Episode 8 Rip Off Britain

We asked you to tell us what's left you feeling ripped off,

and you've contacted us in your thousands.

You've told us about the companies you think get it wrong,

and the customer service that simply is not up to scratch.

It would seem that once they've got your money, they're not particularly

interested in coming back to you or to give you satisfactory customer service.

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

and investigate the extra charges you say are unfair.

I think prices are going up

and no-one's actually doing anything to improve that.

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.

You just get to the point it's, "No, leave me alone!"

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 there is certainly going to be agreement amongst all

the people whose stories we're going to be investigating

because, well, to start with,

whatever it was that they spent their money on, one way or another,

it was simply not up to scratch.

But on top of that, they've been left bitterly disappointed

at how their situations have been dealt with.

Or not dealt with, in some cases,

because adding to their upset is the way they feel that not all

their problems have been properly resolved yet,

and that's why they've turned to us.

And whilst I'm delighted to say that we've been able to make

some progress on their behalf,

it really seems a shame that things have had to get this far,

because I'm afraid, as is often the case, if they'd been handled better,

several of those stories could have turned out very differently.

But as it is, the people concerned feel that they've been lumbered with

a problem and now it's up to them to sort the whole thing out.

Coming up: Are our sofas really as fire-resistant as the labels say they are?

The flames were three foot high.

It was scary.

And the surprise relic this new homeowner found

at the end of the garden, and the hefty bill that she now has to face

to get it removed.

The first thing that came to mind, was, like,

"What am I going to do with that? How am I going to get rid of that?"

And now to a subject I remember first reporting on

some 30 or so years ago, and some of the stories were so shocking

that they've stayed in my mind ever since.

Back then, in the late '80s, the story was,

the significant number of people dying

after their sofas caught alight, causing massive house fires.

Well, I'm very glad to say that since then,

all furniture sold in the UK has had to meet stringent fire safety tests,

which have undoubtedly saved many, many lives.

But you know, it's now nearly three decades since those regulations

were introduced and, with new methods of manufacturing,

not to mention an increase in foreign imports, a whole new

range of materials has come on the market which, I'm afraid,

has led some leading experts to cast doubt on whether the measures

in place to keep us safe are actually still up to scratch.

These terrible scenes were a defining moment in UK fire safety.

The 1979 Woolworths fire in Manchester city centre.

-NEWSREEL:

-'The fire spread through the store so fast

'that many shoppers and staff were trapped in the upper floors

'before they realised the building was on fire.'

Sadly, ten people died when an electrical cable in the store

ignited furniture made of highly flammable polyurethane foam.

And soon afterwards, there was a change in the law.

All fabric furniture sold in the UK

had to be made using fire-resistant material.

Well, of course, that means in the event of a fire,

no sofa sold in recent years should go up in flames.

And that's certainly what 90-year-old great-grandmother

Joan Bower from Greater Manchester assumed when four years ago,

she purchased a two-and-a-half seater

from a reputable high street retailer.

But one evening during a power cut, just over two years after

she'd bought it, she was proved wrong.

A few minutes after she'd left her sitting room to answer the phone

in the hallway, she just knew something was wrong.

I said, "I can smell smoke."

Put my head round the door,

and the settee cushion was three foot high in flames.

A candle had fallen onto Joan's sofa,

and within minutes, the whole settee was alight.

And the black smoke was like a great big dragon coming towards me.

I had to run out quick.

Although thankfully Joan made it out of the house safe and well,

she watched the home that she'd lived in for 38 years

go up in flames.

The windows were blowing out as we were there.

It was scary.

I couldn't do a thing about it.

Joan's son-in-law Tony was the first family member at the scene.

Well, when I arrived, the first thing I saw was Joan

on the front garden,

and the smoke billowing out of the front door.

The fire was so extensive,

that although the fire brigade managed to save the property itself,

everything inside was completely destroyed.

You could have cried. Every room, there was nothing left.

Black, television had gone, everything.

In such a short time, your life can be turned upside down,

in less than five minutes.

The sofa was officially recorded as the cause of the accident

by the fire officer at the scene.

That's despite fire regulations stating that

all upholstered furniture for sale should not be flammable,

and stringent tests to make sure that the case.

In fact, any naked flame that furniture's exposed to

is supposed to go out in less than two minutes,

so perhaps there's no wonder that Joan's now questioning the point

of the fire safety label

that was attached to her sofa in the first place.

Well, you expect that, it's got a label on, that it won't catch fire,

but it should really just singe,

leave a burnt mark on it,

but it was totally enveloped, that cushion, in flames.

Now, we'll never know if Joan's sofa would have passed

flammability safety tests, but I'm afraid we do know

an awful lot of others on sale wouldn't.

Really disturbingly, a number of investigations

by trading standards teams right across England and Wales

in recent years have turned up furniture

that failed those vital tests.

In 2011 officers in the Rhondda Valley

purchased four items of upholstered furniture

and found that they all failed the match test -

that's the check to make sure the furniture doesn't catch fire.

They went on to seize 16 more.

Trading standards teams in north and east London discovered

an 84% flammability failure rate

from 19 samples they bought around the same time.

In Northamptonshire 70% of the sofas checked

failed compliance tests.

And in 2013, West Yorkshire Trading Standards

prosecuted one chain for failing flammability tests.

The firm was fined £17,000.

By 2014 the Government department responsible

decided to commission a national report.

David Ellerington from Newcastle Trading Standards

was one of the officers involved.

There was major concern expressed nationally back in 2014

and, on the basis of that, the responsible government department

which was at that time Business, Innovation and Skills

decided they needed to do some work around flammability and testing,

and we took part in that survey.

Different teams were given small amounts of money to buy

upholstered furniture and test it against the flammability regulations

that had been in force since 1988,

and in David's patch, the concerns turned out to be well founded.

In terms of the north-east,

there was significant issues with children's furniture.

A significant number of furniture did fail.

In Newcastle we bought three items of furniture.

Two of them failed,

and one of them we did actually prosecute the company involved for

the failures that essentially they'd actually manufactured themselves.

Elsewhere, in England and Wales, other teams found similar problems.

The national results were even more damning.

Only eight products from 51 sampled actually were compliant.

That was an 84.3% failure rate across the whole project.

And that is a terrifying result,

especially as significant portion of the items concerned

were sold with that reassuring label attached,

saying that they were fire-resistant.

Well, the Trading Standards tests were just a snapshot

rather than a comprehensive study, but you can understand why

they've left experts like David very concerned.

I think this is very worrying, in terms of the failure rates.

From a Trading Standards perspective,

we'd probably assumed everything was fine,

the regulations have done what they were supposed to do.

I'm not sure at the moment that we can be that confident that that's the case.

As well as the high street stores that featured in the national tests,

David's concerned about some of the smaller independent shops,

and especially the second-hand market,

so he does spot checks to make sure

that they are at least complying with the labelling itself

which, as things stand, is still the only way that

Trading Standards teams can check if retailers are following the rules.

But when we joined him, although one shop we visited was spot-on...

So, that complies, not a problem.

..another second-hand store, which,

displaying some of his stock outside, was a different story.

So, those are probably a bit of a concern.

I'm not sure about that.

I just need to have a conversation with the lady about that.

After a chat with the manager,

who claims that furniture on show isn't all for sale, David identifies

some items he specifically wants removing from the shop.

Those particular pieces don't have any fire safe labels

attached to the furniture, which by law,

even if they ARE second-hand, they must have.

I'm concerned that they could go into someone's home

and then generate or add to the fire risk in that person's home.

So it looks like David's going to be keeping an eye on things at this store.

The owner on this occasion will have a verbal and written warning,

and obviously their behaviour will be monitored.

If we go back we might take a different attitude the next time.

Well, you might wonder how it is that so many years after that

horrific Manchester fire, that furniture can still be sold

that doesn't meet the required safety standards, and that's

a question that's also troubling fire regulations expert Terry Edge.

After leaving an official review for the Government on this,

he believes the current rules need a serious overhaul.

This legislation has remained largely unchanged for nearly 30 years.

It was introduced to cover the kinds of materials used in British

furniture at that time, which were mostly natural materials -

wool, cotton, wood and so on.

They weren't designed to cater for modern materials like polyesters,

thermoplastic materials which are highly flammable.

Terry also has concerns about how the tests are carried out.

He says that's usually before

fabrics are attached to the sofa itself, although after that point,

its ability to catch fire is greatly increased.

Manufacturers like to add

a fibre-wrap layer between the cover fabric

and the filling material, filling foam,

for comfort and ease of construction.

Now, the problem with that is, it adds air, oxygen,

to any flame that lights on the fabric.

More worrying still, Terry says that there's something else

we often purchase when buying a sofa

that might also increase its fire risk.

The retailer will often ask you,

do you want it treated with anti-stain repellent,

which you will pay extra for, of course.

And that repellent is very persistent,

because it has to soak into the fibre,

and it has to last a number of years.

The only problem is, it contains a lot of silicon

which is highly flammable.

Frustrated that an updated test hasn't been introduced,

Terry left his civil service post in 2016,

and although the government has been looking at updating the regulations,

Terry believes that can't happen soon enough.

If the match test is failing, as we now know it is,

that means cover fabrics on sofas in UK homes

are ignitable when they shouldn't be.

Now, that almost certainly leads to additional deaths,

additional house fires, because our products, our sofas,

our mattresses are more flammable than we were led to believe.

Well, the British Furniture Confederation,

which represents retailers and manufacturers in the UK,

told us that while the current regulations had been...

in reducing the number of deaths and injuries in house fires,

owing to the changes in materials and processes since they were

brought in, it too would like to see the rules fully revised.

And while it's delighted to see that there is progress on that,

it says recent proposed revisions don't fully address

many of the important issues.

So, it remains fully committed to helping update them

in a way that's meaningful, enforceable, future-proof

and continues to protect consumers and the emergency services.

Back in Greater Manchester Joan has now returned to her home,

thanks to the marvellous generosity of family, friends

and, indeed, members of the local community who all clubbed together

to help renovate her house.

Well, it left me feeling devastated, but the only thing that

we're so grateful for all the help, I can't...

You know, people came from all over the place to help.

It was marvellous.

It WAS marvellous, and I'm sure Joan would agree

that the best advice is to keep naked flames away from any fabric

in your home and, in fact, she now stays clear from them altogether.

I don't have candles any more.

Only battery things.

I don't think the fire labels are fit for purpose.

It makes you more careful when you've had a shock like I've had.

Now, I was born at the tail end of World War II,

so the chilling sound of sirens signalling that an air raid

was about to take place is something that I obviously don't remember,

but for those who do, it still sends shivers down the spine.

And, whilst thankfully it's something long consigned to the history books,

many of the shelters that were built to keep people safe

during those bombing raids still remain.

There may even be one near where you live.

But you probably never expect to suddenly discover that there's one

hidden in the garden of the home that you've just moved into.

The chance discovery that you are now the proud owner

of one of these relics may not come as a welcome surprise.

Well, it certainly didn't for the people in our next film,

who now find themselves facing a hefty bill to remove it.

And they're wondering why, when they bought the house,

no-one had given them any indication that it was there.

When bombs rained down on Britain during World War II,

building an air raid shelter at the end of your garden could prove to be

genuinely life-saving do-it-yourself.

Over three million shelters were built,

and they were often damp, dirty and uncomfortable,

but none of that mattered if they were keeping you safe from harm.

World War II ended 72 years ago, but many shelters survived,

with some of them hidden at the back of overgrown gardens,

as Karen Samuel from Fareham seemed to have found out

when she moved into this Victorian house last year.

When she'd first viewed the property she'd spotted that

the end of the garden had been fenced off and, at the time,

the whole area was heavily overgrown.

Her plan had always been to open up the full length of the garden,

to make the best use of the space so, with her dad, John,

one of the first jobs was to clear those overgrown bushes

that had been fenced off at the end.

Dad and I decided, right, we'll start cutting back

all the foliage and take the fence down and open up the boundary.

But when John actually set about removing the fence,

there was more behind it than just some overgrown bushes.

This was the panel that was concealing everything,

and we moved that away, pulled it away, to reveal another door.

What John appeared to have uncovered was an enormous,

if now rather dilapidated, air raid shelter.

It came as a bit of a shock.

I mean, you were just expecting to see an overgrown garden,

and suddenly you've found this massive structure,

at least seven metres long and the width of the garden.

Karen says, after chatting to neighbours

and John doing some local history research, they discovered it was

the remains of a World War II air raid shelter that was never removed,

and takes up a significant portion of Karen's garden.

The first thing that came to mind was, like,

"What am I going to do with that? How am I going to get rid of that?"

It's not something I want in my back garden. I had hoped

to open up the garden and, you know, use it as a nice space.

Karen's been told that to get rid of the structure will cost her

in excess of £10,000 - money she can't afford, and that,

up to now, she hadn't the slightest inkling might be needed.

If I'd known about the air raid shelter...

..probably I wouldn't have bought the house.

I mean, I appreciate that people will probably think,

"Well, why didn't you take it upon yourself, to have a look

"beyond the fence," but, you know, I couldn't at that point.

This was a flowerbed, you know,

without climbing on the flowerbed and trying to get over there or...

I wasn't physically tall enough to actually see over the fence.

What frustrated Karen more than anything is that

before she bought the house, no-one had ever mentioned an

air raid shelter in the garden, or any other structure for that matter,

even though it soon became clear that the previous owner

HAD known all about it

and, indeed, had previously tried to sell the land on to the woman

who is now Karen's neighbour.

The guy that had the house before you, the landlord,

he actually asked if we wanted to buy it,

and we could have had it off him for £5,000.

Why did he think that, you know, you would want to buy it,

what was he selling to you?

The air raid shelter and the land that it was on, I take it, was it?

What I gather is, yeah, we would buy both

and that we would then knock the shelter down

-to use the land how we wanted it.

-Right.

So, to me, he wanted the money more than,

and just to get rid of the problem.

Rather than have this to deal with himself,

he thought, "I'll get somebody else."

He thought that that problem was worth at least £5,000.

Exactly, yeah.

-It'll probably cost you more than that.

-I think so, yeah.

-Definitely.

Karen suspects that the house owner wanted to keep the shelter secret

in case it put buyers off purchasing the property.

And certainly, on the documents he filled in as part of

the selling process, he failed to mention when prompted

that there were any outbuildings at all.

There is nowhere on here where he has said that

there is an outbuilding at the property.

And plenty of opportunity where he could have,

but he's specifically ticked "none".

But it's not simply the previous owner Karen feels let down by.

Before she bought the house

she paid almost £500 for a survey for peace of mind,

that if there were any unexpected problems with the property,

it would flag them up.

I was advised to go for the home-buyer's report because it was

sort of, it looked into potential problems with the property.

Not as in-depth as...

a full structural, but home-buyers report would highlight

enough problems for me to be able to look into anything further

if they felt it was necessary.

But the home-buyer's report made no mention of the shelter either.

In fact, in a box that refers to outbuildings,

it said there weren't any.

How can a surveyor not have picked that up? You know, I was furious.

That's what you pay them for. You know, they're the qualified,

the professionals that are supposed to identify these things.

Well, you can understand why she might think that

but, on closer inspection, the home-buyer's report also includes

the letters "NI", which stands for "not inspected",

which essentially means that the surveyor didn't actually look,

and under the terms of a home-buyer's report,

nor are they under any obligation to do so.

But Karen didn't feel that was good enough,

so she complained to the surveyors,

asking them to compensate her for what she saw as an oversight.

The surveyors responded by explaining that their inspector

had considered the fence in front of the shelter to be the boundary

of the property, and therefore hadn't investigated further.

And the company went on to say that, in any event,

as the area was so overgrown at the time,

it wouldn't have been obvious to any surveyor

that there were outbuildings present.

But Karen didn't find that a satisfactory response.

I'm surprised he wasn't thinking to himself,

"Well, you know, why do those neighbour's gardens go all the way

"down but not this one?" Just to have that question in his mind.

"Why is there a fence going across the middle of the boundary?"

Surely in a surveyor's head, he would be inquisitive,

he would be questioning why that is the case,

and what is beyond the fence.

Karen put this and her other points to the property ombudsman,

who found in favour of the surveyors,

agreeing that a home-buyer's report is a visual inspection only.

However, the ombudsman did think the surveyors should have spotted...

..and awarded Karen £100.

Only problem was, this was a fraction of the £10,000 she was seeking.

Well, property expert Henry Pryor has great sympathy for Karen

and the situation she's found herself in but,

like the ombudsman, he doesn't think the surveyors should be blamed.

Well, I'm afraid that I think the surveyor did all that you could

reasonably expect the surveyor to do but, unfortunately,

it's a property that is slightly out of the ordinary,

because of the land at the rear being very overgrown,

and it's not something that you can reasonably expect a surveyor

to pull out a machete and go hacking around

in order to explore everything that might be there.

Several times over the years here on Rip-Off Britain,

we've looked into similar cases, where new homeowners

have been frustrated that surveyors failed to flag up everything

from signs of dry rot to evidence the basement was prone to flooding -

problems that only became apparent after they'd moved in.

Then all of a sudden, the basement's full of water,

and we just started to panic

as to how on earth we were going to be able to fix this.

And while you can understand the horror at discovering

such unexpected flaws too late, it's important to understand

the limitations of even the most expensive home survey,

and what they do and don't cover.

Even so, it doesn't mean all parties involved in a purchase like Karen's

are off the hook, and that's partly because there are still some

unanswered questions when it comes to the building itself.

Karen can't tell just how far the structure extends underground,

and is concerned it could be much bigger than it first appears,

and when we spoke to a specialist archaeologist about the structure,

he couldn't say for sure if it WAS an air raid shelter,

suggesting it could have had some other civil or military purpose.

But no matter what the building's true history,

Henry Pryor believes in such cases,

both the seller and the agent need to be clear about what's for sale.

I have a huge amount of sympathy for Karen and her predicament,

and I would certainly suggest that she should be perhaps thinking about

talking to the selling agent and to the seller, who, it would appear

on the face of it hasn't disclosed the existence

of the air raid shelter. It's something that one would expect

that the seller should make the purchaser aware of.

Well, when we contacted the estate agency who made the sale it said,

in a situation like this it would always rely on the vendor

to explain what was in an overgrown garden,

as otherwise, with it being overgrown,

there would be no reason to think there was anything there.

The agent reiterated that the existence of the shelter should have

been disclosed on the information form that the seller completed,

but though we've been in touch with the seller to ask why it wasn't,

as yet, we've had no response.

As well as underlining how crucial it is that everything

in one of those property information forms is true,

all of this rather leaves poor Karen stuck with

having to sort the situation out, which hardly seems fair.

It's possible she could have a legal case

against the various parties involved, but for now,

with no-one else taking responsibility, she's unwilling

to pay the huge cost of dismantling the structure herself,

but she worries that keeping it will affect the value of her property in the future.

When I see the shelter, I just think, "Where do I start with it?"

It's going to be a massive job, I don't want it in my garden,

I want to get rid of it. If I want to sell the house again,

I don't want to have this to try and sell the house with,

you know, which is probably why they all tried to hide it,

because it would probably make the house unsalable,

or I probably certainly wouldn't get the same money back for it

that I paid for it.

Still to come here on Rip-Off Britain.

The big-name hotel chain with stunning buildings,

but is the customer service quite so impressive?

I felt absolutely gutted.

I was just being brushed under the carpet, basically,

they were not interested.

Welcome to Rip-Off Britain's pop-up shop.

This year we've come back to Manchester to one of the biggest

and busiest shopping centres in the whole of the UK.

Our top team of experts is here,

ready to tackle all your consumer problems.

And, you know what, we're ready, we're willing and we're very able,

so let's declare our pop-up shop well and truly open.

CHEERING

Among the first people in to see us were Katie Wilson

and her boyfriend, George Ricks.

'At first we thought we were dealing with a simple matter

'about a refund for services owed but, as is often the case

'at our pop-up shop, there was more to the story they told

'financial crime lawyer Arun Chauhan than met the eye.'

So, Arun, I've brought Katie and George to see you because they've

got a problem about a sum of money that they think they're owed

that the having difficulty getting back.

So, perhaps, Katie, you'd like to take up the story.

Basically, late 2015, myself and George joined a budget gym,

and we decided to get a personal trainer -

the kind who are just in the gym with the gym T-shirts on,

so you just kind of approach somebody randomly.

I sort of paid for a block of ten sessions, £200.

Katie paid the trainer directly and, as she was happy with

the first sessions, and to keep herself motivated,

she purchased another 20 in advance, paying out a further £400,

but then out of the blue,

the trainer sent Katie a disturbing message.

He texted, saying, "Oh, hi, Katie, I just wanted to let you know that

"actually, I've been let go from the gym due to health and safety issues

"and I'll be in touch." So then we approached the gym,

and the gym said, because of their budget gym model,

means that they can't give us any money back

because he was self-employed whilst working in their gym,

so basically the manager said,

"Well, we can give you a few complimentary sessions,"

and they offered me three, and they offered George one.

Katie wasn't satisfied with that,

as she'd paid for a further 17 sessions,

and then the gym explained why the trainer had been let go.

They found out that he was wanted for GBH in Australia,

so obviously, we felt really let down by the gym.

They were like, "Oh, yes, and we have 17 other people

-"that he's stolen money from, basically."

-Horrible, isn't it?

-Yes.

Katie could only contact the trainer by text,

which made it tricky to track him down.

Basically, we'd sent him a text saying,

when will you be looking at giving us the money?

And he sort of texted back saying, "Still working on it, still saving."

And then the next thing we know, he's in Thailand with his girlfriend

and he's posting all these pictures on social media,

so we knew that he had the money, basically took our money and ran.

Well, clearly, the trainer has a case to answer,

and even though the gym has since offered the couple further

free sessions, Arun is in no doubt they still have to do more.

There is an issue there with the budget gym,

because they didn't set out how this worked

and equally, they didn't really tell you about the type of conduct

which would be acceptable by a personal trainer or not,

and they have an obligation, I would say, to vet these

personal trainers, and that includes criminal record checks, to be safe.

So the gym itself is at the heart of this whole issue,

how should they be approaching the gym?

Yeah, I think they are responsible for your safety in the gym,

and that doesn't include just the equipment,

it's about who they put in front of you, so I think you should

probably be writing to the gym and saying, hold on,

you've got a responsibility to us to do background checks on these

individuals because their failings directly contributed to your loss.

-OK.

-Let's hope it bears some results.

-Yeah, thank you.

Our team of experts was also out and about in the shopping centre

offering tips and advice

and, in an age when so many people are signed up to social media,

solicitor Gary Rycroft was keen to know if the people he was meeting

fully understood the terms and conditions they've agreed to.

When you signed up, did you read the terms and conditions

or did you just tick the box?

-I just ticked the box.

-Why didn't you read the terms and conditions?

It's too long.

Did you read the terms and conditions when you signed up

-to social media?

-No.

-Why not?

-Too long.

-So you've no idea what you've signed up to?

-No.

Well, Gary here is solicitor,

he's going to tell you what you've signed up for.

Well, if you did read them, if you understood them, then

you would know that you're actually waiving your right to privacy.

Those photographs that you post, those messages that you post,

they can be shared with other people without the social media company

even telling you that they're doing that.

-How does that make you feel?

-Insecure, yeah.

Shocked about that, actually, to be honest.

Would you still sign up knowing that you've waived your right to privacy?

I never knew that they could share the messages.

If I knew that, I wouldn't have signed up in the first place.

-Will you tell your mates now to be a bit more careful?

-Yeah, yeah, I will, totally.

-Share that bit of information with them, anyway.

-Right.

-On social media!

-Can make that public.

-Thank you very much.

-Thank you.

Well, now to a company whose business is booming.

Britannia Hotels, the name behind some of the most popular budget hotels in the UK,

as well as the famous Pontins holiday parks.

But I'm afraid for such a well-established company,

it doesn't have the best reputation for customer service.

In fact, quite a number of unhappy customers,

plus the consumer organisation Which?, say its customer service

does stand out, but for entirely the wrong reasons.

That's especially disappointing for a business that managed to post

a £33.3 million profit in 2016.

Well, all this has prompted us to take a closer look,

not just at what might have gone wrong in this case,

but also at customer service in general,

so that if you ever have to make a complaint to a big name,

you'll know how to boost your chances of getting it resolved.

"Competitive pricing offering real value for money."

Over its 40-year history, the Britannia Hotels group

has established an impressive portfolio of properties,

with its 54 hotels offering 9,000 bedrooms across the UK,

but we've been hearing from guests who say their experience

certainly didn't match up to the grandeur of the surroundings.

Margaret and Roger Bolton from Salford got in touch with us

after their trip to the Britannia Hotel in Edinburgh.

They'd booked a room to celebrate their silver wedding anniversary,

and even ordered flowers and champagne for when they arrived.

I was really excited, I thought this was going to be something special,

it's going to be a lovely room.

They'd splashed out £470 for three nights in the Excelsior suite -

it was a special occasion, after all - but when they checked in,

they felt things were rather different from what they'd expected.

Straightaway, I noticed the carpet hadn't been hoovered.

The room didn't look clean, the windows were filthy.

I walked into the en-suite toilet and there was mould all over the sink,

the toilet seat hadn't been cleaned.

It was just horrible.

Come on.

But what really took Margaret and Roger aback was the reaction

when they took their complaints to the reception desk.

When we complained at reception, we just got met with blank faces.

There was no response.

The only response we got was, we don't give refunds.

The couple WERE offered alternative rooms,

which they felt were worse than the first one,

and after some further negotiation,

reception staff also offered a 10% refund,

but Margaret felt her special trip had been ruined,

so when she returned home, she made a formal complaint.

I sent an e-mail to Britannia customer services,

I also sent an e-mail to the manager of the Britannia Hotel in Edinburgh,

and I didn't get any response.

I've tried phoning the hotel manager in Edinburgh,

and he was never there.

He did not respond to me at all.

Four months later, by which time Margaret had given up hope

of ever hearing back from Britannia,

a manager did call, promising to try and secure a full refund,

but that didn't materialise,

so Margaret tried chasing, but heard nothing further.

And all that was, wait for it, two-and-a-half years ago.

Now, by anyone's standard, that's a long time to wait

for a final response to a complaint.

I felt absolutely gutted.

I was just being brushed under the carpet, basically.

They were not interested.

Margaret and Roger aren't the only people who've written to us

expressing unhappiness with the customer service

they've had from Britannia Hotels.

Jerry Blanchard from Oxford stayed at the group's famous Adelphi Hotel

in Liverpool in September 2016.

It's described on the company's website as luxurious,

but Jeremy begs to disagree.

We got to our room, very, very tired.

Unclean, seriously worn carpets.

Sitting on the bed, one of the legs was broken,

at which point we decided to go and rejoin the queue in reception

and to ask for another room.

And he was offered one but, again, he wasn't impressed.

The bath was full of what can only be described as human hair.

A room that's been cleaned should not have that level of filth remaining.

Jeremy claims the reception desk was busy with other dissatisfied guests,

so he decided to wait until he returned home to make his complaint.

The next morning, we just couldn't get away quickly enough.

We didn't want to spend a minute longer in that hotel then we had to.

It became very apparent that service was just

so far-away from being a priority.

We just decided to cut and run.

Jeremy had booked his room through an independent website

so sent in his complaint off to them,

and although that company responded swiftly and sympathetically,

the communication dried up once it got in touch with Britannia on his behalf.

Jeremy says he was eventually told by the website that Britannia

had said unless he'd complained at the time, in person, there was

nothing that could be done, and that's left him very annoyed.

I wouldn't stay in one of their hotels ever again,

knowing how they deal with customers' complaints,

albeit after the event.

If I pay £175, I expect a level of service

which was way, way off the mark.

Now, of course, when it comes to complaints, what one person

considers a huge problem may simply be a little niggle to someone else,

but either way, what we all expect is an answer,

and to have our concerns taken seriously,

and according to the people we've heard from,

that's not always the case when it comes to Britannia.

In fact, we've received more complaints in our inbox

about this company than for any other UK hotel chain,

and the common theme is the response, or rather the lack of it,

there's been from the company.

What's more, it isn't just Rip-Off Britain viewers voicing such concerns,

the review website TripAdvisor has a complaints thread

going back over ten years.

Of course, the chain has many happy customers as well,

there are hundreds of reviews rating some of the hotels as excellent

on TripAdvisor too, but in a report by the consumer body Which?

that rated 33 of the UK's hotel chains for customer satisfaction,

Britannia Hotels came bottom, and not for the first time,

which doesn't impress Helen Dewdney,

who's been advising consumers about how to complain for over 30 years.

In the most recent Which? survey on hotels,

the Britannia chain came bottom for the fourth year running.

So what does that tell us about customer service?

Well, it tells us that they care very little for it.

They're clearly not listening to feedback, it's coming from the top,

and nothing's going to really change until people start

voting with their feet or start asserting their legal rights

and complain effectively.

But when we contacted Britannia Hotels, about the complaints we'd received,

the company stressed customers are its number-one concern,

saying it takes every complaint seriously

and as a matter of high priority. What's more,

it said, it would contact the people in both the cases we spoke to

and resolve their complaints, and it's done just that,

giving both Margaret and Roger and Jeremy full refunds on their stays.

While that's great news,

all of them would rather things had been resolved sooner

without needing to contact us.

But Helen believes that many of us find complaining

and complaining with confidence really difficult to do.

She reckons that explains why we don't always get the results

we want, and why companies are able to prosper even if they don't

have the best reputation for customer service.

Helen herself is evangelical about complaining,

and wants us all to get better at it, so she's taken to the streets

of Sevenoaks in Kent to find out what action the people there

would take if they'd had a disappointing hotel stay.

So, have you ever had to complain about a hotel?

I probably should have.

The TV wasn't working, and I really should have complained at the time,

but I didn't, stiff upper lip sort of thing.

Why did you not complain?

I just felt guilty about complaining.

-You felt guilty?

-Yes, it's strange.

What do you think it is about the British that makes us

-not want to complain?

-As a nation, we're probably quite unassuming.

We're reluctant to make a fuss,

but my wife is definitely the complainer, she is far stronger

than I am and she wears the trousers.

When I was in Scotland, and I arrived with my mum and my sister,

and the sheets were questionable.

-You know when you sort of touch them and they're a bit damp?

-Not nice.

-Yeah, exactly.

-Did you complain when you got home?

Well, to be honest with you, I just stayed well clear,

we put that experience to the side and carried on with our lives.

No, no, don't be put off.

The British are so put off and they're fobbed off.

so don't do it next time, get them.

So, if you ever find yourself staying at a hotel that doesn't

live up to expectations, what can you do to improve

your chances of getting a complaint resolved?

Well, Helen has two key pieces of advice.

The first is, start complaining straightaway.

Hello, reception?

If you're not happy with your hotel,

or your accommodation provider, complain at the time, if you can,

because that's the best way to try and give them an opportunity

to put things right.

If you're not able to, or you're rushing for a train,

when you get home, complain to head office, and you need to say

that they're in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015,

by not providing services with reasonable skill and care -

that way, you're going to get listened to far more

than if you don't mention the law.

If you don't complain at the time,

the hotel might reasonably say things couldn't have been that bad.

As for Helen's second tip?

Keep evidence of everything, so you want to be filming your room,

taking photos, so you've got all the evidence

should you need to take the matter further.

That way, Helen says,

your chances of getting results are greatly improved.

We need to get more effective in our complaining

so that we don't get fobbed off.

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

then get in touch with us via our Facebook page,

BBC Rip-Off Britain, our website...

..or you can e-mail us...

If you want to send us a letter, our address is...

The Rip-Off team is ready and waiting to investigate your stories.

Well, I'll bet there can't be too many of us who wouldn't shudder

whenever we see a story like the one about the fire

that caused such damage to Joan's home.

It's absolutely terrifying to think that a sofa

could cause such devastation.

And while it's certainly a relief that no-one was injured,

I'm sure none of us wants to go through anything like that.

But a big thank you to everyone who shared their stories with us today.

It's by hearing about your experiences that the rest of us know

what we need to watch out for.

Which, of course, is a very useful reminder that

we really are truly grateful for every single letter

and e-mail that you send us,

even if we're not able to include them on the programme.

The team genuinely reads every single one,

so do keep them coming in.

And we have lots of programmes coming up over the next few months,

and whilst, of course, we can't promise to solve every problem

you tell us about, we'll certainly give it try.

And at that point, that's where we have to leave it for today,

but we'll see you again very soon.

-But from the Rip-Off Britain team, bye-bye.

-Goodbye.

-Goodbye.