Episode 9 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.

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

Loyalty to the customers is a very low priority.

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

and investigate the extra charges you say are unfair.

Big companies, big corporations and more into the money and

the numbers than they are about the people.

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.

It genuinely feels like I'm getting ripped off.

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

We're here to find out why you'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 - the programme that's here

to fight your corner when whoever it is you've spent your money or

done business with has let you down in some way.

And I must tell you,

we have some absolutely jaw-dropping examples of that coming up today.

Yes. Without giving too much away,

the people we're going to be meeting would all say that the

companies they've been dealing with should have done a whole lot better.

And when you hear what's happened to make them feel that way,

I reckon you're going to agree.

Not least when we reveal the results of

a little experiment we've carried out on some of the best-known

names in shopping because what we found out is more than simply

sloppy service. In some cases,

you might even say it's downright dangerous and it certainly

raises some big questions about the checks they've got in place.

Coming up, one parent's shock at how easy it is for teenagers to

buy items the law says they shouldn't be able to, and from

some of the country's best-known stores.

I'm angry that it is so easy for someone of your age to go

online and just, at the click of a few buttons, order this stuff.

And how an energy-saving solution, often put in for free,

could end up costing you a fortune if it needs to come out.

It worries me that we will have to pay to take it out cos

we're talking thousands of pounds that we just don't have.

In the past, I guess we've tended to rely on sales staff and

shopkeepers to make sure that teenagers are not buying

goods that they're simply not old enough to own, whether that's

films with an 18 certificate, or things like alcohol or knives.

Now, retailers are breaking the law if they sell age-restricted

products to anyone who's under 18,

but I think, while we all know that it can be

a lot harder for online stores to actually make sure that

the person who says they're 18 really is that age,

you probably won't have realised that some of the leading retailers

on the Web don't always make even the simplest of checks

to find out how old their customers really are.

And, as we've discovered, that can lead to some extremely

worrying items just dropping through the letterbox.

Tommy Anderson is much like any 16-year-old - he likes clothes,

shopping and hanging out with friends,

and he's part of the three-quarters of all young people who now

have their own bank account with, of course, a debit card as part of it.

The best thing about having a debit card is probably just how

quick and simple it is just to use out about, and it's better

than just having a lot of money on you that can just be taken.

With a card, it's pretty safe.

And also, when I'm online, it's just an easier transaction.

Tommy has a part-time job as a glass collector, and he gets extra money

for birthdays and Christmas, all of which goes into his bank account.

And as far as mum Lorraine is concerned,

that's an essential part of growing up.

I think it's very important for Tommy to have his own bank account,

to learn about responsibility with money.

He can buy what he wants but, when the money's gone, it's gone.

And I think all 16-year-olds should have that opportunity.

Lorraine is sure that Tommy would never attempt to use his bank card

for something he shouldn't.

And she hopes, because he's got a young person's account,

he wouldn't be able to.

But she's very much aware that the internet makes it easy for

young people to get their hands on all sorts of things that

simply wouldn't have been possible in the past.

When I was younger, you walked into a shop and,

if you are under 18, you couldn't get hold of things.

Now you're just behind a screen, you could be anyone and,

as a parent, it's really scary.

The law says it's down to the retailer to ensure that they're

not selling age-restricted products to under-18s.

But the whole process of how they control that was put centre stage

in 2015 when a 16-year-old boy was murdered by

a fellow teenager at school in Aberdeen using

a knife that the killer had bought through Amazon.

He's been named locally as Bailey Gwynne and police say they're

treating his death as a murder inquiry.

And in March 2016, Theresa May,

still Home Secretary at the time, urged retailers to improve

their efforts to prevent the illegal sale of knives to young people.

So, several months on, we want to find out if that's happened.

Lorraine and Tommy have volunteered to help us with an experiment -

to find out whether the leading online retailers are doing all they

should to stop young people buying dangerous or banned products online.

Using 16-year-old Tommy's name and, crucially, his debit card,

we asked Lorraine to see what would happen if she tried to

purchase an age-restricted item from each of the top five online

retailers - Amazon, John Lewis, Tesco Direct, Argos and Next.

Between them, they sell and dispatch ?12 billion worth of goods every

year, but just one illegally sold product could lead to prosecution.

I'm on the John Lewis website and I'm going to try and buy some

alcohol on Tommy's card. It does say, "By law, we cannot sell this

"product to anyone under 18." But I'm just going to check out that.

Straight away, Lorraine hits the first of the retailer's

security checks.

Right, it says here, age-restricted products - you need to be

over 18 to buy the following products.

But she doesn't think that's likely to stop a determined teenager.

I'm going to do what any other 16-year-old would do and

change the date of birth to make him old enough.

It has just accepted it - the date of birth that I've put in

has been accepted.

Despite that lie, you might hope that

a teenager attempting such a purchase would be thwarted as

soon as they entered their card details which, you'd hope,

would flag up that the account belongs to someone under 18.

But, in fact, that doesn't happen, and retailers can't tell if

the cardholder is underage.

So, with John Lewis assuming it's selling to an adult,

the purchase goes through.

He's been able to buy alcohol from John Lewis.

That's naughty, very naughty.

Now, ideally, there is a further safety check that retailers

should carry out because,

when any age-restricted product bought online is delivered,

it's recommended that the driver should only hand it over after

seeing ID that proves that the buyer is over 18.

But with John Lewis's delivery date not for a couple of days,

Lorraine's on to the next website - Tesco Direct,

where she's looking to purchase an 18-certificate DVD.

This says, "You must be 18 or over to buy this item."

And it says, "An adult will need to sign for this item."

Again, Lorraine got past the age check by doctoring Tommy's

date of birth to say that he was 18.

And, of course, his debit card was treated

no differently from an adult's.

But if Tesco sticks to its word,

Tommy won't be able to take delivery of the DVD.

Next up, Argos which, unlike Tesco and John Lewis,

didn't even ask or have any checks in place to confirm the age

of someone purchasing age-restricted goods - in our case,

an 18-rated game.

No age verification. It's just gone through straight away. Not good.

So, with alcohol, games and films ticked off the list,

next, Lorraine tried buying something more dangerous - a knife.

In most cases, selling one to a person under 18 is an offence

under the Offensive Weapons Act,

and in light of the murder of Bailey Gwynne,

online sales should now be more tightly controlled than ever before.

Lorraine heads first to Amazon - the site that sold

a knife to Bailey Gwynne's 16-year-old killer.

Now, in fact, the one she chose isn't legally classified as

an offensive weapon because it's a folding blade measuring less

than three inches.

Even so, Amazon itself has slapped an age restriction on it which,

she assumes, will mean she won't be able to buy it

using 16-year-old Tommy's details. OK.

So, I'm on Amazon and I'm looking at a pretty scary hand knife.

It's got an 18 warning on it and I would be very surprised if you could

get away with a young person's bank card to buy something like this.

But the age checks on Amazon were, in fact,

less rigorous than two of the three sites Lorraine had visited so far.

It's not asked me any details except where I live.

Right, I'm going to click "buy". "Thank you.

"Your order has been placed."

Finally, Lorraine visited the fifth-largest online retailer in

the country - Next.

Now, you supposedly have to be 18 to buy anything at all from

Next's website but, once again, simply altering Tommy's date

of birth allowed Lorraine to shop freely in his name.

And, once again, she was able to purchase a knife - this time,

one that is illegal for a child to buy.

And the order's complete, so I've now ordered a knife.

So, over the course of just a few minutes,

using Tommy's bank card, Lorraine has been able to buy alcohol,

age-restricted games and DVDs and knives.

And all it took was a simple change to Tommy's birth date to make

him seem over 18. I am very shocked.

I wouldn't have thought that these type of names would not have

anything in place properly that would stop someone

under 18 buying goods such as knives.

And I think it's terrible.

Of course, as far as all of these stores knew,

the customer buying their product was over 18 because,

in response to those that bothered to check, that is what we'd said.

But we wondered if any of these stores would really consider such

an easily breached safeguard to be sufficient,

so we contacted them all with what we'd found.

John Lewis told us that its website and terms and conditions

make clear that it is illegal for anyone under 18

to buy alcohol and that

customers should give truthful and accurate information.

It stressed that the site has repeated request for age

verification but went on to add that, in April 2016,

it removed sharp-bladed knives from sale online.

Tesco Direct, where we ordered the 18-rated film,

told us it constantly reviews age-restricted procedures and

will look again at its process in light of what we found.

But it added that, if we'd ordered knives or alcohol,

a face-to-face ID check would have been compulsory.

Next told us it too will be updating its IT system to prevent

underage customers purchasing age-restricted goods online.

Argos stressed it has robust processes in place but will

tighten up the process where required.

And Amazon told us that it's committed to the safe

delivery of bladed products, adding that,

though it isn't against the law for someone aged 16 to buy

the specific knife that Lorraine bought,

Amazon goes beyond what the law requires by stating all

potentially dangerous knives are not for sale to anyone under 18.

And it stressed that age checks are compulsory on delivery.

But while it was easy enough to hide behind

a fake date of birth to make a purchase online,

perhaps the true test will come with the delivery drivers.

Will any of them ask to check Tommy's ID, as they should,

before delivering the goods?

We'll find out later in the programme.

Now, in the ongoing drive to reduce our energy bills and,

at the same time, help save the planet,

there have been lots of initiatives designed to persuade us all

to make our homes more efficient and, very often,

one particular solution to that has been offered with what seems

to be an unbeatable incentive - you can have it installed in

your house for free. The trouble is, years later,

that irresistible offer has come back to haunt some of

the people who took it out because, while it may have cost

nothing to put it in,

if it somehow ends up causing a problem or perhaps should

never have been installed in the first place, it could cost you

an awful lot of money and, indeed, frustration to get it taken out.

In the construction boom of the 1960s and '70s,

millions of homes, just like this,

sprang up in new communities right across the country.

But whilst they might initially have seemed the epitome of

modern living, it turned out that many of them were cold,

draughty and really bad at maintaining heat.

But those homes weren't destined to be chilly for ever.

A solution was devised that meant that homes could be retrofitted

with the same toasty insulation as a brand-new home built today.

It was called cavity wall insulation and, of course,

it works by storing heat inside the two layers of wall that most modern

properties are built with, then bouncing it back into the rooms.

And while it should make things altogether more cosy and

energy efficient, some people say that it's led to their home

suddenly looking like this.

It really started happening probably about Christmas last year.

It was almost like a horror film.

I was very shocked when I first saw this, and confused.

We first heard of one of these problems when Paul Scott-Bates

from Lancashire popped in to our pop-up shop.

We've got damp on the inside walls, and condensation.

And how bad is the damage? It's quite bad.

We have mould on the inside of the dining-room wall,

which isn't very nice when you're eating your meals.

We were intrigued so we went to Paul's house to find out more.

He'd had cavity wall insulation installed in 2010 and,

like many people, he'd got it free.

In his case, it was under the government's now discontinued

Green Deal scheme.

But just a few months later, Paul noticed damp patches that had

suddenly started appearing inside the house.

They're only small areas so, at the time,

we just patched them up and redecorated,

really not knowing where to go to investigate it further.

For five years, the couple lived with the damp.

But in December 2015,

the problems got so bad they just couldn't ignore them any longer.

I came downstairs one morning. I could hear a buzzing noise.

CLICK

Then I noticed water running down the wall and water was going round

the back of the plug socket, which was obviously what the buzzing was.

Other walls were now showing signs of damp as well and,

over the next few weeks, they started to develop mould.

We have two small children, one of which is 15 months old.

And, again, we worry that, if we have mould in the house,

is it affecting respiration? Is it affecting our breathing?

And is it affecting our health?

As all of this had started only after the cavity wall insulation had

been fitted, it was clear to Paul that there must be

a connection, but he'd been given no guarantee for the work by the

company that installed it which, in any case, was now out of business.

So he was delighted to hear that there's an organisation that

might be able to help.

It's called the Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency, CIGA for short,

and it provides a 25-year guarantee for most installations of this type.

And, sure enough, when Paul got in touch,

CIGA sent round a surveyor to inspect the damp.

However, his report concluded that,

although Paul was right to suspect the problem was a result of his

cavity wall insulation, it wasn't down to how it had been fitted.

Instead, it pointed the finger at Paul and his family,

saying that they had failed to ventilate the house properly

or sufficiently maintain the outside walls.

And at that point, we really just thought we're just not

getting anywhere with the body that we thought would really help us.

We haven't been supported by CIGA.

I don't think they've given us an accurate report.

Paul was particularly unhappy that the inspector's report hadn't

addressed perhaps his biggest concern - whether the house

had been suitable for cavity wall insulation in the first place

because, after doing some research, he was certain that it wasn't.

I believe, having investigated,

that our house isn't suitable for cavity wall insulation on

two accounts - one, that it is south-facing and, secondly,

that it gets a lot of hard-driven rain and weather against

the back of the house.

Water will permeate through certain types of brick,

particularly brick that we have in our house, cos it's quite porous.

Previously, any water that seeped through the bricks would have

stopped at the cavity but,

with the insulation now filling that gap, any water that gets through the

exterior wall seeps straight through to the interior walls of the house.

It's for this reason that, in some parts of the country,

it's now recommended that cavity wall insulation should not be

fitted in walls that bear the brunt of hard weather, such as some

south-facing or particularly exposed walls, although there was

no mention of it in CIGA's report.

The CIGA report never once actually acknowledged the reason I'd

asked them to come out, ie, was the property suitable?

Never once said yes or no.

So, with the report blaming the damp on a lack of maintenance, CIGA's

guarantee wouldn't apply,

leaving Paul with the cost of putting things right.

And by the time the insulation's been removed and the damage

repaired, he reckons that could run into several thousand pounds.

It's very upsetting to us because we had the work done as part of

a government scheme at no cost to us,

thinking that we would make the house warmer, thinking that we'd

save money on energy, thinking that it would be a little bit greener.

Um...

But to find now that it's actually causing problems,

it's a problem that we can't afford to have rectified.

We've heard from others who've found themselves in

a similar situation - for example, Karen Eastham.

She lives 26 miles away from Paul in Preston.

When Karen and her boyfriend bought their house in 2012,

it had already been fitted with cavity wall insulation but the damp

and mould only started to appear later after a prolonged wet spell.

I think it was alarm bells were ringing when we noticed the damp

in the downstairs toilet and then, not long after that, there was

thick black mould on the wall, and growing on the items in

the cupboard as well. It's horrible.

Although Karen did have a guarantee from the company that had

installed the insulation,

it was no longer in business, so she too went to CIGA which,

once again, insisted that its guarantee wouldn't apply, as

in Paul's case, saying the problems were because the walls hadn't

been properly maintained.

So it would be Karen that has to foot the bill, sorting it all out.

It worries me that we will have to, in the end,

pay to take it out if they will not take responsibility, cos

we're talking thousands pounds that we just don't have.

The same situation was facing Pauline Saunders two years ago

when she successfully fought to get her cavity wall insulation

removed under CIGA's guarantee.

I had a massive battle but, due to my persistence and sheer

effort and the amount of time I put in, I managed to win my case.

After that, Pauline set up the Cavity Insulation Victims' Alliance

to help other people in the same situation.

In just two years, she's been contacted by more than 1,000

homeowners who now all regret having their insulation installed.

Cos it's very easy to have installed, but it's very,

very difficult to have it removed,

and it's far more expensive to remove than it is to install.

Pauline is meeting both Paul and Karen to see if her experience

can help them decide what to do next, and they've gone

to Paul's house so that she can see the damage for herself.

Oh, Paul, look at that.

You can see it there. Oh, that's absolutely dreadful.

And she very quickly forms the same opinion as Paul, that his house may

not have been suitable for this type of insulation in the first place.

Now, let me get my facts straight now. That is south... Yeah.

So you're catching all the wind-driven rain there. Yeah.

You're really elevated.

Pauline believes it's unfair for homeowners to be accused of poor maintenance

when chances are they weren't told that they needed to do any.

Properties that had the insulation done more than five or six years ago,

CIGA are tending to blame maintenance, but the thing is,

there's nowhere on a guarantee

that mentions that after you've had insulation, you need to keep

your property in tiptop condition.

And whatever the cause, the mould is a potential health hazard.

That is really dreadful, I mean, especially if you've got

children in the house. Well... It's really, really bad.

Pauline is hopeful she will be able

to help and she has plenty of other cases, but first she wants to check

exactly what was said in Paul and Karen's inspection reports.

We've had an inspection back in April and they agree

that it's caused the damage

but they're not willing to take responsibility, basically.

What was the reason they gave for not honouring the guarantee?

Lack of maintenance. Right, OK.

But there's nothing in Karen's guarantee to suggest that

maintenance may be an issue. In fact, it's not mentioned at all,

nor is there any evidence the installers left paperwork

making a reference to the state of the wall at the time the insulation

was fitted, which Pauline says CIGA would need

in order to prove that it's been poorly looked after since.

Are they not meant to provide the customer with a copy of

the pre-installation report? Yes.

Because how do you prove the condition of the pointing in 2009? Exactly.

With Karen at a stalemate with CIGA,

Pauline believes the best solution is to appeal its decision through

its alternative dispute resolution service, which helps

settle disagreements like this one.

And she thinks that's an option for Paul as well.

Demand your guarantee. You're entitled to your guarantee.

A neighbour of mine, her installer had gone out of business.

On her behalf I contacted CIGA

and they said, "Well, there's no guarantee."

We pushed and pushed and pushed and CIGA reimbursed her there and then.

That's exactly the same as mine, isn't it? Yeah, yeah.

The arbitration process will take several months

and there's no certainty of success

but however things ultimately turn out,

all three have found the meeting very positive.

I can't guarantee anything, obviously,

but it won't be through lack of trying if we don't get

justice for them in the end.

It's really good to know there are people like Pauline out there

who have been through the same experience and they're there to

offer help when the bigger companies don't want to help, really.

But when we spoke to CIGA, it was sticking to its guns

that in both these cases it's poor property maintenance to blame

for the damp and mould, not defective cavity wall insulation,

or incorrect installation, and as a result, it can't accept liability

for maintenance or repair work.

CIGA says cavity wall insulation is an exceptionally reliable product

with only two in every 1,000 properties reporting problems.

Despite that, it says the customer service experienced by Paul

and Karen had fallen well below standard

and it's apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused.

It has sent Paul a guarantee to cover any future problems

it does agree are down to poor workmanship,

and it's provided Paul and Karen

with details of its arbitration scheme if they wish

to pursue their current complaint,

which of course is the route that both have decided already to take.

But while they wait to see how that pans out, Paul and Karen would

recommend that anyone thinking

of having cavity wall installation installed

make sure that it's definitely right for their homes before going ahead.

I think if people are considering having cavity wall insulation

fitted, I'd first of all do a little bit of homework,

make sure that your property is suitable and also

ensure that you're given a full guarantee.

Still to come on Rip-Off Britain -

as we see how many of those adult products make it into the hands

of 16-year-old Tommy, why is a young person's bank card

able to make such purchases in the first place?

They must have something put in place at the seller's level

or at the bank or even with the government.

It's one of our favourite events of the year -

the two days when we bring Rip-Off Britain to you.

We watch you on the TV all the time. Oh, good. Thank you.

This programme is excellent.

This time we set up our annual pop-up shop in Manchester,

where our top team of experts was ready to step in

to get your troubles resolved.

We will send a letter to the business and ask them to

come up with a solution that works for both of you. Happy with that?

Yes, certainly. Thanks very much.

Well, as you can see, this year we're right in the heart of

the shopping mall and that's really good news for us because

we want to see as many of you as possible and we want you to

be able to find us easily, and it's already happening.

We're finding that people are walking past and thinking,

"Oh, I'll just pop in and see if they can help me with my problems."

And that's just the way we like it.

Cilla Prescott was delighted to be able to talk to our technology expert, David McClelland,

because she hasn't found it so easy

to speak to a particular company she's been trying to contact.

We got an e-mail saying that the people who

provide our TV services were unable

to collect a direct debit from our Visa account.

It turned out the credit card registered to make her monthly payment had expired,

so Cilla wanted to call the company to give them her new details.

She assumed that would be simple,

but when she rang, things weren't quite so straightforward.

I got a pre-recorded voice.

You're trying to sort of say, you know, what the problem is

and this voice says, "I'm sorry, I didn't get that,"

so they've obviously got a bank of about ten different things

that they accept. Drives me crazy! Absolutely,

and you're thinking, "Well, how can I sort of condense this?"

So after about three attempts

I slammed the phone down and swore, I'm afraid.

The TV company has given her a ten-day deadline to sort this out,

so Cilla is getting frustrated

that she still hasn't been able to speak to anyone in person.

Maddening, isn't it? It is maddening. It's really frustrating,

and like you say, the clock is ticking for you. Absolutely.

I can't get a human being to listen to me.

Now, research has shown that most people do still like to speak

to a real person when it comes to customer service, but when

that doesn't work, David's advice

is to try other avenues to get a company to sit up and listen.

A lot of companies are putting almost a disproportionate amount

of staff to answering social media enquiries,

so that might be one approach to go down.

Another one, when you get so frustrated no-one's

listening to you, look up who the CEO of the company is.

There are certain websites where you can type in the name of the company,

they will give you a name, a telephone number, an e-mail address

of the CEO's office. People have had a lot of success by

going straight to the top to get their complaints sorted.

We love going to the top! Absolutely.

But with Cilla facing a looming deadline of no TV and broadband

if she can't resolve this quickly,

David volunteered to see what he could do to help.

We'll take your details, we'll see what we can do for you as well,

and hopefully you won't be cut off in a couple of days' time.

Thank you!

David followed his own advice and took to social media

to try and make contact on Cilla's behalf, and later on

he called her at home with an update.

Hello, Cilla. It's David McClelland from the BBC Rip-Off Britain

pop-up shop here. How are you? 'I'm all right, thank you.'

Let me just chat you through a conversation I had with your

service provider here. I got hold of them on Twitter.

Interestingly, they were very responsive on Twitter

and I had a good conversation.

Well, even David struggled to get a telephone number for Cilla,

but he did get enough advice over Twitter to point her in the right

direction so she could register her card on the provider's website.

Brilliant. Good luck with that, Cilla. 'Thank you.'

Earlier in the programme we met 16-year-old Tommy Anderson

and his mum Lorraine, who were helping us to test out what

checks are being made by some of the country's biggest retailers

to make sure that age-restricted products like alcohol, some films

or even knives are not sold to underage teens.

But Lorraine discovered that

it was surprisingly easy to make the orders.

However, will the delivery staff actually let Tommy accept the goods?

Booze, 18-certificate films and knives - none of them

things you want someone underage to be able to purchase online.

But as we saw earlier, Lorraine Brown from Warrington was

able to order all of these things

using her 16-year-old son's name and debit card.

I'm going to try and buy some alcohol.

In fact, at each of the UK's top five online retailers,

she was able to buy products aimed at over-18s.

"Your order has been placed." Shocking.

But as the delivery company should also be checking

the age of the person to whom they hand the goods,

it is still possible that none of what was ordered

will make it into Tommy's hands.

So, when the delivery day arrived, we asked Tommy to stay in,

ready to answer the door, and we told him

that if any of the drivers did, as recommended, ask for ID,

he should show them the real thing,

at which point they should refuse to give him the goods,

but let's find out what actually happened.

Tommy and mum Lorraine are catching up on which items were delivered,

and there's certainly a big pile of parcels in front of them,

starting with one from Amazon.

Let's see what they delivered.

Well, the knife ordered in Tommy's name did successfully arrive,

but in this case - oops! It was Lorraine

who inadvertently opened the door and signed for the package,

along with some other parcels, so while hopefully Amazon's policy on

getting an adult signature would have been followed whoever answered,

we'll never know for sure

what would have happened if Tommy had got there first.

There's no such confusion, however,

with the other knife that Lorraine ordered from Next.

This one was simply posted

through the letterbox with no signature or ID check requested,

that despite Next's website clearly stating that

it is an offence to sell knives to persons under the age of 18 years.

There should be something on there saying that it needs signing for.

The Argos delivery, an 18-rated game,

required a signature from Tommy, but no ID check,

while the DVD purchased from Tesco

was again simply posted through the letterbox, even though

the website declares that an adult will need to sign for this item.

That was posted as well. Yes. No signature and, again,

nothing on the packaging that says that you would need to.

And finally, when the alcohol from John Lewis was delivered,

Tommy was asked to sign for the package, but again,

he wasn't asked for any ID.

I'm actually really shocked because John Lewis is a really big name,

so not requiring any ID when you've signed for it, I'm really surprised.

I'm angry that it is so easy for someone of your age to go online

and just... at the click of a few buttons,

order this stuff, just by changing your dates. There's no way of

knowing whether someone's changed their date of birth.

These are big companies.

Look at that. I'm actually lost for words.

It's a terrible, scary, scary thing. Yeah. I was very surprised

when you could order just the knives especially.

Not as surprised with the games

but the gin, it's just so easy for me to get it.

And the potential dangers of all this are certainly not lost on Lorraine.

Something has to be done, whether it be at the seller's level

or at the bank, you know, with the bank card,

or even with the government.

Now, of course, a number of checks and balances should have kicked in

to stop Tommy receiving and of course ordering these products,

and while you may have some sympathy with the retailers on this -

after all, we did lie about Tommy's age, as most teenagers would

if intent on making their purchase -

there is one aspect of all of this that is much harder to understand.

Why didn't a red flag go up

when a bank card belonging to someone who was 16

was used to buy age-restricted products?

You'd hope that such purchases would be declined.

The bank does, after all, know the age of all its cardholders,

including those who have a young person's account,

but this kind of check simply isn't made,

and when we asked the UK Cards Association,

which represents debit and credit card issuers in the UK,

whether age restrictions could be put on under-18s' bank accounts

to stop them buying banned products,

it stressed that it's the legal responsibility of the retailers

to check the age of the customer,

adding that when banks process a payment

they have no way of knowing what's actually being bought, so

there is no way that they can flag purchases made by those under 18,

but there may yet be ways that that CAN happen in the future.

Now, whether you think it's the fault of the banks, who make it

just too easy for people under 18 to buy, seemingly

without any kind of restriction, or the delivery companies,

who don't make the relevant checks on the doorstep, the fact is

that the only legal responsibility lies with retailers

to ensure that someone who claims that they're over 18

really are over 18.

Now, there are penalties for those who break the rules,

so anything that would make it easier to check someone's age

really would prevent an awful lot of retailers from facing prosecution,

and here in Chester there's a company who have developed

a piece of software that really makes it possible to

prove what someone's age really is.

Richard Law is the chief executive of GBG, which specialises

in what's called identity data intelligence. Put simply,

they develop software that enables websites to gather information

about shoppers and accurately verify their age,

which could help stop young people buying age-restricted products

like knives and alcohol online.

The companies that rely on our software are, for instance,

online gambling companies,

banks, retailers, government,

so it really is used across all sectors.

And how exactly does it work? What does it do that physically checks

to verify that the person buying

whatever online is the age that they say they are?

The system mimics effectively a check which may be done face to face

but it does it electronically, so when an individual enters

their details into a website or gives them over the telephone,

those details are checked against

reference databases all over the world.

The software is designed to identify anyone who is potentially lying

about their age in order to buy age-restricted goods,

and Richard's going to show me how it works.

Its first challenge is the rudimentary trick Lorraine used -

someone putting in a date of birth

that makes it look as if they really are 18.

We're going to demonstrate how our system would pick up

that inconsistency and prevent that person who's underage

from gaining access to these services.

They're using the details of one of the team's teenaged sons,

who, like Tommy, is 16.

What we're doing here is entering the name and address of that

individual, details from the credit card or debit card.

All the things that would be asked for

if you were buying something online. That's exactly right,

and what's going to happen is that this data is then going to be

checked against reference databases, so we can do a check on age. Right.

In less time than it takes for a website to load,

the checks are complete and the underage shopper is exposed.

So we've checked the address, location, and got three matches,

we've checked the surname and that's fine.

What we haven't been able to check is the date of birth

and confirm that that is the right date of birth.

That's resulted in two warnings,

which in turn has resulted in a decision to reject that transaction.

Whilst online gambling firms

must by law make sure that anyone using their site is 18,

the rules when it comes to online retailers aren't as strict.

In fact, such age checks are merely recommended in the industry's guidance,

and as Lorraine found, when some sites didn't even

ask for Tommy's date of birth, even the easy-to-cheat processes

that are in place are not required across the board.

Well, it's clear that technology like this could be the key to

preventing dangerous things like knives getting into the hands

of children and young people, and certainly if more retailers

were prepared to use it for online shopping, then parents like Lorraine

really would be able to sleep easy at night.

When we spoke to the five retailers

from whom Lorraine had bought age-restricted goods,

Next did say it would be updating its IT systems

to make it far more difficult

for children to buy age-restricted items in the future.

Tesco reiterated that if Lorraine had bought alcohol or a knife,

a face-to-face ID check would have been required,

but for DVDs and games with varied age restrictions,

the only check is at point of purchase,

something it says it will review following our test.

That's echoed by Argos, which told us that while it does have robust

processes in place to prevent sales of products to customers

under the legal age, in light of our findings it too will

investigate and tighten those processes where required.

John Lewis said it's committed to upholding its legal obligations

when it comes to selling age-restricted products

and customers are repeatedly asked for age verification

before purchase, and Amazon, the only company whose driver

did get a package signed for by someone over 18, reiterated

its requirement for an adult to sign

for all knives when they're delivered,

even ones which are legal for someone of Tommy's age to buy.

It said our test illustrates

the company's commitment to the safe delivery of bladed products.

We also asked the British Retail Consortium if it had any plans

to compel its members to follow the lead of online gambling companies

and adopt the kind of software

that could stop underage purchases being made in the first place,

but it said it's up to individual retailers how they deal with this

and it has no role in monitoring

the commercial practices of its members.

But Lorraine, still shocked by the sales that went through,

believes retailers need to take a much harder line on this,

especially as the software does exist for them to take action.

They must have something put in place, if they are going

to sell things like this online,

where underage people can, as we've proved today,

they can get them delivered. I think if they can't do that,

then they shouldn't be selling them online.

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, bbc.co.uk/ripoffbritain,

or e-mail...

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

You know, I still cannot believe that some of those packages

were just popped through the door like that. It really is

absolutely astonishing, and considering the companies

that are responsible, I find it really hard to understand

how they let it happen in the first place.

But at least it seems there is a way to make sure

those age checks are foolproof

because it's clear the system jolly well needs tightening up.

Now, remember, if you have something to say about the stories in today's

programme, you can always drop us an e-mail or join the chat on

our Facebook page. We really do read every single one of your comments,

even if we can't reply to all of them, but for now I'm afraid

that's where we have to leave it for today, so thank you so much

for joining us for the programme, and until the next time,

from all of us... Bye-bye. Goodbye.