to these new accounts.

Which is just what happened when Terence applied for that new

credit card. The company ran a third hard check on his records

and were spooked to see the other recent activities on his file.

So the checks intended to see if

Terence and Leslie were good potential customers

had in this case made it seem the opposite might be true.

But Hannah has some reassuring words.

That won't last forever, and other lenders

will still consider lending to you.

Those searches on your credit score

are just one of many things that

a future lender would take into consideration when they are deciding

whether to grant you credit on, or a new account.

That includes things like affordability,

whether you are on the electoral roll, whether you've got

a landline phone and whether you've got any missed payments.

Now, although it was npower's checks

that led to Terence's credit card application being refused,

the company hasn't been keen to help put things right.

Fortunately, however,

getting future lenders to understand what's happened is something Terence

can do himself by asking Experian, the credit agency npower used,

to put what's called a note of correction on his file.

You could do the same if there's any sort of mistake on your file.

It's basically an explanatory note providing background information for

companies searching credit reports.

And they must take what it says into account when deciding

whether to provide you with a service or credit.

So Hannah's confident it'll put Terence's situation right

and shouldn't discourage the couple

from pursuing savings again in the future.

You know, you're doing the right thing by switching.

Having a search on your credit rating

isn't something that is necessarily going to stop you

getting future financial products.

However, just don't be put off switching energy companies.

Oh, no, we won't, we won't be, I won't be.

Three of the big six energy companies - British Gas,

E.ON and, of course, npower,

regularly run these hard credit checks on new customers,

while ScottishPower does it more occasionally.

But any company that wants to run a hard search

must tell you before they do it,

and you have every right to say no and walk away.

Now, we asked npower about the checks

it made on Terence's credit report,

and it stressed that even though Terence

switched to a dual fuel tariff,

it's still classed as two accounts.

Therefore two credit checks were completed.

It said that Terence did give consent for the credit check

when he made his application,

something that's in the terms and conditions.

But Terence says if he'd known two checks would be run,

and the potential repercussions of that,

he wouldn't have gone through with his application.

Luckily this kind of hiccup is rare,

and switching supplier does generally go without a hitch.

But if you're still not sold on moving to a different company,

just picking up the phone to your existing one

could still save you plenty of cash.

Switching's always going to be the way to save the most possible,

and you can save up to ?600 by doing that,

for about five minutes' work.

If you don't want to switch energy

supplier for any reason,

then pick up the phone to your current supplier.

You can take action to not be

the 70% sitting on the most expensive standard tariff.

They'll be able to tell you what is the cheapest tariff with them

and be able to switch you to it very quickly.

And there are ways to limit that slim chance of something going wrong

as it did for Terence.

When you're switching, switch with a price comparison website,

because that will mean that you've got someone on hand who is an expert

and able to support you

in challenging any issues with your new supplier.

But if you've got a major issue and it isn't resolved for a long time,

then you can go and speak to the energy ombudsman

and they'll take up your case for you.

It's hoped the Competition And Market Authorities Report

will lead to industry improvements

to stop those on the wrong tariff

paying too much, and encourage competition

to push prices down.

But in the meantime, you can be sure of one thing.

When their 12 months with npower are up,

Terence and Leslie will once again be switching

to whichever energy company can offer them the best deal.

My advice to people is do it.

Shop around and do it.

You can't shop around for your council tax,

you can't shop around for your water,

but you can shop around for your energy.

There's got to be something better for you out there,

if you can find it.

Still to come on Rip-Off Britain...

Why this couple are battling to get the little-known funding

they think should have paid for his elderly mother's care.

Cath spent a quarter of a million pounds on her care, ?227,000,

which is an enormous amount of money,

so we had no option other than to sell the property.

Every year we take Rip-Off Britain out on the road.

Hello, girls. Hello, ladies.

Hi, how are you? Nice to see you. Out doing some shopping?

And this time, it was Manchester playing host to

our annual pop-up shop at one of the UK's biggest shopping centres.

As ever, our team of experts was on hand with tips and advice

to empower you to take action.

You will not consider it, you will do it.

SHE LAUGHS

I will definitely do it.

And amongst those coming in to see financial ombudsman

Martin James were these two people,

who were very unhappy with the warranty they'd bought

alongside their new leather furniture.

So, Martin, we've got Carol and Mike here and they need your help.

Carol and Mike's warranty cost ?250,

but they thought it a worthwhile expense for the five years of cover

it offered, so five months in,

when they spotted some staining on the sofa,

they thought it would be a straightforward claim.

We noticed that we had a mark on it,

that there was this red dye from, I think, from a cushion,

so we had a warranty for five years that covered, you know,

damage to the suite.

So I rang them up and the response was, "Cushions aren't covered."

I said, "What? Why aren't cushions covered?"

So they just said, "Well, they're not."

The warranty did cover all sorts of other possible staining,

from newspapers, clothing and even deliberate damage by children,

but cushions? Apparently not.

Our problem was that when we purchased the suite,

we were given the option to take the warranty out.

It was never pointed out that cushions were excluded.

It's quite key, isn't it? Yeah.

A cushion, you would put cushions on a suite.

I mean, Martin, is it normal for cushions to be excluded?

I've never heard of that. Do you know, the number of

bizarre exclusions in warranties we've seen over the years,

it never ceases to amaze me.

Yes, unfortunately we do get exclusions for cushions,

but that doesn't mean it's fair.

When we look at complaints about warranties,

our starting point is saying,

even if it does say this in the contract,

is that fair or is it reasonable?

Could you reasonably have been expected to have known that?

Well, I think that's really interesting, actually,

what you're saying, that even if it says "not covered",

if it doesn't seem fair, you've still got some redress.

Yeah. If you've got an insurance contract, and it's a key clause,

something you really, really need to know about,

that should be specified in a key facts booklet

right at the beginning,

so you know precisely what you're dealing with,

and it should be highlighted when you take out the policy as well.

But as this warranty is covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service,

Martin's team is going to see what it can do.

The good news, this is regulated.

It's always worthwhile double checking

before you buy a warranty anyway. Yeah. But this is covered.

We can look into it.

And I think maybe we'll just have a little chat with the insurer,

and see if they are willing to take a more reasonable approach.

After filming, the Ombudsman service

did look into Carol and Mike's case,

and recommended that the business

covered the cost of repairing the sofa.

But the company didn't agree

and asked the ombudsman to review the case afresh,

so it's now doing that, with an outcome expected in the autumn.

Out in the shopping mall,

personal finance journalist Sarah Pennells

was testing passers by with a jargon-busting quiz

on that most confusing of topics - pensions.

It's said that as many as 60% of us

don't feel that we know enough about pensions.

Do you mind if I ask you both how old you are?

I'm 27. 44.

And perhaps unsurprisingly,

younger people are reckoned to routinely underestimate

how much they need to save for retirement.

Have you got a pension? Yes.

Yes.

Oh, good! Excellent. Taken out a pension for a start.

You are perfect candidates,

because we've got our quizmaster here, Sarah Pennells.

We are going to ask you a couple of questions,

and see if you know what the terms mean, OK?

Do you know what an annuity is?

No. I think it means you get something

at the end of when you've been paying for the pension.

OK, yeah, you are on the right tracks here,

so an annuity basically converts your pension pot into regular income

that is guaranteed while you retire.

Good. I'll give you a point.

OK. Now, this one - uncrystallised pension fund.

According to Citizens Advice,

this one is officially up there amongst the most confusing bits of

pension jargon, so it's no wonder that these guys were flummoxed.

No idea. Never even heard of it. No idea at all.

Well, an uncrystallised pension fund

is basically a pension that you haven't taken any money out of.

So it's a good thing. Final question.

A defined benefit pension... Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Bad.

It's actually really good.

Oh, right, OK.

What it means is that the pension you get when you retire

depends on your salary, and not whether the stock market

has gone up or down.

Oh, OK. If anybody ever offers you a defined benefit pension...

Take it. Grab it with both hands.

It's Friday night, it's party night,

that means reading up about pensions. Oh, yes!

Back at our main pop-up shop, we saw plenty of people who,

for whatever reason, have ended up feeling very let-down.

Well, it's not fair, is it, Angela?

All them women that are in the same boat as me.

It's terrible.

And one man very hot under the collar was Jim McDonald.

He'd run into problems when his car had broken down

on the way home from holiday.

Jim, thanks for coming to see us.

And he's hoping that Trading Standards officer Sylvia Brooke

can help with what he should do next.

I was driving and suddenly just blue smoke came out the back,

the whole thing just stopped and I just wondered,

what the hell had gone on?

It turned out that the turbocharger in Jim's car had broken

and was beyond repair.

The warranty on the vehicle had run out just three months earlier,

leaving Jim to pick up the bill.

The whole deal cost me about ?1,200 to get it fixed.

Jim was sure that this particular part failing so soon

must be down to a manufacturing fault.

It's only just running at 30,000 miles,

and it should not have happened.

The rescue people had never heard of it happening.

None of them had ever heard of a turbo going

so early in the life of a car.

So Jim wrote to the manufacturers direct,

but the response he got from the managing director

left him very frustrated.

The reply from his office was that it's my fault,

because, crucially, the turbo charger needs time to slow down

before you turn the engine off.

But my car is fitted with a stop/start mechanism

which turns the car off automatically

without any slow-down time. And I thought, this is wrong,

that they've fitted the car with two things,

the turbo charge and the stop/start,

that are not complementary and potentially damaging.

Jim says that he wrote back to the company explaining this,

but it wouldn't help him any further.

I just really, really am quite angry about it.

I would just like the company to acknowledge that, really,

it isn't my fault.

Jim felt he had hit a brick wall,

but Sylvia's confident that there is another route he could try.

However irritated he might be with the manufacturer of the car,

it's the company that sold it to him in the first place

that he should speak to.

If you wanted to make any claim,

you'd have to look at the garage who sold you the car,

because that's where your contract is,

and you'd have to say that they were in breach of contract

because they're selling something not of satisfactory quality.

Do you feel any better having got it all off your chest?

Yeah, very much so, yeah.

I feel a lot better and I appreciate your interest, you know,

it's very kind of you. Anyway, thank you very much indeed.

Thank you very much for coming to see us. Nice to see you.

Thank you, Angela. Very nice. Thanks very much.

Well, I would like, really, to try and prevent anyone else

falling into any traps,

if you like, that I've fallen into.

And I'm hoping that I can now let it go.

Next, for anyone who's got long-term health needs

but isn't in hospital full-time,

the cost of all the care that's required

can really, really mount up, especially when it comes to

round-the-clock nursing care for the elderly.

Now, in some cases, families have sold their homes

and racked up literally thousands of pounds in debt

to look after their loved ones.

But as the couple in our next film found out,

after spending hundreds of thousands of pounds to look after their mum,

they might not have needed to fork out all that cash after all.

Paul and Jill Pearson from the Wirral

have many happy memories of Paul's mum, Cath.

My parents always had a canal boat

for probably 40, 50 years.

Every single holiday was always spent on the canal boat,

going as far afield as London on occasions.

Cath was my mother-in-law, and she was fabulous.

If we'd had a busy day at work,

she would always come round and there'd be a casserole made

that we could put in the oven for our tea.

She was as super a mum-in-law as ever anybody could want.

But in 2002, a year after the death of Paul's father,

Cath was diagnosed with Alzheimer's

and the family took on the responsibility

of caring for her in her home.

However, as time went on, and Cath's situation deteriorated,

aggravating already existing mental health issues and depression,

that became increasingly hard.

Life became very, very difficult for us as a family.

We would be phoned up 50 times a day.

That could be three o'clock in the morning,

four o'clock in the morning, she stopped looking after herself.

All of the standards that were typical of Cath just disappeared.

In 2006, becoming increasingly concerned

at the level of help that Cath needed,

and, indeed, concerned for her safety,

Paul and Jill took the decision

to admit her to a residential care home,

where they knew that she'd get the attention she needed.

We'd got to the point where there was no other decision to make.

We couldn't carry on longer.

We knew she couldn't carry on longer.

It was a tremendous relief, to be honest.

But that still left the question of how Cath's residential care,

costing more than ?2,000 a month, would be paid for.

Four days after she'd gone into the home,

we had a meeting with social services funding,

who went through her accounts, her savings, her home.

Other people, their real only asset is the house that they live in.

So we had no option other than to sell the property.

At no time were any other real options explained to us.

There was, however,

another source of funding that might have been available.

The NHS has a special scheme to pay for residential care for people who

have serious and continuing health needs, because of a disability,

an accident or an illness.

It's called NHS Continuing Health Care.

At the time, Paul and Jill didn't even consider that anyone other than

Cath or her family would pay for her care.

But six years later,

they started to wonder whether they should have applied for

Continuing Health Care funding all along.

It was actually coming to our attention there

that Cath's needs were getting greater and greater,

and we were starting to question things more.

So we asked the solicitor to look at the validity of our claim.

The solicitor agreed with the couple that the funding

did seem appropriate for Cath,

so between them, they pulled together evidence from her GP,

from hospital doctors, care home staff and the family itself,

and produced an exhaustive report to present to the NHS.

They hoped, if successful,

that they would be refunded at least some of the care fees

Cath had paid for so far.

While this retrospective application was being considered,

Paul and Jill asked Cath's health care team

to do a separate assessment for her future care.

That was approved, and the NHS funded Cath's care

for what turned out to be the last eight months of her life,

and by that point, there was very little of Cath's own money left.

Cath spent a quarter of a million pounds on her care.

?227,000.

Which is an enormous amount of money for somebody with modest means,

who'd got an average semidetached house.

The NHS gets around 150,000 applications

for Continuing Health Care funding every year,

and the assessments are inevitably very detailed.

So it took three years for the verdict on the family's

retrospective application to come through.

And when it did, their claim was rejected.

We were really upset, and really disappointed.

I feel frustrated and very angry that my in-laws

can't help their grandchildren start their path in life,

which is what they would have wanted to do,

because every penny of their funds has been spent on Cath's care.

Paul and Jill still find it very hard to accept that,

given her state of health,

Cath had to pay for so much of her care out of her own pocket.

I know the NHS is struggling, but Cath paid, all her life,

her contributions. I think the NHS

should have funded Cath from the word go.

If Paul and Jill can prove that Cath had a primary health need during her

time in care, the NHS will still refund some or all of her costs,

so they are appealing the original decision.

Solicitor Lisa Morgan is helping them to prepare their case.

The NHS acknowledges that 10, 15 years ago,

that people weren't assessed,

or if they were assessed, they were assessed far too restrictively,

and were being denied the funding they were entitled to.

The couple feel that the earlier assessment

didn't give sufficient weight to their personal knowledge of Cath

and her long-term medical difficulties.

I don't feel that our concerns were taken into account

as much as the written evidence.

They certainly should be taking your views into account.

The one that we regularly see is where we've seen the records,

that the care home said that, for example,

"Mrs Jones is able to communicate her needs."

Well, the family say, "My mum hasn't been able to communicate her needs

"effectively for the last ten years."

So it is important that the Commissioning Support Unit

do consider the family's views, and especially where

there's clearly contradictory evidence.

Because the NHS prioritises current claims for funding,

the appeals process can be a lengthy one.

It's a huge emotional and psychological toll

on families waiting for that time.

Yes, and I agree with you.

It is extremely frustrating for us, because this isn't a legal process.

It's an informal process.

There is no specific timeframes that they have to meet.

When we contacted the Department of Health,

which manages the Continuing Health Care Scheme,

it said that since it announced, in 2012

it would be handling retrospective applications,

59,000 people have applied.

And while it says its Clinical Commissioning Groups

have been working hard to consider all these cases,

it reiterated that current assessments must take priority,

because these are the most vulnerable individuals.

It added that there are just under 8,000 people who,

like Paul and Jill,

are awaiting a decision on a retrospective case.

But it's not possible to estimate

how many of those will prove successful

until the full assessment has been carried out.

Paul and Jill wish they'd applied to the fund from the start

so that Cath's eligibility could have been assessed right away,

rather than retrospectively.

There is no certainty the outcome would have been any different,

but Dan Harbour,

an independent expert who helps families make a claim,

thinks it's unfortunate they didn't have the opportunity.

He believes that the reason many people

aren't even aware that the funding exists

is because not all health care workers understand

which patients might be eligible.

There are still some health and social care professionals

who don't know about it, don't understand it.

It is really disappointing when somebody contacts us

and tells us they've been in care for a number of years,

and nobody has ever mentioned the NHS continuing health care to them.

Dan says cases like this one

underline how crucial it is that people wondering

how to cover the cost of care know that this fund could be an option.

And he's got this advice,

if you're ever unlucky enough to find yourself in a similar situation

to Paul and Jill.

Firstly, be persistent.

Don't be put off by somebody who may tell you

that you're not likely to be eligible,

so there's no point in completing the paperwork.

Secondly, do some research, so that you know what the criteria are,

you know how the assessment will be carried out, who will be involved.

And thirdly, evidence is all-important.

This is an evidence-based assessment process.

It may also be quite helpful for you to start your own diaries,

to just write down a short sentence or two

each time you visit your loved one.

Paul and Jill have no idea

when they're likely to hear if their appeal has been successful,

and as a result, they're finding it difficult to move on.

Out of sheer determination, we will carry on,

but it does come at an emotional cost to both of us.

We have to bring up her death, the most awful moments in our life,

when both of us actually want to let her rest in peace and be recalling

the lovely person she was.

If you've got a story you'd like us to investigate,

then you can get in touch with us via our Facebook page...

..our website...

..or e-mail...

And, of course, you can always send us a letter to our postal address,

which is:

Well, it may not always be easy to prove that you've paid too much,

or, indeed, to eventually get your money back,

but if you can succeed in slashing your bills,

it's so satisfying to have

that extra money in your pocket, isn't it?

Just as we saw Michael in Sheffield discover earlier in the programme.

That was terrific. And, you know,

we really love hearing about people like Michael.

When he realised he was paying too much,

he immediately worried that his neighbours

might be in exactly the same boat, so off he went, off his own bat,

he decided to do something about it,

and managed to save them money as well.

So, good man, Michael. You are a great consumer champion.

He's that for sure, I can tell you.

And if you know anyone who deserves that description as well,

for whatever reason, please do tell us, by e-mail, letter or, of course,

through our Facebook page.

We really do want to hear about them, and who knows?

We might well feature them on a future programme.

But I'm afraid that, for today's programme,

that's all we've got time for.

So thanks very much for joining us, as always,

and until the next time when we see you, from everyone on the team,

bye-bye. Bye-bye. Goodbye.

Subtitles by Ericsson

Onto the green - it's in!

Extraordinary scenes, here. The atmosphere, absolutely electric.

What a shot.