Episode 15 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.

And you have to call them, it takes ages

and someone 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 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 any form of business whatsoever

and they just want shutting down.

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.

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 to Rip Off Britain,

where today we've set our sights on companies that,

for one reason or another,

don't always make it easy to do business with them.

In one of the situations coming up,

some of you have told us that it has proved almost impossible.

And, as you'll see, there's a particular explanation for that

and it's an area where a whole host of big names

fall surprisingly short.

But we'll also be getting to the bottom of other circumstances,

where familiar stores don't make things as simple as they could,

or even as sometimes they promise.

All of which can stretch not just your patience,

but also your loyalty to the limit.

So as we investigate more of the stories you've asked us to look into

on your behalf, we'll be seeing how many of the companies

we're looking at really do appreciate that making things simple

for the customer might ultimately benefit them too.

Coming up...

The big-name stores with the price-match promise,

but will they always keep to it?

It seems a bit to me like nit-picking.

Not in the spirit of the whole scheme.

And an extra charge when your pet gets sick

if you go to a vet that ISN'T on your insurer's list.

To penalise the policyholder by a further £200 extra excess,

that's just not acceptable.

Now, walk down any high street and you'll find stores

not simply bragging that their prices are better than their rivals,

but promising that if they turn out not to be the cheapest,

they'll match the price elsewhere so that you're not left out of pocket.

It's the long established business tactic,

designed to keep us from shopping around.

But you may find that holding a retailer to its word

proves more complicated than you might expect

and that price-match promise comes with some very specific conditions.

The high street is a cut-throat place,

one where the stores will go at great lengths to win

and keep our business and there's no better way to keep us coming back

than by promising that they won't be beaten on price.

To save you time, we price check your branded shop at Asda,

Morrisons and Sainsbury's when you buy ten or more different products.

Whether they call it a price promise,

a low price guarantee or any number of those other seductive names,

retailers just love to tell us that if you can find the same product

for a cheaper price somewhere else, they'll match it.

But you've been telling us that things are not always

quite as simple as they might first appear.

So I've recruited marketing expert Phil Adcock to see if some stores

are playing Pinocchio with their price-match promise,

or if they really do stack up.

-Hi, nice to meet you again.

-Nice to see you again. I know...

'And firstly we want to know what shoppers think they'll get

'when they hear that price-match pledge.'

-If you see a store that's got a price promise...

-Yes.

..what do you think that means?

Well, it should mean that they'll match the lowest price

that you come up with.

If they can't match it then you either get money back...

And have you often challenged that?

-No.

-I've never thought about doing it.

-No?

-Do you just trust the shop's going to match it and that's it?

-Yeah.

Well, it certainly sounds like we've bought into what they tell us.

But scratch the surface and Philip says price promises

don't always work quite the way you might expect.

As shoppers, we are much more likely to end our search for products

when we get to a store that's got a price-match scheme.

So it's in the interest to do it.

They get our trust and what they don't want more than anything

is for us to leave and buy it somewhere else.

So if they can make us stay in their store

and promise the price is all right here

and even if it's wrong, we'll give you the money back,

let's have the money off of you, Mr Shopper, Mrs Shopper.

But they're not giving you the lowest price,

they're matching somebody else's price.

Perhaps the best-known price promise on the high street is at John Lewis.

The store introduced its

"never knowingly undersold" motto back in 1925

and it's been one of the company's cornerstone values ever since.

But Malcolm Radley, from Essex, e-mailed us,

frustrated that if you do find the same product

you've bought sold elsewhere for less,

never knowingly undersold may not be the slam dunk money back guarantee

that you might have assumed.

"Having researched the television I wanted on the internet,

"I found that it was cheaper with a company called Appliances Direct."

So Malcolm sent details of that company's price guarantees

and delivery arrangements to John Lewis,

hoping they would refund the difference.

"I then received an e-mail stating that

" 'Appliances Direct did not meet the price match criteria because,

" 'although they did free delivery,

" 'if by chance you fail to be in to take delivery,

" 'there would be a re-delivery charge.' "

So although the TV itself was cheaper elsewhere,

John Lewis wouldn't match the lower price

because whilst the goods were a like for like match,

the service the company offered wasn't.

It seems to me a bit like nit-picking.

Not in the spirit of the whole scheme.

Unfortunately for Malcolm,

John Lewis's terms and conditions are very clear.

The lower price has to be with a company

offering exactly the same service as well as price.

So in this case, the price match didn't apply.

So I've pulled this bit up actually.

It's headed, comparing service conditions.

It says, "This means we compare how we sell the product with

"to how it's sold by the competitor.

"We particularly look at stock availability,

"delivery charges and fittings/installation services."

It's not really right. I mean, if they're talking about the delivery

and the re-delivery if you're out, it's getting very tenuous.

Can you imagine somebody trying to explain that?

A shop worker trying to explain that, "Yes, you can buy it

"and here's our scheme but if you are out when we deliver it,

"and they're in, so it doesn't count..."

Very tenuous.

Well, Philip may think that but in fact

John Lewis is by no means the only store to have various exclusions

applying to its price promise.

Currys only match the prices of five other big retailers,

a cheaper price anywhere else simply won't count.

Mothercare limits the deals to individual prices,

rather than multipacks.

And Maplin doesn't match its prices with those at online-only stories.

And while, of course, there's nothing wrong with any of that,

if the offer of a price match was what secured your business

in the first place and stopped you looking around

for a better deal elsewhere, you might end up feeling a bit miffed.

And one final point, all these products,

these price promises, look, "We compare that with that."

In truth, most products aren't comparable.

-Why?

-Look very carefully at the model number.

You can have the 123X model of television

and the 123XB model of a television.

No visible difference but that means those two aren't the same.

Another thing they tend to do is bundle products

so it's impossible.

"So we'll give you free washing powder with the washing machine."

Suddenly it's incomparable with the washing machine

without washing powder. As soon as they make it incomparable,

it doesn't fit into any price promise.

Dean Dunham is chief executive of the government authorised

Retail Ombudsman and although he regularly sees complaints

about price promise deals,

more often than not he puts them down to customers misunderstanding

exactly how the deal works.

Those complaints are usually where the retailer has said,

"Very sorry, in these circumstances we can't price match."

And what that means is the consumer hasn't read the exclusions

in the terms and conditions. The million-dollar question is,

is it misleading when you put something

in the terms and conditions which basically excludes a price match?

And the answer to that is generally no.

And unfortunately for Malcolm,

Dean doesn't think that John Lewis is being unfair

with the restrictions to its scheme.

To be fair to John Lewis,

they have to price match on a like-for-like basis.

They are clear about this. We've looked at it closely.

Therefore what Malcolm has suffered with is that he has expected them

to price match against any other retailer.

The reality is that's not possible.

But when we got in touch with John Lewis,

the retailer was a little more flexible.

It said that "although a case like Malcolm's wouldn't technically

"be covered under the terms and conditions

"of its Never Knowingly Undersold policy,

"it would normally grant such a request as a gesture of goodwill."

That's because the store allows staff to...

So the store told us it contacted Malcolm to say that it will be...

But, of course, there can be price match schemes where

the details either aren't so clear or perhaps genuinely are unfair.

At the Retail Ombudsman we really receive two types of complaints

in relation to price match.

The first type is where the retailer has explained themselves properly

but the consumer hasn't taken notice of it.

In those cases the retailer will be right.

The other type is where the retailer simply has not explained

in clear enough terms what's included and what's not.

Now, in those cases we will go back to the retailer

and explain that you have actually misled the consumer

and therefore you must do something about that.

Most retailers generally do honour their price match,

provided, that is, that your claim meets all the terms and conditions.

But as far as Phil Adcock's concerned,

the real winners of the price promise guarantees

tend not to be the customers but the shops themselves.

The original reason for these things was to encourage competition.

But what we find now is instead of driving down prices,

all the retailers do is match somebody else's price

most of the time.

So what they're actually doing is keeping prices slightly higher

cos nobody will come in and beat somebody else's price,

they only have to match it.

If you're an animal lover, as I am, then you'll know, as I do,

looking after a pet can be a pricey business,

especially if they need regular or long-term health care,

a diabetic cat in my case.

Of course, almost every owner would say they'd pay almost anything

to keep their animals happy and healthy.

But we've been hearing a lot from people querying the cost

of their pet insurance and wondering if the odds aren't rather stacked

in favour of the insurer.

And when you hear about a change that could affect a substantial

number of pet insurance policies in the UK, you might tend to agree.

Meet Harry and Sophie.

Come here, Soph.

They're a breed of dog called bichon frise

and they're the pride and joy of Tony and Carla Dearsley

from Northampton.

Sophie and Harry are part of our family.

It's Carla, Tony, Sophie and Harry.

They're just part of the family unit.

When Harry and Sophie were puppies,

Carla and Tony took out pet insurance with More Than

and for most of the dogs' lives

they haven't needed to claim on the policy.

But in September last year,

Harry started showing some worrying symptoms.

So we took into the local vets to get him checked out.

And they took blood tests,

took urine samples and he was diagnosed as being diabetic.

Come on, Harry. Come on.

Harry's diabetes, just like the human version,

was kept in check with daily insulin injections

and his health seemed to be improving.

But less than two months later, he took a turn for the worse.

Carla and I noticed his eyes were totally opaque

and it was clear that he couldn't see,

he was walking into the walls around the house.

He couldn't see where curbs were.

He was obviously distressed.

Harry's diabetes had caused him to develop cataracts

and they were so serious that the vet immediately referred him

to a different practice for specialist treatment.

The specialists were so concerned about the swelling

in one of Harry's eyes

that they feared he may have to lose his eye...

so they wanted to operate on him the following day.

Tony and Carla told the specialist to do whatever was necessary

to save Harry's sight.

After a nerve-racking wait came welcome news.

When they telephoned

and told us that the operation had been a success,

the relief was unbelievable.

But the whole procedure had cost almost £6,000

so Tony put a claim through on his More Than insurance policy.

I felt quite reassured I was with More Than.

And to be fair, they paid up, no problem.

But the family's relief was short lived

because it wasn't long before Sophie started showing symptoms

of the same illness.

We got worried and immediately thought, "Is this diabetes?"

The local vet confirmed that was the case and worse still,

Sophie's eyes soon began to show signs of cataracts,

just like Harry's.

So Sophie was referred to the same specialist that had treated Harry

and sure enough, she too needed surgery at a cost of £4,600.

It brought back lots of memories about the stress, the worry,

the anguish of when Harry...

had to go in and have his cataracts dealt with.

But we felt reassured that we were with an insurance company

that would back us up by paying for the treatment.

But this time, More Than wasn't so ready to cover all the costs

because, since Harry's treatment, Royal Sun Alliance,

which owns More Than had made a crucial change

to most of the pet insurance policies it underwrites.

The cost of referrals would only now be covered if it was to

one of the specialists on a new list of preferred suppliers.

And the centre that treated Sophie wasn't on the preferred list.

In fact, at the time there were just 29 practices on it

across the whole UK.

Under the new rules any customer claiming for specialist treatment

at a practice not on the list would be charged an extra excess of £200.

Tony accepts he had been made aware of the new clause months earlier

but it had completely slipped his mind

and his natural reaction to Sophie's diagnosis was

to get her treated at the same centre that had saved Harry's sight,

a centre trusted by the vet who's cared for both dogs all their lives.

We spend a lot of time building up a relationship with our clients.

They trust us to recommend the best for their pets

and when we recommend a referral centre,

they trust that we're recommending that because that is really

the best place to go.

I can understand the insurance companies are getting worried

because costs are rising

but there's no need to penalise certain patients.

The extra £200 charge isn't applied to emergency treatments

but is added to every other kind of referral

and it doesn't just affect More Than policies

but others also underwritten by Royal Sun Alliance,

including Tesco pet insurance.

It shouldn't be for the insurance company to dictate to the pet owner

over the professional opinion of the pet owner's local vet

but then to penalise the policyholder

by a further £200 extra excess, that's just not acceptable.

The £200 charge only applies once per condition

so Sophie can continue to be treated for her cataracts at the centre

that saved her sight without Tony and Carla having to pay more.

And because Harry started his treatment there

before the clause was introduced,

the new charge won't apply to him either.

But, as both dogs get older,

Tony fears they may need specialist treatment for further conditions

and he can't see why he should have to pay extra

to get that from a place he trusts.

I feel trapped now because I've now got two diabetic dogs,

two dogs that have got cataracts,

two dogs that need ongoing treatment,

so I have to accept really

whatever policy increases More Than decide to apply,

or I have to think, "OK, I'll fund the treatment myself."

Some of the other policies underwritten by Royal Sun Alliance

including pet insurance offered by Marks & Spencer

haven't yet brought in this extra charge

but all policies sold by More Than, Argos and Tesco Bank

will introduce it either when a new policy is taken out

or an existing one is renewed,

and there are plenty of vets up in arms about that.

So, Dick, tell me why your organisation is so upset about this?

Well, I represent a group of specialist referral clinics

who have decided not to cooperate with the preferred providers scheme.

We believe profoundly that it limits the options for animal owners

and for their vets.

What do you think the financial argument behind this is?

Well, I think only RSA can answer that

but certainly when we had negotiations with RSA,

their opening demand was

that we would reduce our fees to them by 10%.

So I think it's not really about customer care,

it's about RSA wanting to drive down costs

in a situation where they perceive to be inflation above average.

So what's happening to pet owners now?

How are they being affected at this very moment?

I think there's a great deal of confusion

and upset amongst pet owners.

Those who haven't been directly affected are certainly confused

and are calling us pretty regularly.

Those owners who do have a sick pet are faced at times of

a great deal of stress and upset in the middle of the night

not knowing what to do and not being clear where they should go.

I think the advice is they should listen to their GP vet,

make that decision with them and go to the referral clinic

that they think is best between them.

It's perhaps not surprising that specialists who aren't on the list

might be opposed to it,

after all it could take away some of their business.

But while those vets say that the preferred network limits choice

for pet owners,

Royal Sun Alliance itself insists it gives them better value for money

and ultimately keeps premiums down.

It's not an attempt to interfere with the clinical decisions of vets,

it's an attempt to control the cost,

to make the product more affordable and sustainable for the future.

If you take, say, an MRI scan,

this is probably a good example,

the veterinary industry charge anywhere between £500 and £1,500

for the same MRI scan.

Now, we're saying that we have to control that cost.

An MRI scan is an MRI scan.

We're saying that there's got to be a standard rate for that.

RSA has added a further 25 practices to its preferred referral network

and says that 77% of customers are now within an hour's drive

of a referral practice. What's more,

the company insists that anyone who ends up being charged that £200

can appeal the decision.

And it says there are all sorts of situations

where you might not need to pay.

For example, if you live more than 60 miles away from a practice

on the list or a pet needs treatment its specialists can't provide.

If there are exceptional circumstances

then we'll reimburse the £200

and I believe that in several cases that's already happened.

We've only charged the £200 on four or five occasions.

You know, we have 460,000 bills from vets in a year

so it's absolutely minimal

what we've actually charged people to do that

whilst we get the network established.

Indeed, Tony and Carla are among the customers

whose £200 has been refunded

because Sophie's cataracts were a result of her diabetes

and the change in policy came just after treatment for that had begun.

RSA say if the couple had called them to discuss it,

the charge would never have been applied

so it urges all customers to pick up the phone

before starting treatment.

We want the telephone call to discuss the treatment

either from your local vet or from you.

By that, we can give you a decision there and then

if we're going to waive the £200.

There is now one of RSA's preferred referral practices

less than 20 minutes away from Tony and Carla's house

but the couple aren't so easily persuaded.

As far as they're concerned, the only factor that should determine

where their precious pets get treatment

is where they'll get the best care.

Harry and Sophie are always there.

We've got a great relationship.

And I'm not going to let them down.

I'll fight for them but I'll also fight for all the other pet owners.

Still to come on Rip Off Britain -

why some of Britain's best-known online retailers

are impossible to use for the hundreds and thousands of people

who have problems with their sight.

We certainly don't have the same choice as the sighted world.

It's like trying to walk up an escalator the wrong way.

That's just what it feels like, online shopping, most of the time.

One of the biggest shopping centres in Europe was this year's venue

for the annual Rip Off Britain pop-up shop.

It's our chance to meet as many of you as we possibly can

and it was great to hear how much you appreciate

all the advice on the show.

I think the programme educates you

and you're a little bit more aware of potentially being ripped off.

It's absolutely brilliant.

We really do have a fantastic team of experts with us

in our pop-up shop this year.

We've got Trading Standards, we've got financial experts,

we've got legal experts and citizen's advice.

And they're all really keen to be able to give on-the-spot advice to

any of the people that come into our pop-up shop

and hopefully be able to sort out their problems,

but just as importantly, the advice and tips that they're passing on

will ensure that you at home don't get caught out.

Of course, sometimes you don't need any specific advice.

You just want to get a few things off your chest.

And that's where our Gripe Corner comes in.

Right. What winds you up?

And for those who didn't fancy going it alone on camera,

we got two complaints for the price of one with these dynamic duos.

Our rip-off is going to a Premier League football store.

The kids jersey was £65.

-How much was it online?

-£16.

I feel like I've been ripped off.

I bought some points for an online game which I never received.

They just told us after two days it's nowt to do with us any more

so you lose your money. And we think it's an absolute rip-off.

What winds me up mostly is nuisance phone calls.

Please just leave us alone.

SHE LAUGHS

It really winds me up above all other things.

The cost of cinema tickets. These days it's like a £50 day

so it'd be nice if they were a little bit cheaper

to accommodate families like us.

Over in our shop, husband and wife Wilf and Sheila were booking in

for their appointment.

They had a problem with their car

so Trading Standards officer Sylvia Rook

and Martin James from the Financial Ombudsman Service

met them outside in the shopping centre car park

with the vehicle in question.

Do you want to tell us what it's all about?

We purchased the car second-hand from a garage

what was quite a distance away from where we came from.

When we were there, they asked us if we wanted to have

an extended warranty on it.

So, at first I declined the offer

but then they took Wilf outside to look at something else

and persuaded him that it was a good idea.

And when the salesman and Wilf returned to the sales office

they convinced Sheila as well.

The first leaflet they gave us, they showed us all the things

what could go wrong on the car

and it did seem like a fairly good cover.

They said we'd have trouble-free motoring for 12 months.

We said, "No, go on, we'll have it."

-How much did the warranty cost you?

-It cost us over £300.

But the couple felt it was money well spent to get peace of mind,

along with their second-hand car.

And when the vehicle developed a fault six months in,

they thought, "Well, this is exactly what the policy's there for."

The water pump went on the car so we phoned

and they said it was due to wear and tear

so they wouldn't do nothing about it.

They just wouldn't pay out

so we had to pay for the water pump ourselves,

even though we'd purchased the warranty thinking that we would have

trouble-free motoring for 12 months, which we never got.

After paying £380 to get their water pump fixed,

the couple were left wondering what was the point of the warranty

in the first place.

And that's the question Sylvia has seen customers struggle with a lot.

There is no statutory definition of what's wear and tear

and it does make things very difficult for you.

My personal view is that actually warranties generally

are not usually worth the amount you pay for them

because you have statutory rights anyway when you buy anything,

including a car. Ultimately what you do,

you would have to decide whether you want to try and pursue this matter

through the Small Claims Court

and try and sue them for the repair costs.

Absolutely. Now, first things first though,

I think the most important thing to do is to see

if we can find a free option.

The Financial Ombudsman Service oversees

a range of financial products,

including some policies like Sheila and Wilf's.

So if theirs is one that the organisation covers,

Martin thinks they may have a case and he's happy to check it all out.

So we'll get onto the company for you.

It looks like it is promising quite a bit in the booklet

so let's see what's going on behind that.

Totally understand where you're coming from.

Doesn't feel like a long time and it seems a little bit unfair

when you see wear and tear there. But let's see what we can do.

-JULIA:

-So plenty to hope for?

-OK, thank you.

-Right, thank you.

-Thank you.

And those seeds of hope did bear fruit.

Martin's team at the Financial Ombudsman Service

got in touch with the warranty company on the couple's behalf.

And when they did, the company reviewed the case

and decided to pay out after all,

handing over the full £380 for the new water pump.

I think you'll agree, a great result

and exactly what Sheila and Wilf were hoping for.

As well as the pop-up shop itself,

we've been out and about here in the shopping centre

giving you all sorts of advice and information

on a whole range of consumer topics.

With the help of solicitor Gary Rycroft,

we wanted to sort out fact from fiction

and dispel some very common misconceptions

about the way the law treats certain situations closer to home.

We've got some questions that we're asking people about relationships.

-Lots of legal myths out there...

-Right?

..so we're going to do a bit of myth busting.

-What do you reckon?

-True.

-Yes.

-True?

-They can be overwritten in court.

-True.

-Yes, true.

You're absolutely right.

The English courts have now started to look at prenups

and they are taken into account sometimes

but they're not strictly speaking legally binding.

OK, now, this one.

-Do you think that's true or false?

-I'd say true.

-False.

-True.

-We've got a mixture of opinions.

-False.

-False.

-True.

-True.

-False.

It is fiction. Tell them what the legal situation is.

Well, if you actually lose capacity

you no longer have the capacity to make a lasting power of attorney

so it really is something that we should, all of us, young or old,

-think about doing now because...

-We've got one.

-Have you done it?

-Brilliant, you've got one.

-Yeah.

-That's great.

-Oh, well done.

OK, last question.

-If you can prove it.

-You think that's true?

-Yeah.

-It is fiction.

-This really is a legal myth.

I hear it all the time.

"We've lived together for two years or more.

"Three or four years. We're common-law husband and wife."

In law there is no such thing as a common-law husband and wife,

it is a complete fiction.

-Are you married?

-Yes.

-You're safe.

-Thank you all very much indeed. Good sports.

-Thank you.

-Thank you.

Bye.

As technology marches on and we're encouraged to do more and more

of the things online that we used to do in person

we often hear from people here at the programme

who feel frustrated or left behind.

And while for some that might be because

they just don't have the equipment or indeed the knowledge

to log on at home,

there are hundreds and thousands of others who would like nothing more

than to be able to take advantage of the latest website offers,

if only the companies behind those deals

would make their site easier to use and indeed to navigate.

Because for the almost two million people in the UK with sight loss,

shopping online can sometimes be a whole lot more difficult

than it ought to be,

even on quite a few of the biggest websites in the retail business,

where it can be impossible for some people to do any shopping at all.

Three quarters of us now use the internet to buy goods

or services and for most of us,

the more familiar websites typically look like this.

But for many of the two million Brits who are blind

or partially sighted,

those same sites will more likely look something like this,

which can make shopping there virtually impossible.

I've come to the Galloway's Society for the Blind in Preston

to meet Nia Williams.

Her vision is impaired and she often feels excluded from deals on sites

that, for her, simply aren't accessible.

I think sometimes it can mean you're missing them bargains, really.

It is a shame because it means that you are missing out.

Like many people, when Nia goes online,

she relies on the assisted software

that's now a standard feature of almost all computers,

phones and tablets,

which magnifies and reads out everything on-screen.

Technology has really moved on

and this assisted technology is already in-built into the devices,

which is fantastic.

It was described to me by a service user as a window to their world

and I thought that was a lovely way of putting it because it meant that

they could interact socially,

shop online and live an independent life,

which is the way it should be.

But that software can only do its job on websites and apps

that are designed to be compatible and some of them aren't.

Take this one from online clothes retailer Boohoo.

Though the software on Nia's tablet does its best to read out

what it sees...

-TABLET:

-'Home underscore banner. Home underscore banner.'

You can hear it's getting rather confused

and that's because the retailer hasn't included any text description

of the clothes that are being shown.

It doesn't say what it is.

'So it can't offer up any explanation

'for what's being displayed.'

'Home underscore banner.'

So it's not really describing what's on the screen at all, is it?

Which makes it really problematic

because you don't know what's on in front of you.

Nia gave me a taste of what it's like

for people with visual impairment to navigate the internet,

using a pair of special classes that mimic an age-related sight problem

that affects over 600,000 people in the United Kingdom.

-That there is age-related macular degeneration.

-OK.

Ooh, gosh. Well, it's like looking through

-a very, very thick piece of black gauze.

-Yeah.

I can make out shapes

and I've got a little bit of peripheral vision here.

-With macular, it does affect your central vision...

-Yeah.

..so it creates distortions.

Let's just see what happens with this.

If I wanted to look at this at your iPad, even with the zoom,

-it is still incredibly difficult.

-Yeah.

Some websites are designed to allow good access to all users

but an astonishing 70% of those looked at since 2008

by the Business Disability Forum have had significant access issues,

which is a huge problem for people like Georgina Joyce.

Georgina, tell me exactly what your visual impairment is.

I have a genetic version of retinitis pigmentosa,

which means that over the years my sight has rapidly deteriorated.

How much vision do you actually have?

I have just about enough when I wake up in the morning and I think,

"Oh, is it morning?" and I can see if light is streaming

through the window but that's about as much use as my sight has.

Georgina doesn't let her vision restrict her use of the internet

but that can often mean searching high and low for sites

that have been built with accessibility in mind.

So what are the things that you look for that make a site really good

-and work for you?

-Good text...

explanation that describes what that image is of

and whatever the vital bit of information is.

And all of that is especially important for online shops.

We're on a Marks & Spencer's site here.

Black dress. Just hit enter and just see what it comes up with.

As long as the retailer includes on its site descriptions of the images

that are shown there,

the software built into Georgina's computer will be able to read

that information out when she navigates the picture.

See what the quick-look link offers.

-COMPUTER:

-'M&S Collection belted trench shirt dress.

'Current price. Available in two colours.'

But not all retailers design their sites in a way that makes it easy

for Georgina to find the details that she needs to make a purchase,

including, much to her frustration,

the one belonging to big-name clothing store Next.

What about the Next site?

Because that was one that gave you particular problems, wasn't it?

It was. I saw this black jumpsuit and I thought, "Fantastic."

-I can see it on the screen. It looks terrific.

-Does it?

-Yeah!

-A reasonable price as well. I learned that it's £60.

-Yeah.

So far, so good.

But when she tries to choose the size that she wants...

-'Size.'

-That says size so I navigate to the next sort of section...

'A-D-D to bag.'

And it's saying, "A-D-D to bag."

Georgina struggles to find the right box to make her selection.

See if I can do a search for choose.

-'Enter search text. Choose.'

-COMPUTER BLEEPS

No, it's just bleeping so it can't find the word choose

so I can't choose my size and Next have lost a customer.

The law says any store whether online or a physical shop

has to be accessible to everyone.

And the technology certainly exists for retailers to make sure

that their sites are up to scratch.

-PHONE:

-'This image may contain six people.

'Child. Close-up. Like.'

Like.

Social media giant Facebook is leading the way

in creating sites that are easier to use

for those with a visual impairment,

using cutting-edge object recognition

to automatically provide a description of an image.

He's going to love it. You have no idea.

This is amazing.

And Barclays and HSBC have won awards

for the accessibility of their websites.

But when it comes to shopping online,

things can still be hit and miss.

So we invited Georgina to the Rip Off Britain office to put

the websites of the five leading online retailers to the test.

Georgina, it's great to see you again.

Between them, Amazon, Tesco, Argos, John Lewis and Next

generate a total of £12 billion of online sales.

That's about a quarter of the UK's total online spend.

But how much have they invested in making their sites accessible?

Well, Georgina's going to put them through their paces,

starting with Britain's largest supermarket, Tesco.

Daily amount summary.

-COMPUTER:

-'Heading level three. Energy.'

-Energy.

-'Heading level three. Fat.'

-Fat.

'Heading level three. Saturates.'

'Heading level two, description.'

And then we come to a description.

'Topped with fresh mashed potato...'

-It does make you feel hungry when...

-ANGELA LAUGHS

Listening to the description.

So Tesco gets a big thumbs up from Georgina.

It's been years since I looked at the Tesco website and I was amazed.

It just feels absolutely lovely for a screen reader to use that website.

Next up, John Lewis.

Last year, one in three of its sales took place online and

though Georgina did find elements of its site accessible,

overall it was that familiar problem -

too many pictures and not enough text.

It's a lot easier for them to put a photograph on.

It just seems everyone's just cutting back on the text content

and using pictures to sell the item.

-And pictures are no good to you.

-And pictures are no good to me.

Let's see how she got on with Britain's biggest online retailer,

Amazon.

I do purchase a lot of things from Amazon

but I do find it a frustrating website to actually use.

-Just imagine I want to purchase this Android tablet.

-Yeah.

I do that and I think they scroll banners along the top

and it causes the screen reader to jump down to the bottom of the page

so it's about... Sometimes you have to be quite quick to..

'Heading level... Heading level two, average...

'Heading... Head... Heading level...'

-I'm going up the page now.

-Yes, you are.

-Yeah.

-Yeah.

'Show results for... Heading level. Dialogue.'

-Oh, it's gone back down to the bottom again.

-Oh, right.

I think I've gone to the description now.

'Size name, nine inch vertical line. Product description.'

But, you know, it's a lot of effort to get down to...

You've really got to want to buy this product, haven't you,

-and stick with it?

-To be fair to Amazon,

there's quite a lot of text information about this,

you know, about its battery usage and that sort of thing

so it's not too bad.

That leaves just two of the top five online retailers.

Argos, whose website Georgina did like,

though she found its structure rather confusing,

and Next which, of course, she's had trouble with before.

She had another go,

this time trying to buy something from the store's home department.

But she failed again.

And as for the clothes she'd been after when we first met...

Well, I just tried again yesterday to try and buy that jumpsuit

and I'm going to have to phone them up or pop in a store to do that.

Georgina thinks retailers should prioritise what information

they put on the site's front page

and better anticipate the steps that someone visually impaired

needs to take to make a purchase.

And when we put her comments to the retailers

whose sites she had difficulty navigating

they were all very keen to put that right.

Indeed, since we filmed with her,

Georgina has met up with the team from Next to explain first-hand

the issues that visually impaired website users can face.

The store told us that the meeting was hugely positive

and it plans to work with Georgina on these issues going forward.

Meanwhile, Amazon advised that customers using assisted technology

may find it more convenient to use its mobile site,

easily accessed by adding "/mobile" to the end of its usual web address.

And John Lewis told us it already works with specialist companies

to check and improve the accessibility of its website

but it's always looking to improve further

and has taken Georgina's feedback on board.

And Boohoo.com, the site Nia had trouble with,

said it takes such feedback seriously

and is constantly looking at ways to improve and develop.

But Georgina feels that all online retailers

should keep visually impaired users in mind from the outset

so that, in line with the law, their sites are accessible to everyone.

We certainly don't have the same choice as the sighted world

so it's like trying to walk up an escalator the wrong way.

That's just what it feels like, online shopping, most of the time.

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

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

BBC Rip Off Britain.

Our website, that's...

Or if you'd like to send us an e-mail, our address is...

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

Well, I must say I find it totally astonishing that in a world

where customer service is so important

that companies still don't always make it easy for us

to get the best deal,

even when we're sure that they're the people we want to shop with

because even if it's us who lose out in the short term,

it's no good for them if we take our business elsewhere.

Absolutely. And you know I found it incredible

that some of those online shops were just so hard to navigate

but with sight loss affecting so many people,

it can only be a matter of time before retailers realise

that potentially they are losing the custom of a huge number of people.

And of course, what we hope is that today's film

might help a little bit on that front too.

Well, if you come across a company that seems better

at making things complicated for you

rather than trying to keep your custom

then please do tell us about them.

If it wasn't for your stories and experience

we wouldn't be here, so keep them coming.

But that's where we have to leave you for today.

Thank you very much for joining us and until next time, from all of us,

-goodbye.

-Goodbye.

-Bye-bye.