Episode 8 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.

I've complained and complained and nobody takes any notice of me.

In all honesty, I think it's just a way

for the shops to make more money.

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

investigate the extra charges you say are unfair.

You don't want to spend any more but yet they're always

trying to offer you little things extra.

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.

I rang up the company and they went, "Oh, it isn't our fault."

So whose fault is it?

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 back to the programme

that's here to battle on your behalf,

whenever you've been sold something that, for whatever reason,

turns out to be not quite what you expected

when you handed over your money.

Of course, sometimes when that happens

it might be due to be genuine misunderstanding,

but in other cases, maybe not.

Well, we've got examples of both those situations on the way.

But it could be that you still have absolutely no idea

that what you've ended up with

isn't actually what you need in the first place.

That's certainly the case with an astonishing story you're going to be

hearing about today and it's no exaggeration to say it could affect

millions of people right across the UK.

Now, most of those affected, which could well include you, by the way,

will most likely have shelled out thousands of pounds

after getting what they assumed was expert advice.

But as we're about to find out,

although they may not know it yet what they've ended up with wasn't

necessarily the best thing for them to buy,

which could mean that a very high number of us

are behind the wheel of the wrong car.

Coming up, if you're driving a diesel car

could you have made a big mistake?

I do feel I was mis-sold it.

I'm not saying it was deliberately done, intentionally,

but I do believe I was mis-sold.

And the families in desperate need of a well-trained service dog

but instead ended up thousands of pounds out of pocket.

Obviously we got Obi expecting him to be trained to be able to offer

assistance to Luke.

It's not what it was meant to be.

These days it's reckoned that around one third

of all the cars on Britain's roads have a diesel engine.

And while a diesel car will take you further on each gallon of fuel

there are disadvantages, too.

The trouble is you may not be told about them because,

as we discovered when we sent some prospective car buyers shopping,

dealers aren't always keen to mention those diesel downsides.

And that means there could be thousands of people

driving the wrong kind of car.

When Gerald Williams from Wrexham retired

he felt his old car was a bit long in the tooth.

He wanted something more efficient, cheaper to run,

and, ideally, brand-new.

What can you say, really? It's a man's dream to have a new car.

But admitting to being no expert on cars,

Gerald wasn't really sure what model he wanted.

So he asked his local Ford dealership for advice.

With buying the car ten years ago and I haven't purchased one since,

I don't know a lot about the modern technology in them.

But what he did know was he wanted a diesel because he thought the more

fuel-efficient engine would save him money.

And the sales staff at the dealership were more than happy to oblige.

There wasn't much conversation in that area,

whether to buy a petrol or a diesel, there was no conversation.

It was just recommended, well, this car here.

Three visits later Gerald drove away in a brand-new diesel Ford Focus

costing just under ?19,000.

I was delighted with the car.

It's a lovely car to drive.

And the wife was delighted with the car.

But trouble was on the horizon

because though he had no idea at the time,

a diesel car wasn't the best one for Gerald to buy.

Four months after he'd driven it off the forecourt

an engine warning light came on.

So he went straight back to the dealership to get it checked out.

They informed me that the DPF was blocked.

First I asked, "What is a DPF?"

And they said it's a filter

connected to the exhaust or some type.

The DPF, or diesel particulate filter,

if you want to get technical, helps reduce emissions

by filtering out some of the nastier exhaust fumes.

But the one in Gerald's new car was clogged

and if he drove around like that for much longer

the car would simply stop working

and the only solution then would be to replace the DPF,

which usually costs at least ?1,000.

So I said, "How has it got blocked after 1,500 miles?"

And the head technician, she said, "Well, you're only doing short mileage.

"It's not good for that car."

Like many prospective buyers,

Gerald had had no idea that in fact a diesel isn't the car to get if

you're only going to do low mileage.

That's because the soot that clogs up the DPF needs to be burnt off,

which happens on long or high-speed journeys when the exhaust gets hot.

But that won't happen if you're a driver like Gerald

who only does around 5,000 miles a year,

almost entirely on short trips around town.

We asked motoring expert Tim Shawcross

to pay Gerald a visit and explain more.

Because your journeys are so short

the exhaust isn't getting hot enough to burn that soot off

and that's why that warning light came on.

Ideally, you need to take it on a decent run with the engine speed at

2,000 rpm or above for at least 20 minutes.

Then the whole system gets hot enough to burn those gases off.

Gerald couldn't understand why this had never been an issue because with

his old vehicle, which was also the diesel.

But that car was ten years old and built before the DPFs

were made compulsory in 2009,

and that was the moment when diesel cars became unsuitable

for a big proportion of drivers who probably have them.

Diesel cars have changed,

they're not the same as they were five years ago or ten years ago.

If you only do short trips don't buy a diesel.

If you have bought a diesel and you get that warning light coming on

you must take it for a decent run, get lots of engine revs,

give it a really good workout - that will clear the filter

and you won't have problems.

But Gerald was somewhat taken aback at the advice he was

given about how to sort the problem out.

The best thing to do, he said,

every morning run it for about ten or 20 minutes before you drive away.

And I thought I can't do that every morning,

I just spent ?20,000 on a new car.

Gerald was adamant that when he bought the car

he told the sales staff how many miles he drives each year

and they still recommended a diesel.

I do feel I was mis-sold it.

Important information was held back about that car.

I'm not saying it was deliberately done, intentionally,

but I do believe I was mis-sold.

The dealership told us the team members Gerald had dealt with

is no longer with the business

so can't comment on what was discussed.

But it said that when Gerald raised his concerns

he was given the opportunity to swap his car

for an identical petrol model of the same age,

an offer that still stands.

Gerald however has refused,

as that car's value would be nearly ?6,000 less

than he originally paid.

So while Gerald and the dealership remain at stalemate,

that DPF isn't the only thing you need to think about

when you're trying to decide if a diesel is the right car for you.

New diesel cars cost more to buy and more to service,

but you do get a lot more miles to each tank than with petrol,

provided that is you drive far enough for those savings to really kick in.

Drive less than 12,000-15,000 miles a year

and the diesel you chose in order to save money

could actually end up costing you more

because the extra you'll pay to buy and run a diesel

only balances out if you do enough miles to make that saving on fuel.

A third of all cars on British roads are powered by diesel.

So, how many are being driven far enough to prove cost-effective?

We spoke to over 200 people on the streets of Manchester.

Of the 105 diesel drivers,

36 told us they drive less than 10,000 miles a year

and another 34 drove between 10,000 and 12,000.

That means a whopping two thirds of the diesel owners we met would have

had more money in their pockets if they drove a petrol car.

Which of course raises the question of how they ended up with a vehicle

that doesn't suit their needs.

So we wanted to see how often those dealerships do give potential buyers the full picture.

To find out, we asked Kirsty Longley to let us join her

as she went car shopping.

Kirsty is in the market for a new motor and she'll be visiting

six dealerships near her home in Merseyside

to see what they recommend.

Like Gerald, she drives 5,000 miles a year in short round-town trips,

and also, like Gerald, she believes a diesel will save her money.

I was looking, possibly, at a diesel car

because I thought that it would be cheaper for me

and more economical in the long run in terms of miles per gallon.

Well, as we've heard, Kirsty's low mileage

means a diesel car isn't the best choice.

Not only would it end up costing her more to run

but she'd risk pricey repairs to that DPF

unless she changed her driving style.

All of which, very positively,

the first dealership she consulted got absolutely right.

I asked him whether petrol or diesel would be best for my needs

in terms of my mileage.

And he said, "Petrol, without a doubt."

But just an hour later, the second dealership gave Kirsty completely

incorrect advice and recommended a diesel.

He said as long as I use my car every day

or at least a couple of times a week

it was absolutely fine to use a diesel.

It's more economical on the MPG

and it will save me money in the long run.

Those conflicting messages lasted all day.

The third and fourth dealerships Kirsty visited told her

she should definitely buy petrol,

but the fifth and sixth both told her a diesel was the best option.

I've been to six garages now and three have said one thing

and three have said another.

Some salespeople are telling me don't touch diesel with a barge pole

and other salespeople are telling me to be on the safe side,

buy a diesel. So I really am confused.

And who can blame her? To see if that experience was a one-off

we sent a member of our team to a further ten dealerships around Greater Manchester,

telling them she drove up to 8,000 miles a year

all in small round-town journeys.

Five of them did tell her a diesel wasn't right for her

and specifically mentioned the DPF.

But the other five all wrongly said a diesel was just what she needed.

It's a situation Tim Shawcross is certain shouldn't be happening.

This problem has been around for some time.

We've known diesel cars are not suitable for lots of short journeys

so dealers to make sure they understand

what type of driving their customers are doing

and then make the appropriate recommendation.

Both the AA and RAC would agree,

recommending that anyone buying a car for mostly stop-start town-based driving

shouldn't be buying a diesel.

But when we asked the Retail Motor Industry Federation why dealerships

don't always make this clear to potential buyers

it declined to comment.

Back in Wrexham, Gerald is yet to come to a satisfactory agreement

with the dealership that sold him his car.

But he's keen to make sure others

don't find themselves in the same position.

My message to anybody who does a minimum amount of mileage,

don't even look at a diesel engine at the moment.

Now, dogs have been put to work for almost as long as we've been calling

them man's best friend.

And a well-trained dog can do some really incredible things,

sniffing out drugs or explosives with the police,

being the eyes and ears of someone with impaired sight or hearing or,

as in the case of our next film,

helping an autistic child

keep on top of a very confusing and daunting world.

You know, it takes years to properly train a service dog and there

can be long waiting lists for families that need their assistance.

So you can understand why some might be tempted

to look for a speedier solution.

And that's what drew a number of people to fork out thousands of

pounds to a company that promises dogs would transform the lives of

families in need, and in some ways they did.

But I'm afraid for all the wrong reasons.

This is Obi, who's become a really good friend to eight-year-old Luke.

Now, Luke is autistic and can find new situations and unfamiliar people

hard to handle.

His mum, Sam, I knew a properly trained dog

could transform their family life.

But that's not quite how things worked out.

Hi.

I'm Gloria. Hi.

How are you?

Sam had been thrilled to discover that a service dog can help keep

children with autism calm in times of stress.

How did you find out that a dog

would actually be of great assistance to Luke?

We thought if it could help in some way in getting him out and about and

able to just interact with the world around him

and have some semblance of a childhood

to help Luke feel confident enough to leave his comfort zone.

I'm a star of a TV show!

The seven UK charities that raise and train service dogs

assign them to of families free of charge.

But there's usually a long, long waiting list,

sometimes of up to two years.

So when Sam saw a company that charged for its dogs

but had no waiting list, it seemed perfect.

It was all very professional.

It confirmed the things that I've already read

about what these dogs can be trained to do and assist with.

I discussed it with my partner and we both sort of agreed that it was

definitely worth looking into.

The cost was very high.

How much? It was ?6,000 in total.

But the payments could be made in instalments.

The company was called Service Dogs Europe

and it offered assistance dogs for a wide range of needs.

I spoke to the owner at length on the phone

and he was very reassuring,

he discussed that his own children had autism

so he knew how powerful the love between a child and a dog could be

and on top of that, obviously,

these dogs would be highly trained to assist.

Sam's preference was for an adult dog already trained and able to cope

with Luke's behaviour.

But Service Dogs Europe had other ideas.

So, in the end, did you get a choice of the dog eventually received?

No. We didn't. But the owner reassured me

that actually joining the puppy programme

was the way to go, as an adult dog may come into the situation and be

intimidated by Luke's meltdowns.

Whereas he suggested that a puppy would grow up

around the meltdowns and therefore not be bothered by them.

With the company assuring her that the puppy would be fully trained

to assist Luke as he grew bigger,

Sam signed up and paid a deposit of ?479.

What was that anticipation like?

It was huge. We were all sort of jumping around and very,

very excited to be getting this puppy.

Luke called his new Labrador pup Obi and it didn't take long

before he started to feel like part of the family.

Let's see.

Aw, that's so good.

I love that picture.

So, Luke, tell me about your dog, Obi. Well, he's pretty silly.

He doesn't know much.

He probably has a pea for a brain.

But he's good.

In just a few weeks it was obvious to Sam

that Obi was having a profound effect on Luke.

He would go to Obi for cuddles when he was feeling that he was

losing his temper, when things were starting

to spiral out of control for him, which was the ideal scenario,

that's exactly the reason behind...

That's what you were looking for, really. Yes, exactly.

So, it was a great start.

And Obi hadn't yet started the formal training

promised as part of the Service Dogs Europe package.

But before that training could begin

the family discovered that Obi needed complex surgery

on one of his shoulders.

The operation went well but he was prescribed six weeks of strict rest,

something that really frustrated the boisterous pup.

He was very, very hyperactive,

he was nipping an awful lot.

He actually bite Luke on the face

and it left a mark and obviously we were out of our depth.

I didn't know how to handle a hyperactive puppy.

Once Obi was recovered and ready to start the training included in the

contract, Sam got in touch with Service Dogs Europe to sort it all out.

But to her horror, the company told her there was no training planned,

instead that she needed to find and pay for it herself,

with the company making only a ?250 contribution.

Straightaway I said to my partner, "But it's all covered.

"It's in the contract. It's all covered in the first instalment."

You paid the instalment. That we paid.

And I was thinking this isn't good.

We've paid a lot of money so far

and this isn't really the service I'm expecting.

So, I wrote an e-mail of complaint.

And I sort of pointed out we were feeling very unsupported,

that the terms in the contract weren't being met

as they were stated.

So far, Sam had paid almost ?2,000 towards the full ?6,000

Obi would cost.

And for that they have got an untrained and unhealthy puppy,

one that would have cost just a few hundred pounds on the open market.

But I'm afraid she didn't get the response she was expecting.

I got a phone call from the owner.

He told me that because I'd sent them a complaint,

they felt like cancelling the contract.

Which would mean Obi would have to be returned to them.

As is typical with many service dogs in training, the company,

not the family, was still Obi's official owner.

So it would have been well within its rights to take him away.

But little Luke now grown so dependent Obi

that the family simply couldn't face handing him back.

After several fraught conversations Service Dogs Europe agreed to sign

ownership over to family

if Sam agreed to sign a gagging order

preventing her from talking about her experience with the company.

And did you signed that at the time? I did sign it at the time, yes.

But now you're talking to us

so when did the gagging order go out the window?

I presume the gagging order went when the owner shut up shop and ran.

Just closed down? Yeah.

In October 2015, Service Dogs Europe ceased trading

and Sam has heard nothing from the owners since.

In the meantime, they have been training Obi themselves

and just about getting by.

Obviously, we got Obi - expecting him to be trained

to be able to offer assistance to Luke.

He's taken up so much of my time and energy when my time and energy is

already so spread thin by having to meet Luke's needs anyway.

It's not what it was meant to be.

When Service Dogs Europe shut up shop it left behind dozens of

disappointed customers.

Some, like Sam, had paid thousands of pounds for untrained dogs,

but others had never received their dogs in the first place

and we've also heard from people

who did buy apparently fully trained adult dogs

only to find they simply hadn't been trained

to the standard that assistance dogs should meet.

And according to Elizabeth Wacker,

one of the company's former trainers in Ireland,

who we spoke to via webcam, that wasn't unusual.

She was fired by Service Dogs Europe

after she says attempting to speak out.

A lot of us were very, very concerned about...

Not just the welfare of our dogs, the welfare of the children.

She says some of the dogs she was told to train

clearly were not cut out to be assistance dogs at all.

No way were all these puppies suitable for service dog training,

by no means, shape or form.

The 60% fail rate in normal situations.

These puppies, we were expected

to turn dogs into service dogs 100% of the time.

Maybe one or two failures we were allowed -

one or two, we could wash out -

but after that, he would say we're just making excuses...

..and that we're not good trainers.

Beverley Cuddy, editor of Dogs Today magazine, has been contacted

by many of the company's disgruntled former customers.

We estimate there's between 350 and 400 customers

for Service Dogs Europe and that's 350, 400 families

who are desperate for an assistance dog.

And, of course, it was that desperation

that led them to a company exploiting the gap

between demand and supply.

Those official charities have got waiting lists of two years or more

and that's why people have been looking elsewhere.

Especially, if you've got a child that needs an assistance dog -

a two-year wait, it seems like forever.

It's an eternity, isn't it? Yeah.

How do you know a puppy is going to eventually be trained enough

to make it a special assistance dog?

Is it to do with the breeding

or is it to do with the amount and style of training

that that pup gets? It's a perfect marriage of the two, really.

You need both.

You need the good ingredients and you need solid socialisation,

and with these very testing family situations

where they've got children who may have meltdowns,

the last thing you need is a dog that is an unused to

seeing that sort of thing

because you might actually have a dog who is reactive

to that situation and it makes everything much worse.

Emma, sit!

And trainers would say it can take months

to determine if a dog really is suitable for the job,

so selling a puppy with the promise that it will definitely be trained

should always set the alarm bells ringing.

Because this company has shut down, is it too late for these dogs

or can they still be trained?

If the dog loves the person

that it's meant to be signalling or helping,

anything is possible, it's just going to take a bit more time.

We contacted Service Dogs Europe about the complaints we had heard.

When one of its former directors got back to us,

he strenuously denied the vast majority of the allegations,

stressing that he'd been passionate about the business

and that he personally...

He accepted that "difficulties did arise"

and that some puppies were left untrained

and other dogs not delivered as promised.

But he blames the company's ills and rapid decline

on a negative social media and publicity campaign,

which he says was instigated, in part,

by the former employee we interviewed, Elizabeth Wacker.

He claimed that Elizabeth was dismissed

for reasons to do with her performance and that she,

along with a small number of "disgruntled individuals",

set out to defame Service Dogs Europe,

actions which led to the business failing...

He denied that Service Dogs Europe had ever put pressure on trainers

to achieve unrealistic goals

or to train unsuitable dogs.

He said the company had many happy customers and that as directors,

they'd not set out to make money from the venture.

Indeed, he told us that they never made a profit or took a wage

from Service Dogs Europe.

As for Obi, the dog Sam Earle bought for a little Luke,

the company director said that Service Dogs Europe

did everything it could to help Sam from the outset

and he told us it was made clear all along that the family

would have to partially fund some of Obi's training locally.

Although our research found that isn't what the contract stated.

I love you very much.

And whilst Luke and Obi have now bonded wonderfully

and are great pals, Obi is never going to be as much support

as the dog Sam thought she was buying.

There was no way of knowing.

I did my research,

we all did our research,

and there was nothing to show that this wasn't what it appeared to be.

Still to come on Rip-Off Britain...

Whether your car runs on diesel or petrol,

could it be costing you more to run

than you were led to believe when you bought it?

I was frankly quite appalled

at the sort of fuel consumption I was getting.

I did literally feel as though I'd been mis-sold a vehicle.

We are here at one of the biggest shopping centres in the UK

for our annual Rip-Off Britain pop-up shop.

It's a chance to meet you face-to-face,

and all our experts are here to offer advice on any situation

where you feel you've lost out.

We don't want to delay any longer, do we, girls?

So, we officially declare this pop-up shop open!

APPLAUSE

One of our first visitors was Barbara.

She'd spent ?400 on furniture

that hadn't lived up to her expectations.

So she brought them along

to show personal finance expert Sarah Pennells why not.

Barbara, you have got a problem with these rather lovely oak tables here.

Tell me what happened. When I bought them from the shop,

they gave us a tin of wax and they told us it must be waxed

every three months to stop the wood from splitting.

The next day I got them out, waxed the small table,

and it started to dry white.

So, the white stuff is here in the grain, isn't it?

It has ready dug into it.

Yes, I phoned the company and they said,

"In our opinion, you have over-waxed the table,

"so you've damaged it."

I said, "Well, I have got a warranty for any damage.

"I paid for a five-year warranty. Any damage - it's covered.

He said, "No, you've damaged the item, so the warranty's void.

"You've used too much wax."

And so, do you want them replaced?

I said, "I would like my money back and that's it."

What do you make of this?

In my opinion, the warranty should cover you

if it's saying is going to cover you for any kind of damage.

And this is, obviously, not deliberate damage.

You didn't set out to kind of kick the table. No.

Barbara had already written a letter to the retailer,

explaining that the wax labelled "clear" had stained the table white,

but the company insisted that it was Barbara's mistake.

So, she's asked Sarah to cast her eye over the small print.

One of the things that's striking me

is they say several times through this booklet,

how important it is to wax any furniture that you buy from them,

but they say there are certain things

that are not covered by the guarantee,

and one of them is "failing to follow the correct procedures",

including oiling and waxing the furniture.

In which case, if it is that important,

they should be giving you a masterclass

when you buy the furniture in how to use the wax, surely?

Because, otherwise, how do you know what is the "correct procedure"?

Exactly. Did they give you any instructions at all?

No. They gave me the wax and told me to do it.

With the store not budging, Barbara has hit a brick wall,

but Sarah's convinced she has got a case,

so she has offered to try to resolve things herself.

We'll try to see if we can get something sorted out for you.

Are you feeling a bit more optimistic now? Yes.

When Sarah did get in touch with the retailer on Barbara's behalf,

it reiterated its view that the problem was down

to using too much polish, which can be problematic

for furniture that, like this, has an open grain.

Nonetheless, it's going to give Barbara a full refund.

Over on the other side of the shopping centre,

our lawyer Gary Rycroft is about to meet a couple

who desperately need help with their new home.

Gary, we've got Jessica and Jamie,

and they have had a bit of a disaster.

Perhaps you'd like to explain what happened.

Well, we bought a new property off plan,

and we thought, "This is going to be brilliant,

"it's going to be a brand-new home,

"it's going to have a ten-year warranty."

And, unfortunately, that wasn't the case.

According to Jamie and Jessica,

there's been a catalogue of faults with their new home

that they're still struggling to get resolved.

We've got cracked tiles,

large cracks in the doors and along the stairs.

The electrics will trip out when the DVD player's on.

If you have too many appliances on at once.

When the couple first moved in, they were asked to sign a document

stating that they were happy with the quality of the house.

But, as often happens,

it was only later that the problems became apparent.

Given what you've just heard, what's their best line of attack?

Strangely enough, Julia, Jamie, Jessica,

you actually have more rights, more legal rights,

with a new car and, in fact, a tin of beans,

than you do with a new house.

Because if you buy a new car, if it's defective,

then you can reject the goods within a certain period of time.

You can't do that very easily with a new house.

Having said that, you, of course,

do not have to accept what has been said in the quality check.

When you move in, you get a snagging list.

Did you have a snagging list yourself?

A very comprehensive snag list.

Yes. Which is still waiting for completion.

We've been promised that the snag list will be dealt with.

That was last year and we are still waiting for resolution.

How long down the line is this?

We are nearly at the end of our two-year warranty.

We're very, very stuck.

Do you think the builder is also looking at that deadline

and thinking..."Hmm." Looking at the clock? Yes.

The fact is, you have complained within the two-year period.

So, they can't just sit on their hands

and wait for the time to expire.

But if they still get no joy,

then Gary has spotted another way forward.

The builder is part of a national scheme

through which their case can be referred

to an independent adjudicator.

What I would recommend you do

is actually write to them again,

remind them that under the code of conduct for home-buyers,

you are entitled to refer a matter to independent mediation,

and the mediator can make a financial penalty on the builder.

So, they can award up to ?15,000 to you as the home-buyer.

You know, it's important that you assert your rights here,

and, hopefully, that will resolve matters.

So, you have got your marching orders now. Do you feel better?

Yes. Thank you.

And, if you're thinking of buying a new-build home,

you'll find more top tips from Gary on our website...

Earlier in the programme,

we revealed how many diesel drivers just might be spending

rather more on running their cars than they expected

when they first bought them because the cars don't drive far enough

for the savings to take effect.

But it seems that the drivers of petrol cars

shouldn't be resting all that easy either

because they too could be driving off the forecourt

to find that the supposedly economical car

that they thought they were buying

might well be costing them rather a lot more

than they bargained for, too.

Running a car is an expensive business,

and on top of what you pay to buy, tax, insure

and service your motor,

fuel costs an average 12p for every single mile you drive.

So, is it any wonder that lots of us seek out cars

that stretch those pennies even further?

And that's certainly what Ian Kennedy was hoping to do

when he chose his last car -

a brand-new Audi A4 Allroad.

I checked the fuel consumption of the Audi

against its close competitors,

and it seemed to be a very acceptable...

..performance model in terms of its fuel economy.

The brochure said the car should do just under 50 miles per gallon.

But soon after driving it off the forecourt,

Ian realised it was nowhere near that efficient.

I used to achieve round about 500 miles per tank-full

on my previous Audi, and to suddenly find that the modern car

was achieving 400 miles per tank-full was quite a shock.

And even on journeys that shouldn't use much fuel,

he struggled to get even close to the mileage that had been suggested.

I went on a long trip down to Devon to see my son,

the car actually returned about 41 miles to the gallon,

which is considerably less than the advertised fuel economy.

And around town, that figure dropped to a lowly 35 miles to the gallon.

At that level, Ian's Audi

would cover less than 470 miles on every tank,

compared to the 622 you would expect from the official figures.

I was frankly quite appalled

at the sort of fuel consumption I was getting.

I did literally feel as though I had been mis-sold a vehicle.

So, Ian complained to his Audi dealership,

and got a response he really wasn't expecting.

They were prepared to pay for the extra fuel

that the vehicle would consume in the first year of its use.

Ian was offered ?751 to cover the extra fuel costs.

But he was having none of it and, instead,

took the dealership to court.

I had to pursue it

to try and get some satisfaction through the courts

on my own behalf, and also on behalf of the car-buying public.

Ian accused Audi of making unreasonable claims,

but the judge ruled there was no case to answer

because Ian hadn't actually bought the car from Audi itself,

but a separate company, Audi Finance,

which had never made any claims about fuel efficiency.

So, the case was dismissed.

But if Ian's court case didn't end up

quite in the way that he hoped it would, he did succeed

in drawing attention to something that millions of other drivers

all over the world have noticed, as well.

And that is that their cars

never seem to go quite as far on a tank of fuel

as the manufacturers' brochure or website says that they should.

And that's because the published figures

come from controlled laboratory tests,

rather than the real world of driving that we all do every day.

Of course, that means there's a big difference.

What Car? magazine tests real-world fuel efficiency,

and almost across the board

has discovered both diesel and petrol cars failing to achieve

the figures that manufacturers claim.

From our figures, we know now that typically a claimed figure

is 30% higher than what a customer will get in the real world,

and that's a huge gap that will have a huge impact on the running costs

of that car.

In the magazine's tests,

the ten cars that had the biggest difference

between the manufacturer's claimed efficiency

and the real-world figures included Britain's

bestselling car, the Ford Fiesta.

Officially, a Fiesta with a one-litre engine

is claimed to get almost 63 miles to the gallon,

and when What Car? tested it in 2014, it managed only 39.7.

In the same year, Renault's Captur -

also with a one-litre engine -

achieved just 34.3 miles to the gallon,

compared with a claimed 56.5.

But the car with the biggest difference between its official

and real-world MPG

was Fiat's 2013 one-litre Panda,

which achieved 61.5 miles per gallon in the official tests,

but only 34.4 in the real-world tests.

Which means it would most likely cover 200 fewer miles per tank

than Fiat's own statistics suggest.

All three of these vehicles are small petrol cars,

a fact that hasn't gone unnoticed by the magazine's team.

There's a general rule of thumb.

We're seeing that this new breed of small, petrol-engined cars

claim to be among some of the most economical,

but actually in the real world, they very rarely are.

Of course, the result of all of this is that if you choose a car

because the manufacturer claims that it's extremely fuel-efficient,

you could be driving away from the showroom

in something that ends up costing rather more to run

than you'd expected. Unless, that is,

the staff in the showroom are upfront

about how unrealistic those official figures can be.

Well, that's something that we've put to the test

with the help of three volunteers.

First up, Kirsty from Liverpool, who, earlier in the programme,

helped us see what showrooms advise about buying a diesel car.

We also enlisted taxi driver Steve from Milton Keynes,

and HR consultant Joanne from Manchester.

We asked all three of them to visit six dealerships near their home,

and quiz sales staff on whether the manufacturer's official

miles-per-gallon figures were realistic.

I said to the salesperson, "Is that the true mileage cost?"

He said, "That's the figures from the manufacturers,

"and it's done on test conditions."

In four of the six dealerships they each visited,

Steve and Joanne were told NOT to expect to achieve

the manufacturer's official figures.

The salesman said I couldn't always trust the figures

that were in the book and I needed to take about 10% off

those miles-per-gallon that were stated

because he said they were done under factory conditions

and they weren't always realistic.

I'm not surprised at all.

I think they publicise high miles-per-gallon

to try and entice people in, to try and get them to buy the new cars.

But each of them also visited two dealerships

where staff said the official figures were realistic.

When I questioned the salesman about the figures that were quoted

in the book, he did say that they were accurate.

He would only give me the official figures

that's written in the brochures.

But in Liverpool,

four of the dealerships told Kirsty

she could expect to achieve the official MPG.

He said the figures in the book were true for the manufacturer,

so you can trust what the manufacturer said,

and to take what's in the brochure as gospel.

Overall, eight of the 18 new car dealerships we visited

gave us inaccurate information,

telling us the published figures are realistic.

So, when that advice could leave you out of pocket,

it really is vital that you don't just take the dealer's word for it

before shelling out on such a big purchase.

I think it's important that you always remember

to do your own research.

You have to take what they tell you with a pinch of salt

and go and find out yourself

from independent sources what the real figures are.

When we put the findings of our secret shopping trips

to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders,

it told us the difference

between the official laboratory test results,

which manufacturers are "legally obliged to advertise",

and on-road performance, are well-known.

And the industry acknowledges the need for fundamental reform.

It explained...

But added that new tests,

which will incorporate on-road testing, are planned from 2017...

We also contacted Audi, the manufacturers of Ian's car,

which said though it understands his frustrations...

It stressed all new cars are tested under standardised conditions

that every car manufacturer has to adhere to.

And they're compelled to use the resulting figures

in all public-facing communications.

The company went on to say it does always clearly state

that the quoted figure may differ

from what's achieved in real-world conditions.

As for the manufacturers whose vehicles came out worst

in What Car? magazine's tests,

they too reiterated that they're simply complying

with official EU testing conditions,

but added that they welcome the upcoming changes

that will allow them to illustrate what a car will really achieve.

Back in Wilmslow, Ian decided the Audi simply was not the car for him,

so he traded it in.

And while the whole saga has cost him more than ?5,000,

he is at least happy with his new car's performance.

The fuel consumption is regularly returning in the high 40s,

and about 45 to the gallon going around town,

so I'm extremely pleased with it.

It's doing exactly as the advertised consumption should do.

Now, when it turns out that you've bought something

that wasn't actually right,

or indeed perhaps you were just mis-sold it in the first place,

it can be really hard to prove what's happening.

Which could mean that you're left not just hugely out of pocket,

but that you're stuck with something totally unsuitable

that you just can't afford to replace.

Well, obviously there's a world of difference

between the families we met today,

who have been left looking after a pet that was actually intended

to help look after THEM,

and the millions of people

who may well be driving the wrong kind of car.

But they're united by the same unfortunate fact,

that switching to what they really need

won't always be financially possible.

Those dogs and cars, they don't come cheap.

You can say that again. Actually, we have a diesel at home.

We bought a diesel to be efficient,

and since we made that film,

I've realised that we probably don't drive far enough

to make it the best thing for us either,

so all these years we thought we were saving money

when there's a chance that it may end up costing us more.

On that note, that's where we come to the end of the road for today.

Thanks for keeping us company,

and until next time from all of us, bye-bye. Bye. Bye