Episode 13 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's simply not up to scratch.

When you have to call them,

it takes ages and somebody else answers the phone,

who pretty much doesn't know what you're saying.

The customer is not benefiting and, no, I'm not getting value for money.

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

investigate the extra charges you say are unfair.

They don't deserve to be in any form of business whatsoever and they just

want shutting down.

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.

They took the money out of my account and I don't even know who it

was that was scamming me.

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 once again to Rip-Off Britain where today

we're going to be shining a light on some of the tactics

that companies use to convince us that we simply

cannot do without whatever it is they're trying to sell us.

The best sales techniques, of course,

can work magic for the businesses that are involved,

but not always for us.

So how do you tell a good sales pitch from a dodgy one?

We're going to be highlighting the difference between perfectly

legitimate ways to make a product stand out from the rest and some of

the rather vague or even downright suspect claims that encourage us

to part with our money.

As we'll see, some of those can be horribly effective,

leading to the loss of thousands of pounds.

Not good, and I'm sure we've all been on the receiving end

of particularly effective sales patter and, perhaps, as a result,

come away wondering and, indeed, really questioning if we spent more than we should.

So to stop you getting into situations like that,

we'll expose some of the hard sells to be wise to and, indeed, some of

the softer methods of persuasion - there's that good word again -

that may not be everything that you think.

Coming up, revealed at last,

the secret sales techniques used to pressure older customers into buying

products they simply can't afford.

It's just a month of my pension gone.

Can't just give it away.

And behind the scenes at the testing centre deciding what should win its

highly-prized endorsement,

but is it being exploited by products that don't deserve it?

I absolutely took comfort in the fact that it was a really good brand

that was promoting this product,

so I didn't have to think too much about whether I did it or not.

Now, I don't know about you,

but cold callers and companies delivering a hard sell

get such a short shrift from me

and I'm often amazed that they ever make any money at all.

But, of course, the way that some of them do it

is by targeting people who,

for whatever reason, can find it difficult to say no.

Those, in other words, who are more vulnerable,

or even, as I'm afraid we're about to hear, who might developing dementia.

And it seems that is definitely the case with one of the companies in

our next story, which used an elaborate pantomime of a sales pitch

to convince people to part with thousands of pounds of their money

that they really didn't need to spend.

PHONE RINGS

Often when the cold callers strike,

Ron Jarman likes to have a bit of fun with them.

Hello?

We do get a few cold calls.

About, perhaps, one a day or something like that.

I have a little joke with them sometimes

and they put the phone down.

But in February 2015,

one particular call managed to engage Ron in more than just banter

because, for once, they appeared to be selling something that he and his

wife Valerie actually needed.

They phoned up and said they were in the area,

so could they come and demonstrate this bed?

Well, we were thinking of getting another bed anyway.

Valerie can't walk unaided,

so she relies on Ron to help her get around.

She can't stand up on her own, so I have to lift her into the wheelchair.

I lift her in and out of bed and practically lift her into the car.

So it's not as easy as it seems.

I need more support, don't I?

Yeah.

You couldn't do it on your own, anyway.

The cold caller was keen for his company to show the couple an

adjustable bed, something that really appealed,

given Valerie's mobility issues.

She really needed another bed

because she kept falling out of her bed.

Well, one or two times, didn't you?

Yes.

It wasn't long before a salesman arrived with a demonstration bed

to show the couple and so impressed were Ron and Valerie

that they signed up for one on the spot.

At ?2,000 it's naturally not cheap,

but it would be specially measured and built just for Valerie.

So the couple put down a deposit.

We gave him a cheque for ?500

and he said somebody would come and measure the old bed and

we left it at that.

They were told to expect a call within the week to arrange the measurement visit.

But after almost three weeks, that call still hadn't come.

So in the end, I said to Val,

"I think we'll cancel this bed," and I phoned them up and said,

"We want to cancel this order," and they said, "Oh, you're too late."

The company told Ron that he couldn't cancel the order

because the 14-day cooling off period had passed.

But the couple say they had never been told about any cooling off

period and even so, they'd been waiting for the company to call them

to arrange to take the measurements.

I mean, if you're going to buy something,

they should deliver it and that's it, you know?

But they just didn't do anything about it.

Didn't carry out their promises. No.

Ron says, although he was told there'd be no refund,

he was so unhappy with the company's actions up until now that he

cancelled the order anyway and the couple wrote off the ?500 they'd paid.

Just a month of my pension gone.

Just can't give it away.

I'd rather spend it on Val.

Chalking it down to experience,

Ron and Valerie didn't tell anybody about the incident and almost a year

passed before Valerie's son Peter found out,

after finding a torn up sales agreement at the house.

I think they was so embarrassed about the whole episode that they

hadn't told me anything about it,

but it wasn't until I extracted the information as to what it was that I

found out this complete saga.

And searching the name of the company on the internet soon turned

up plenty of similar stories.

I found out that I wasn't alone in as much that there were an awful lot

of uncomplimentary statements being made about this company.

So Peter picked up the phone and asked the company for his mum and

stepdad's money back.

I was told the matter was closed as far as they were concerned.

There was no way they were going to refund the money.

It was almost as if, "We've got your money, now go run."

Peter's next call was to Trading Standards,

who made it clear that it was a company already very firmly on its

radar after hearing dozens of similar stories from other elderly

customers of the same company.

And a subsequent investigation suggested that the company's sales

staff had no qualms about trying to sell to people with dementia

or Alzheimer's,

who find it hard to say no to the sales staff in their own homes.

Of course, this sort of targeting of older or more vulnerable people is

something we hear about an awful lot,

but now, at last, the secrets of exactly how they do it

are being exposed and I've come to see a familiar face,

the Trading Standards Institute's Sylvia Rook to find out more.

Do you find that this kind of high-pressure stuff

is really prevalent everywhere?

It is, but it's quite hard to prove,

particularly, if anybody is elderly and they have dementia, Alzheimer's,

anything like that, they don't know they're being conned.

Now, usually, that makes prosecuting and investigating cases like this

very hard, but at the start of 2016,

one company made headlines after a four-year Trading Standards

investigation into aggressive targeting and mis-selling

to customers, many of whom were elderly and vulnerable.

Both directors of the window and roofing company Summit Roofguard

were imprisoned and three sales staff were given suspended sentences

after overcharging and mis-selling products to customers

who found it very hard to say no.

And exactly how they did it was laid bare in a 21-page training manual

that investigators had been able to get their hands on,

setting out in black and white a 14-step guide to all the tricks and

techniques the team used to make

what it would call "a successful sale".

What exactly happened and what led to this case going to court?

There's one lady here who was 86. She had dementia.

She was sold windows and guttering to replace products

she'd only had four years earlier.

There was one elderly lady who'd entered into a contract

and her sister then cancelled it because she had dementia,

she didn't need the product and a salesperson immediately

went back and re-sold it and they had to cancel again.

This pattern of mis-selling was all coordinated by the detailed guide

the company's employees were given, outlining how to win a sale.

This was like, what, their sales Bible? Yes, it was the sales Bible.

The whole ethos of this 14 Steps To A Sale guide was to ensure that

consumers thought they were getting a really good deal and to try and

get the sales any way they could -

misleading people, acting aggressively.

Reading through the script,

you can see each sales meeting would be a mammoth session,

sometimes lasting up to six hours,

in which staff were told to start with excessively high quotes.

Then they'd reduce slowly the price with deals and offers they said were

unique to that sale, but, of course, turned out to be the same every time.

One of the things that the company did was they would offer you the

opportunity to have your house as "a show home", in inverted commas,

and if your house qualified,

and they'd have to check that it would qualify,

there were different grades and you'd get a different discount

depending on what the grade was.

The manual instructed, "Call your manager,

"push for the best grading possible."

Everybody got the highest grade, everybody got the discount.

With that apparently Grade-A discount secured

and customers encouraged to believe that they were bagging a bargain,

the next step for the sales team was to swear them to secrecy as the

guide says, the price they've paid must remain confidential.

One of the shocking things about this particular case

is they actually got consumers to sign a confidentiality clause,

that you weren't allowed to tell people how much the cost was.

Really?! Yes. Many of the complainants were elderly.

If they told family, family would say, that's ridiculous,

don't spend the money.

And there is this thing that somebody tells you,

"It's a really good deal, but it's our secret," people do.

After reducing the cost of the work by thousands,

the sales staff were then given a script for how to win over someone

who still thinks it's more than they wanted to spend,

offering special finance packages,

or breaking payments down into manageable chunks.

And finally, once the customer was reeled in,

the guide had one more critical instruction -

telling the sales person to stop talking.

Now, shut up and wait for a response.

He who speaks first buys the product.

And remember, in many cases,

that came at the end of a five- or six-hour sales pitch.

The regulations that these charges were taken under say

it's an aggressive practice if you carry on a sale for too long.

You should be able to give people time to think and to go away and,

certainly, five hours is far too long for any sales pitch.

Now, there are other companies that may well use similar sales

techniques, but in the case of Summit Roofguard,

all of those instructions in the training guide

were combined to create a deliberately misleading,

confusing and lengthy session,

especially likely to wear down someone who might be vulnerable.

Do you think that this is going to be a warning to other companies?

It's not a problem to give guidance to your sales staff on what to say

and what they can't say, but if you're encouraging your staff

to mislead consumers, then they need to know it wasn't just the directors

of the company that were prosecuted in this case,

it was the sales people, as well.

So it's important that all parties know that they have a responsibility

to ensure that consumers are treated fairly.

And to avoid being taken in, Sylvia has some no-nonsense advice.

If you ever get somebody knocking on the door and trying to sell

something, always say, "Thanks. But, no, thanks."

If people are selling and they make a cold call,

actually, I would usually say just hang up.

Be aware that, when that friendly salesperson is saying

something to you, he could be following a script

and his objective is to get a bonus.

And what about being railroaded into signing something on the day?

Never. Never sign anything on the day.

Say you want to think about it.

Well, if you're worried about a friend,

relative or neighbour who you feel might be targeted by this kind of

company and may find it hard to say no,

there is a new scheme that could help.

It's called Friends Against Scams and it's all about getting people to

work together to keep an eye out for elderly and vulnerable people

in their area and make sure that they're not caught out.

You can find more details about it on our website...

And it's ideas like this that Peter hopes will stop others losing out in

the way his mum and stepdad did.

I think people have to be very, very wary of door-to-door salesmen

promising anything, basically.

Elderly people are vulnerable and I think a lot of companies do prey on

that aspect, their vulnerability.

And I think it's very, very sad.

Now, when you're buying something new,

it isn't always easy to choose

between two products that cost about the same, look pretty much the same

and do essentially the same thing.

So often, for me, what turns out to be the clincher

is if I see that one of them has won an award or if it's been tested

and endorsed by a name that I trust. But I never really stopped

to wonder exactly what does go on behind the scenes to make sure that

each product really does deserve that coveted endorsement,

so I did go behind the scenes at one of the most recognised names around

to see just what it takes to get their stamp of approval.

Whether it's jeans or jam, tomatoes or tumble dryers,

wellies or washing powder,

how do you decide between two seemingly identical products?

Well, for many of us, what might swing it is that one of them

carries a sticker suggesting it's been through a battery of rigorous

tests or, indeed, won a seal of approval from an organisation

that knows its stuff.

And for manufacturers,

having that sort of recognition from a respected organisation can really

give you the edge,

as we heard last year, when I went behind the scenes at the consumer

organisation Which?

to see how they decide which products deserve to be

one of its coveted Best Buys.

We have over 8,000 reviews of products,

telling you which are the best,

which are the worst, and we decide what we want to test simply

by talking to consumers, finding out what they want advice about.

But Which? isn't the only consumer group that puts products through

their paces to help shoppers make informed decisions.

The Good Housekeeping Institute has been doing it for over 90 years,

assessing a huge range of everyday products and essentials

that we all use around the home.

So today, I've come along to the Institute to find out how they go

about testing all those thousands of products every single year.

I'm hoping to learn some of the secrets

of the Institute's famous seal of approval,

with the help of Good Housekeeping's publishing director,

Judith Secombe.

We have about 165 product categories that we test across,

so all the white goods - tumble dryers, washing machines,

dishwashers, etc,

through the small appliances, kettles, toasters,

things like hair products, hair dryers, hair straighteners,

that sort of thing.

The most highly-prized endorsement from here is the seal that says

Good Housekeeping Institute Approved

and last year, more than 2,500 products got it,

helping some of them become bestsellers.

What is the value of getting one of your seals of approval?

We do know that sales of a product tend to increase

once it's known that Good Housekeeping have tested it.

If we put our endorsement on a particular washing machine

or a tumble dryer, then nine times out of ten, it ends up selling more.

But those endorsements are hard-won,

food can be rated by dozens of testers and appliances

and electronics like these vacuum cleaners have to pass

tests in four categories -

design, ease of use, performance and clarity of instructions.

We've clearly come to the vacuum cleaner room,

where you're going to do a bit of testing. What's the criteria here?

Well, we look at a variety of things,

but predominately, dust pick-up.

So we try and mimic it as closely as it would be in a domestic

environment, so we use a mixture of sand and flour,

we use digestive biscuits, real pet hair,

which we actually get from Battersea Dogs Home.

So you're looking for the suction value in this case.

Yes, and we test it across a variety of different flooring types.

We've got laminate, we've got floorboards and carpet.

OK, I think we'll go on the carpet, actually.

Yeah, why not? So you're going to put some of your stuff on it.

Yes. Let's get some. Because this carpet looks altogether too clean.

It does.

Now, it may look simple, sprinkling down some dirt,

but there is a meticulous method to all of this.

Once the dust mix or dog hairs are sprinkled on the floor,

they are trodden in with the roller 30 times to simulate

a day's worth of footfall.

A series of five individual sweeps is then done and in between

each one, the bag is weighed,

to see exactly how much dust has been picked up.

Once the testing is complete,

the results will be posted on the Institute's website or put in the

magazine as part of a feature.

And if the cleaners score highly in all four key categories,

they'll be able to carry the Institute's approved logo

on their packaging and advertising,

provided, that is, that the manufacturer

is willing to pay for it.

If you're independent, and some manufacturers pay

to have their product assessed,

where does the integrity and the independence come in,

if they're paying for it?

We have very strict testing protocols

and our standards are very high.

And it's very common for us to fail a product.

So they may have come to us, paid for us to test it.

If it's not good enough, I'm afraid it doesn't pass.

Three-quarters of the products tested do make the grade and the

manufacturers can pay an annual fee to use the Institute's endorsement.

And while some products are chosen to be part of the regular testing

programme, manufacturers can apply for a more bespoke going-over,

again, at a cost.

Manufacturers will contact us if they have a new product

or a product they are particularly proud of

that they think is possibly the best in market.

And they come to us and they will

ask us to test that product for them.

And do they pay for the privilege?

They do, if they approach us. And we publish a scale of charges,

depending how complicated the testing is, how long it takes,

and how detailed the results need to be.

If that testing is successful,

companies then pay again for the right

to use the Good Housekeeping Institute logo

on their packaging, as well as online and in any TV ads.

Or at least, that's what should happen.

But perhaps inevitably,

the value and trust that the Institute's endorsement

has built up over the decades is now being exploited,

because some less-scrupulous businesses have falsely used the

approved logo to trick new customers into buying their product.

Sue Bay from Kent is an avid online shopper.

When she saw an advert on her Facebook page for diet pills

that seemed to carry the Good Housekeeping endorsement,

it gave her the confidence to place an order.

Seeing the Good Housekeeping brand there did, you know,

give me a bit of comfort, thinking,

"Oh, yes. This might even work, this one."

"It might not just be a scam."

So that's why I went for it.

The pills had a free trial and all Sue had to do

was pay something like ?2.69.

But two months later, she discovered she'd fallen into a trap

that we hear about a lot, when she noticed ?160

had been paid out of her bank account.

The terms and conditions, that I didn't read,

that I should have gone and looked at,

say that you get your free 30-day trial of these tablets, but...

if you're not going to carry on,

you have to return them within 14 days,

otherwise you get billed ?79.99 per pot of these tablets.

Of course, the endorsement that had convinced Sue to give the pills a go

was fake as, in fact,

the Good Housekeeping Institute has never endorsed

any type of diet pill.

Now, I'm going to be much more careful now.

If I hadn't seen that name come up, I doubt I would have bought them.

I absolutely took comfort in the fact that it was a

really good brand that was promoting this product,

so I didn't have to think too much about whether I did it or not.

But this is just one of a number of bogus claims

the Institute is aware of.

We've had quite a lot of our readers in touch over the last 18-24 months,

where they have bought a product or a service

believing that it's been endorsed by Good Housekeeping

and it turns out not to be the case.

What are you doing about all this scamming?

How are you attacking that?

We try and have them shut down, we try and have the sites closed,

and we enforce the removal of our trademark.

How would the consumer know?

They need to check on our website.

If it's been tested by us, the results are available free,

so if anyone's concerned about our product and it's making claims that

they're not quite sure about or our involvement with it,

then they need to check online or contact us.

Products that genuinely earn the Institute's logo are put

through tests designed to replicate what you would do with them at home.

So that means, for example, washing machines have to prove that they can

shift 13 typical stains including red wine, foundation and mud.

Kettles need to boil within a certain time

and keep the noise to a minimum of decibels while doing it.

Waterproof clothing goes through a rigorous shower spraying and is then

checked to see if there are any leaks within the fabric.

But to be quite honest, what I was most interested in was seeing the

Institute's food and drink tests,

in which a panel of up to ten trained experts

and 50 consumers go through blind tasting to grade every product

on a set of four different criteria.

So, it's jam today that we're doing?

Yes, strawberry jam we're doing today.

So when you're actually testing, what are you looking for,

what are the factors?

So, we look at taste, texture, appearance,

aroma and the overall eating quality of the food.

And is this...?

It's a blind testing, in that they don't know which jam is in what container?

Yes, everything is blind and coded with numbers, so it's labelled up.

They have no idea what anything is.

I bet you've no difficulty getting volunteers.

No, we don't struggle at all!

The jams being tested are given a score out of 100 and I can't resist

volunteering my own services, all in the name of research, of course.

I do love a bit of strawberry jam on a scone.

Today's lowest scorer with 64 out of 100 points won't be able to claim

it's Good Housekeeping Institute approved.

But the highest rated, with 84 points, certainly will,

provided the company behind it is happy to pay for the privilege.

And while I can't claim to have been in any way properly trained,

certainly, some of the jams I tasted

would get the Hunniford Seal Of Approval.

I like the first one the best, you know?

Still to come on Rip-Off Britain,

if you buy a product that's won an impressive-sounding award,

was the competition quite as fierce as you might have assumed?

Consumers might realistically expect

that that was the best product in the world

and, therefore, we interpret it as being, "Wow!"

When, really, it's only a little, "Yay..."

Welcome to the Rip-Off Britain pop-up shop.

You know, we've brought together a fantastic team of top experts

and they are all ready and willing to try and solve

your consumer problems.

They certainly are and this year, we've come to Manchester,

to one of the biggest and busiest shopping centres in the whole of the country.

We want to see as many people as possible to try and get some of

those consumer problems sorted out.

So let's get this pop-up shop well and truly open.

And once we got down to business,

some of the people who called in found themselves with two experts

for the price of one.

Solicitor Gary Rycroft

and Trading Standards officer Sylvia Rook

teamed up to help and advise June Jones,

who's found herself out of pocket to the tune of thousands of pounds.

Can I introduce June,

who has come to us because she's had a huge

and horrible problem involving caravans?

June owns two caravans on a site in a seaside resort and rents

them out to generate some extra cash.

But as she isn't always around, she decided to enlist some help.

So as I could free up time, I had two gentlemen manage it for me,

rent it out, give people the keys, meet and greet,

do the cleaning and ready for the next guests.

The people June decided to use already performed a similar service

for other owners on the site.

So after meeting them, June went ahead,

but the rental money she'd expected them to pass on didn't arrive

when she thought it would.

One season went past and, towards the end,

I noticed that there no money had been going into the bank.

So when I approached them, they said, "We've all sorted it,

"we've put the cheques in today."

And cheques were then paid directly into June's account at the caravan site.

But the staff there soon got in touch with some bad news.

I got a phone call from the office about a fortnight later,

telling me all the cheques had bounced.

June, can I just ask you at this point, how much were the cheques?

Approximately ?7,500.

?7,500? Yes.

June immediately tried contacting the couple who'd been renting out

her caravans, but she says, despite numerous calls,

she couldn't get any straight answers, much less her money.

And as she investigated further,

she discovered there were other owners on the site in exactly

the same boat.

From what I heard,

there was ten or 11 of us altogether

and we were looking at approximately ?30,000.

June reported the matter to the local police,

but was surprised at their response.

They said, "There's nothing we can do."

So by this time,

I was pulling my hair out by this time

because I'd lost all this money.

June was stuck, as the agreement had been a business arrangement,

the police considered it a civil matter,

but she saw it very differently.

So I was quite shocked.

At the end of the day, it's theft.

You've stolen my money.

Yes, I was going to ask Gary,

is it normal for the police to treat a case

like this in the way they did?

Well, I'm afraid to say,

we often hear of the police saying it's a civil matter,

it's not a criminal matter.

In order to prove that what happened was criminal,

June would need to show that the men

intended to steal her money all along.

But Gary thinks, because there are others in the same position,

she shouldn't give up and could well have a case.

I think there is evidence here that you should take forward and

investigate further.

You need to turn into Miss Marple, please.

Right. And you need to do some of the groundwork.

So you need a case history for each person

and how much they are missing.

Then you need to send that to a senior police officer.

Gary also recommends that June tries contacting

her local Police and Crime Commissioner.

But if that proves fruitless,

Sylvia suggests changing tack and taking the couple

through the civil courts.

You entered into a contract,

they are in breach of that contract because they didn't provide the

service you agree to,

and, therefore, you can sue them for the money that they owe you.

Because they have to respond.

And if they ignore it, then you'll get judgment by default,

so there is still hope for you to get the money back.

So, quite a lot of stuff you've been asked to do.

Do you think you're going to manage to do it all?

I will. I'm quite a determined lady. Your blood's up. Quite right, too.

Well, since June came to see us,

she has taken on Gary's advice

and has been collecting lots of information

from other affected owners.

Meanwhile, we sent our experts out and about in the shopping centre to

share some of their best hints and tips.

Technology journalist David McClelland

was particularly keen to talk to

passing shoppers about their most treasured possession,

their mobile phone -

and how to keep it safe.

What would you do if you reached into your pocket or your handbag

and your phone wasn't there? Total panic.

My phone's my life. I don't even know my home phone number,

I don't think, that's on there.

If you left it on a bus or on a train,

how would you try and recover that phone, do you think?

I wouldn't know. You wouldn't know?

I wouldn't know. I wouldn't have a clue.

300,000 smartphones were stolen last year but, in many cases,

once the criminals got hold of the SIM card,

the handset itself is discarded.

So David has a tip for how you and your phone can be reunited.

There is a national property register

that you can register your phone with.

They reunite thousands and thousands

of people with their phones every year.

To get your phone registered, so that it can be returned,

you need to know your phone's identity number

and here's how you can find it.

Each phone's got its own unique code called an IMEI number,

and the way to find out your number,

I've got a glamorous assistant who's going to show you how to find that.

Just type in *#06#

You can try it yourself.

Just type this code into your phone

and it will reveal your handset's

unique identification number.

Then you need to go to the website,

tap in that IMEI number and pop it on there.

Really useful tip. Brilliant.

And if your phone is simply lost, rather than stolen,

David's got an even simpler do-it-yourself tip.

Can I show you something?

This is really, really low-tech.

On the back of my phone, I've got a little post-it note,

so if anyone finds my phone and wants to know who to give it back to,

that's all they need to know.

That's brilliant.

David's put down his Twitter handle for people to track

him down, but an e-mail address would work just as well.

I'm putting that on mine.

Do it. I'm putting that on mine!

And David has another crucial piece of advice.

If your phone does go missing, for whatever reason,

report it lost as soon as you can.

If someone does nick your phone and starts making premium-rate calls,

do you know how much you're liable for?

No. I don't. No.

If you tell your network within 24 hours, it's the first ?100,

but if you don't tell them in that 24 hours,

then you may be liable for all of it.

And that could leave you facing a very large bill,

because fraudsters may use your phone to call premium-rate

numbers that they've set themselves

in a clever scam to generate thousands of pounds.

Good luck. I hope you never do lose your phone but, if you do,

make sure you report it within that 24 hours.

Earlier in the programme, we saw what goes into testing products

to see if they merit the Good Housekeeping Institute's

seal of approval.

Winning that accolade involves a rigorous

and robust assessment process,

but the same can't always be said

of a whole lot of other endorsements

you can find emblazoned on labels and packaging.

We've been taking a close look at what some of them actually mean.

From cars to cider, through to nappies...

That's amazing.

I'll tell you what's amazing.

Aldi Mamia nappies

beat Pampers three years running

at the Mother and Baby Awards.

Ads and labels can boast all sorts of awards,

endorsements or recommendations

that suggest they're a cut above their rivals.

And it seems they really do influence your decision

on which ones to buy.

I think, initially, I do look for products that are endorsed,

but I still sort of have my own mind and I still like to do a comparison,

but I am influenced by an endorsement, I must admit.

I tended to go for the thing that says "approved",

because we tend to look for that, but I'm always very judgmental.

You kind of trust that someone's done some kind of research,

some kind of testing

to say that it's the best product out there.

But all awards are not equal and what's behind the accolades

we see so proudly emblazoned on the packaging can vary enormously.

Sometimes there is a competitive process to gain that coveted award,

even if you might assume from the number of times you see it

that everyone's a winner.

Take the 2015 Decanter Wine Awards.

70% of all the wines tasted came away with a recommendation.

But look more closely, and it turns out only about 3% won gold,

12% got silver, 30% bronze and 25% a commendation.

And though you will see plenty of products showing off this logo

for the Great Taste Awards,

just a third of the 10,000 or so entrants

were deemed good enough to use it.

Now, it's unlikely that many casual shoppers will know

if an award's been hard-won or given out with a minimum of effort.

But, as Professor Vince Mitchell explains,

we will respond very positively to the idea

that someone's taken the time to test

or rate a product on our behalf.

Awards can actually have a big effect on consumers,

particularly when they first see them.

In that couple of seconds it takes to decide

what you're going to buy in the supermarket,

that award can be the piece of information

that makes the difference.

And there's one award that, on the face of it, suggests the winning

products really are the cream of the crop.

After all, it's called Product Of The Year

and it boasts that displaying

that title can boost a brand's sales by up to 15%.

But what you may not realise is that there isn't just

one Product Of The Year.

Last year, for instance, there were 42 of them.

So how can they all be that good?

I think it's important for certain product awards,

you have to look at the frame of reference,

because consumers might realistically expect

that that was the best product in the world

compared to every single product.

Whereas, in reality, the frame of reference is much smaller than that.

And, therefore, we interpret it as being, "Wow!"

When, really, it's only a little "Yay..."

Product Of The Year awards its title in a number of different categories,

but even that's not as simple as it sounds, because some of those

categories may distinctly overlap.

Take yoghurts, for example.

You might assume that only one could walk away with the coveted title,

but, guess what, in 2016,

no fewer than four yoghurts were crowned Product Of The Year.

So here's an example of category confusion.

You're standing in the supermarket in front of the yoghurts

and you want to know which is best.

So here we have the best healthy yoghurt,

this actually is the best kids' yoghurt,

this one is the best dessert,

but this one is actually the best yoghurt in the yoghurt category.

You can see how that's confusing to a consumer

trying to decide which one is actually best.

Meanwhile, this Gillette shaving gel won in the toiletries category,

but that doesn't mean the rest went home empty-handed. Oh, no!

Others were named Product Of The Year

in categories including toothpaste,

oral care, wet shave razors, skincare,

baby wipes and women's hair removal.

They're all toiletries, but they're all also winners.

And there's a real commercial value in them being able to say

that because, when you see the magic words Product Of The Year,

you may not realise that the item has won in a specific,

sometimes rather narrow category.

In reality, most consumers don't spend that much time

or effort processing any product claim.

And therefore, they simply take it at face value and assume

that this is the product that's the best on the market

compared to hundreds of products.

That is actually an exaggerated interpretation

of what it actually means.

So here's how Product Of The Year works.

It's open to any new product that went on sale

in the past 18 months and is considered innovative.

Companies can enter any product for free and they don't have to select

which category they're entering because, in fact,

there are no set categories.

It's only when all the entries are in

that the categories are announced.

It's slightly concerning that some award organisers don't publish the

categories until after all the entries have been submitted.

This raises the possibility that they can create

specific award categories which artificially increase

the probability of those people who submitted

actually winning.

Product Of The Year actually guarantees

that there will be no fewer than two, but no more than six

products competing in the final category,

once all shortlisted entrants

have paid a fee of ?3,750 to be considered.

But shoppers we met seemed surprised that the field wasn't rather wider.

So, if something won Product Of The Year,

it'd have to be out of thousands for me, like, literally thousands,

or maybe hundreds, at least.

If a product's won an award,

it must have beaten a lot of other products on the market.

If a product's won an award,

it's definitely beaten hundreds of other products out there on the

competitive market.

Once the Product Of The Year categories have been determined,

12,000 consumers are asked what they think of each of the final entrants.

A couple of months later, with all those results in,

the winning products of the year are announced,

some with great fanfare.

But if a company wants to make the most of its big win and display that

vital Product Of The Year logo,

it will have to pay a further fee of ?16,000 to do so,

giving a final cost of ?19,750.

Of course, as we saw earlier at the Good Housekeeping Institute,

it's not unusual for manufacturers to have to pay to display a logo and

most award schemes across many industries

have a range of fees for competitors.

But Professor Vince Mitchell isn't convinced that this kind

of set-up benefits businesses or consumers.

Not only do you have to pay to enter, but you have to pay to win,

so if you have won, if you can't pay for the award,

then you can't use it and promote it.

I'm not sure that's clear to consumers

and I'm not sure that that is really fair to the people

who enter, because it seems very dependent on how

deep your pockets are.

However, when we got in touch with Product Of The Year,

it stressed that, like any commercial business,

it has running costs and its charges cover an array of expenses,

such as an award show, a huge consumer survey,

and a large and expensive research operation.

And it was keen to point out that, of course,

there's no cost to consumers who, through the scheme,

are able to find a shortcut to good new products.

Adding that it gets a lot of feedback

from satisfied purchasers of Product Of The Year winners,

it explained that while its categories are largely

based on those already existing in supermarket aisles,

they're determined by whatever products are nominated,

which may change year on year,

according to the changing trends and focus of innovation in each sector.

Product Of The Year also said it's down to each manufacturer

to make clear exactly which category has been won.

But if you've ever plumped for a product because of an accolade

displayed on the label, keep in mind that,

while any such recognition is not to be sniffed at,

what you assume it represents may be a little different from the reality.

I think award schemes in general are good for consumers.

They can save us time and help us to make quick decisions about which are

the best products when they are done transparently.

However, when there are multiple organisations with multiple awards

and it's not clear how they're done,

then they create confusion rather than clarity in consumers.

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...

Now, of course, companies live or die on how well they can convince us

to buy their products but, as we've seen today,

sometimes the sales pitch just does not live up to expectations

and no-one wants to discover that when it's too late,

which, of course, is usually after you've handed over your cash.

Well, it's precisely to give us confidence that we're making the

right choice that so many of us rely on those endorsements emblazoned

on the label or packaging. But as canny consumers,

it's still worth checking out what's behind those endorsements.

That said, of course, there's a world of difference

between claims that are exaggerated or overhyped and the hard sell

techniques designed to trick you into buying something

that you just don't need.

So hopefully we've been able to give you some tips

to help navigate the incredible range of sales tactics

that we're faced with every single day.

Well, that point is where we're going to leave it,

but we're going to be back with more of your stories very soon,

so until then, from the entire Rip-Off Britain team, bye-bye.

Goodbye. Goodbye.