:00:30. > :00:34.Hello, and welcome to Watchdog Daily. We're with you live for the
:00:34. > :00:38.next 45 minutes. This morning: Flight delayed? A new rule means
:00:38. > :00:41.you should get compensation. But will the airlines pay out?
:00:41. > :00:45.Costa, Starbucks, Cafe Nero. Coffee to go or drinking inside? You'll be
:00:45. > :00:53.surprised who gets the best deal. And Christmas toys bound for the UK.
:00:53. > :00:59.The Consumer Cops clamp down on dangerous imports.
:00:59. > :01:02.First, Thomas Cook and Monarch. Like all airlines, they're bound by
:01:02. > :01:04.EU regulations that say they should compensate you if your flight is
:01:04. > :01:07.cancelled or overbooked. Well, following a court judgment last
:01:07. > :01:12.month, you're now also entitled to a payout if your flight is held up
:01:12. > :01:16.for more than three hours. And, as that rule applies retrospectively,
:01:16. > :01:22.it affects delayed flights going back seven years. But just because
:01:22. > :01:30.the airlines are legally obliged to pay, it doesn't mean they will.
:01:30. > :01:35.Here's Rani. With millions of flights landing in
:01:35. > :01:40.the UK every day, there are bound to be some hitches. That is why the
:01:40. > :01:47.EU brought in those regulations to protect passengers. One regulation
:01:47. > :01:51.in particular. The rule called EU 261 was introduced in 2004 to
:01:51. > :01:56.guarantee customers travelling within Europe, or into Europe,
:01:56. > :01:59.protection against delays, cancellations. The intention was to
:01:59. > :02:05.make sure that everybody got the same protection. Some airlines
:02:05. > :02:12.don't always follow these rules leaving passengers frustrated at
:02:13. > :02:17.best, out-of-pocket at worst. First up, delays. Noel and Marie Scotland
:02:18. > :02:22.were due to fly out to Corfu in August. A 24-hour delay meant they
:02:22. > :02:26.spent the first day of their holiday at the airport rather than
:02:26. > :02:30.the beach. We were rather annoyed about that. You can cope with
:02:30. > :02:35.delays. We have been travelling to Greece for over 30 years. We waited
:02:35. > :02:41.around for two hours. Then they decided to put us in a hotel. I was
:02:41. > :02:46.made up then, thinking we have somewhere to rest. The hotel stay
:02:46. > :02:50.didn't last long. After just six hours, the airline said it was time
:02:50. > :02:53.to move. After we left the hotel, we thought we were going to fly off
:02:53. > :02:57.and we discovered there was still a further delay. We thought we would
:02:57. > :03:01.be sent back to the hotel which was not the case. Under the rules, the
:03:01. > :03:07.couple should have been given food and accommodation. The
:03:07. > :03:10.accommodation provided by Small Planet Airlines, the airport
:03:10. > :03:14.departure lounge. We were left all night at the airport. There were
:03:14. > :03:19.only four blankets between all of the passengers, so that went to the
:03:19. > :03:23.children and the elderly. Yeah. didn't get a blanket or a pillow.
:03:23. > :03:28.They didn't receive any compensation for the delay either.
:03:28. > :03:33.According to EU rules at the time, they weren't entitled to any. Now
:03:33. > :03:37.they are. The recent court ruling means any passenger can get at
:03:37. > :03:44.least 250 euros if their flight is held up for more than three hours.
:03:44. > :03:51.That applies to delayed flights going back seven years. So what
:03:51. > :03:56.about passengers whose flights don't take off at all? Robert Evans
:03:56. > :04:02.and Melissa Taylor were booked on a Thomas Cook flight from Tenerife to
:04:02. > :04:07.Bristol. We were told we had a nine-hour delay. So we checked our
:04:07. > :04:15.luggage in. Then we got given a voucher for food. A good few hours
:04:15. > :04:20.later, they said the plane was due to land at 10.00pm. Great. Then it
:04:20. > :04:24.was on the screen it was cancelled. Remember those EU rules? If your
:04:24. > :04:29.flight is cancelled, you have an automatic right to food,
:04:29. > :04:34.accommodation and upwards of 250 euros in compensation unless there
:04:34. > :04:38.are extraordinary circumstances. Thomas Cook offered no compensation.
:04:38. > :04:43.And even though they flew out the couple the next morning, on a
:04:43. > :04:49.different plane, to a different airport, they classed this as a
:04:49. > :04:52.delay rather than a cancellation. What's more, they didn't even offer
:04:52. > :04:59.them overnight accommodation. thought that was unfair. We had
:04:59. > :05:06.been out of the room since 12.00pm, so we had nowhere to wash, change,
:05:06. > :05:16.and we were sleeping on the floor and on the chairs in the airport.
:05:16. > :05:17.
:05:17. > :05:23.So that's delays and cancellations. Next on the list - denied boarding.
:05:23. > :05:29.This is the moment that newlywed Ray and Selina Mellon were
:05:29. > :05:33.prevented from getting on their Monarch flight back to Manchester.
:05:33. > :05:38.As the earlier rows got called to board, there was a rush of people
:05:38. > :05:41.to the gate. It turns out that these people were from a previous
:05:41. > :05:45.flight who had been delayed 24 hours. These people were trying to
:05:45. > :05:50.get on the plane that was allocated to us. The ground staff initially
:05:50. > :05:54.said that this wouldn't happen. Five minutes later, after a lot of
:05:54. > :05:57.to-ing and fro-ing, that is what they did. They gave our flight away
:05:58. > :06:03.and put the delayed passengers on our plane. The couple, along with
:06:03. > :06:07.their fellow travellers, had to wait for 16 hours at a hotel before
:06:07. > :06:12.they could fly home. Monarch blamed the delay on technical problems.
:06:12. > :06:15.That was strange because the couple had watched the plane take off
:06:15. > :06:19.filled with the angry passengers whose earlier flight had been
:06:19. > :06:26.delayed. If your flight is there and you are about to board, and
:06:26. > :06:36.they choose to put the delayed passengers on in front of you, you
:06:36. > :06:36.
:06:36. > :06:40.are entitled to compensation. insisted their flight had been
:06:40. > :06:48.delayed and they had not been denied boarding. Understandably
:06:48. > :06:55.angry. It's tarnished the end and their service has been left wanting.
:06:55. > :07:01.Although there are EU rules to protect passengers. There are none
:07:01. > :07:05.for those whose luggage is last. If yours is one of the six million
:07:05. > :07:10.bags airlines mislay every year, there is another rule. It is called
:07:10. > :07:15.the Montreal Convention. It means if your carrier loses your bag, you
:07:16. > :07:21.are entitled to compensation of up to �1,000. Perhaps someone needs to
:07:21. > :07:26.tell Jet Airways. Anika Duggal flew with them in December 2011. We were
:07:26. > :07:30.going to India to visit our family. There was a family gathering.
:07:30. > :07:34.now 11 months since she checked in her suitcase. She has not seen it
:07:34. > :07:37.since. When we got there, we were told that one of our pieces of
:07:37. > :07:42.luggage was still in London. Then after three days, we found out that
:07:42. > :07:45.wasn't the case and it was missing. We spent many hours of our holiday
:07:45. > :07:52.trying to contact Jet Airways on the phone. It was a lot of time
:07:52. > :07:56.spent when I could have been enjoying myself. Time as well as
:07:56. > :08:02.money. Despite her suitcase containing goods worth a lot more,
:08:02. > :08:08.all Jet Airways offered was �135. Half of the compensation they had
:08:08. > :08:16.offered us would cover the suitcase alone let alone the contents inside
:08:16. > :08:20.the suitcase. They haven't paid us despite chasing them up. They
:08:20. > :08:30.ignore us. Providing the customer can show the value of her property,
:08:30. > :08:33.she should be able to make a valid claim.
:08:33. > :08:37.Before that, let's hear what the companies named in the report have
:08:37. > :08:42.to say. Rani. Well, firstly, Jet Airways, who
:08:42. > :08:45.lost that bag belonging to Anika Duggal. It says it did provide her
:08:45. > :08:47.with regular updates and, in the absence of supporting receipts or
:08:47. > :08:50.bills, offered suitable compensation which she agreed to.
:08:50. > :08:53.However, it's apologised for the delay in settling that sum so is
:08:53. > :08:58.paying more as a goodwill gesture. It's sent her a cheque for �212
:08:58. > :09:01.this week. Small Planet Airlines says the
:09:01. > :09:06.delay on their Manchester to Corfu flight back in August was caused by
:09:06. > :09:08.aircraft safety shortcomings. It's sincerely apologised to all
:09:08. > :09:12.passengers, including Noel and Marie Scotland. It says it told
:09:12. > :09:15.them of their rights in the case of a flight delay, and offered free
:09:15. > :09:21.meals and hotel accommodation. The passengers were transferred back to
:09:21. > :09:24.the airport due to the updated time of the departure.
:09:24. > :09:26.Thomas Cook says Robert and Melissa Taylor's flight was disrupted due
:09:26. > :09:28.to extraordinary circumstances beyond its control - a combination
:09:28. > :09:37.of unforeseen aircraft maintenance problems, and a passenger being
:09:37. > :09:39.taken ill. It's apologised. But, although the plane left on a
:09:39. > :09:43.different day, bound for a different airport, it maintains
:09:43. > :09:47.this was a delay - not a cancellation. However, they have
:09:47. > :09:52.now agreed to pay him �100 to cover his expenses.
:09:52. > :09:55.Finally, Monarch. It now agrees that the plane that was supposed to
:09:55. > :10:00.bring Ray and Selina Mellon back from Cyprus was instead used to
:10:00. > :10:04.carry passengers booked on an earlier, delayed flight. It now
:10:04. > :10:07.accepts that this was a case of denied boarding. It's apologised
:10:07. > :10:11.for the inconvenience and distress this caused at the end of their
:10:11. > :10:17.honeymoon. And has now paid them the sterling equivalent of 800
:10:17. > :10:20.euros in compensation. Good news! Meanwhile, if you'd like to comment
:10:20. > :10:24.on that, or any other of today's stories, here's a reminder of how
:10:24. > :10:27.to do so. To send an email, the address is watchdog@bbc.co.uk.
:10:27. > :10:30.If you'd prefer to send a text, just dial 88822 and start your
:10:30. > :10:33.message with the letters "WD". And if you want to join the
:10:33. > :10:37.discussion on Twitter, our address and hashtag are on your screens.
:10:37. > :10:40.Thanks, Rani. Earlier this week, we showed the
:10:40. > :10:42.Consumer Cops in Wales and the South West seizing goods that put
:10:42. > :10:45.buyers in danger. One product could even cause electrocution. Today,
:10:45. > :10:50.we're going further south, to show how they're tackling the problem of
:10:51. > :10:55.unsafe imports at source. Here's Rhodri Owen.
:10:55. > :11:00.Yes, welcome to Southampton. This hi-tech container port is one of
:11:00. > :11:05.the biggest in the UK, handling more than 40 million tonnes of
:11:05. > :11:15.cargo every year. Among the cars, food and electronics, there are
:11:15. > :11:20.
:11:20. > :11:30.It's Monday morning at the port, where a ship from Hong Kong has
:11:30. > :11:31.
:11:31. > :11:35.docked during the early hours. On board, there are 509 containers.
:11:35. > :11:40.These men have the job of ensuring everything inside them is
:11:40. > :11:44.legitimate. Anybody who is doing the work at points of entry, that
:11:44. > :11:48.is the first line of defence into the country. What we don't want to
:11:48. > :11:52.do is we don't want to be stopping stuff once it is on the market and
:11:52. > :11:56.particularly perhaps once somebody has been scruered. If we can stop
:11:56. > :12:00.it -- injured. If we can stop it at the point of entry, that is the
:12:00. > :12:05.ideal situation. Since April, the team have examined more than 50
:12:05. > :12:09.containers, finding 42 products that later failed safety tests.
:12:09. > :12:15.Today, intelligence reports lead them to identify two containers
:12:15. > :12:19.believed to be holding dangerous goods. Inspecting all the contents
:12:19. > :12:25.is a huge task. To make it more manageable, they have asked the
:12:25. > :12:32.importers to provide a list of everything inside. What do we
:12:32. > :12:41.reckon is in here? Anything exciting? Oh. We have a packing
:12:41. > :12:48.list for this. 60 products, is it? 57 different products. OK. We will
:12:48. > :12:54.dig a few out and have a look. Not quite sure where we will start,
:12:54. > :12:58.mind you! With Christmas approaching, the officers are
:12:58. > :13:02.keeping a keen eye out for potentially dangerous toys and
:13:02. > :13:12.children's products. And as soon as the inspection starts, they find
:13:12. > :13:16.
:13:16. > :13:19.one. LAUGHTER We know these! This is obviously a little kid's toy,
:13:19. > :13:23.chair, whatever you want to call it. The problem we have had with these
:13:23. > :13:31.in the past is that the feet come off relatively easily and then you
:13:31. > :13:36.have got on some of them sharp edges. They are a potential hazard.
:13:36. > :13:41.The plastic cap... That is a potential choking hazard for young
:13:41. > :13:47.children. We won't be allowing that to go on into the marketplace so we
:13:47. > :13:51.will stop that being transported off and ending up in the shops.
:13:51. > :14:01.This early discovery suggests the intelligence they are working on is
:14:01. > :14:01.
:14:01. > :14:05.correct. Closer investigations are now required. 180 miles away,
:14:05. > :14:13.another team of officers are conducting a similar operation to
:14:13. > :14:19.Malcolm and Lawrence. Felixstowe on the Suffolk coast is the country's
:14:19. > :14:29.busiest container port with 4,000 ships loading and unloading each
:14:29. > :14:30.
:14:30. > :14:35.year. It handles more than a third of the UK's sea borne trade.
:14:35. > :14:39.With these two that we are looking at today, we have one which is a
:14:39. > :14:43.bit of a mixed history. They have had some items that have past, they
:14:44. > :14:48.have had some that have failed. The items are very cheap. They have
:14:48. > :14:54.come from China. So we are going to have a look to see what it is that
:14:54. > :14:57.they have brought in. With the help of Port Authoritys, the Felixstowe
:14:57. > :15:07.Trading Standards officer has organised an inspection of some of
:15:07. > :15:13.
:15:13. > :15:21.the suspect containers. It is those two that I'm most interested in.
:15:21. > :15:25.It's actually a musical trumpet by the looks of it. From a company we
:15:25. > :15:30.have seen before that we know have been advised on their labelling.
:15:30. > :15:33.Straightaway, I can see that it is not labelled correctly. It has not
:15:34. > :15:42.got any of the manufacturing or importer details on them. So we
:15:42. > :15:45.will be taking this one. Next, a children's toy police kit. It's
:15:45. > :15:52.particularly concerning as a similar product has already failed
:15:52. > :15:58.safety tests. Yeah. So this is what we were expecting. This is a police
:15:58. > :16:03.set. We have two different types. Straightaway, we would have
:16:03. > :16:12.concerns with this one because the plastic is quite soft. So we would
:16:12. > :16:16.be looking at having that tested for a toxin. And looks like we have
:16:16. > :16:22.some possible bits that would fall off there which could be a choking
:16:22. > :16:25.hazard. The products will undergo safety checks. These must be
:16:25. > :16:35.carried out quickly as all the goods are due to be distributed
:16:35. > :16:38.
:16:38. > :16:42.I have examined two of the containers. 61, that can be
:16:42. > :16:48.released. 62, I want to keep on hold for another few hours while we
:16:48. > :16:52.test it back at the office. And we'll show you the results of
:16:52. > :16:55.that test later. Now, Starbucks, Costa and Cafe Nero.
:16:55. > :16:59.Making millions each year providing us with our daily cup of coffee.
:16:59. > :17:05.Some of us like to drink in. Others prefer to get their caffeine hit on
:17:05. > :17:15.the move. But just before you make up your mind completely, there's
:17:15. > :17:21.
:17:21. > :17:24.something our mystery shoppers would like you to know. We spend a
:17:24. > :17:28.staggering �1.3 billion in coffee shops every year with two-thirds
:17:28. > :17:32.buying hot drinks when we are out and about. It is that demand that's
:17:32. > :17:37.fuelled the explosion of coffee chains on our High Streets. This
:17:37. > :17:40.man loves his coffee. When he decided to have his morning cup
:17:41. > :17:47.inside his local Starbucks rather than take it away, he discovered
:17:47. > :17:53.something sneaky going on. noticed that if you sit in, where
:17:53. > :17:57.you would be paying the same price as you would to take a drink out,
:17:57. > :18:03.you always get less when you buy a drink to sit in. Given the price is
:18:03. > :18:08.already quite expensive, I would really would expect that the size
:18:08. > :18:13.should be the same whether I sit in or take out. It should be the same.
:18:13. > :18:18.Same shop, same price, smaller amount just for opting to drink in.
:18:18. > :18:24.Was that a stingy member of staff or company policy? Are the other
:18:24. > :18:32.chains up to similar tricks? Time for the team to hit the road. Over
:18:32. > :18:42.two days our shoppers visited two branches of Costa, Starbucks and
:18:42. > :18:42.
:18:42. > :18:46.Cafe Nero. One got takeaway, the other ordered to drink in, but
:18:46. > :18:52.poured the contents into takeaway cups once they bought them. The
:18:52. > :18:57.cups were taken straight to the Watchdog Daily measuring mobile,
:18:57. > :19:04.which was parked around the corner. The contents were measured to see
:19:04. > :19:10.if one did contain more coffee. First, the UK's biggest coffee
:19:10. > :19:15.chain, Costa. They cost the same to take away and to drink in, but
:19:15. > :19:25.would they measure the same? In both stores, we were given less
:19:25. > :19:34.
:19:34. > :19:44.Next, the lattes. Milky. Let's have a look. Again, in both stores, they
:19:44. > :19:44.
:19:44. > :19:50.were smaller drinking in. So, in both the Costas, our drink-
:19:50. > :19:54.in coffees were smaller than the take-out drinks. A small one.
:19:54. > :19:58.What about Starbucks, the second largest chain in the UK? Again,
:19:58. > :20:08.both the drink-in and the takeaway coffees cost the same. Would we get
:20:08. > :20:14.the same amount of coffee in each cup? In one branch, they were the
:20:14. > :20:24.same size. But in the other branch, there was
:20:24. > :20:27.
:20:27. > :20:32.So in Starbucks, you could end up with a lot less for your money, but
:20:32. > :20:36.it might depend on which branch you visit. If you are thinking you
:20:36. > :20:40.received less coffee simply as a surcharge for drinking in, think
:20:40. > :20:45.again. Cafe Nero charge up to 10p extra for drinking in. They say it
:20:45. > :20:55.is to cover VAT. As we discovered, they still give you less coffee.
:20:55. > :20:55.
:20:55. > :21:02.How much less? In the first branch, to drink, it was smaller. In the
:21:02. > :21:06.second branch, they were both smaller. What do other coffee
:21:06. > :21:10.drinkers think? I didn't know. I thought that they were all the same
:21:10. > :21:14.sizes, whether you eat in or take away. Medium is a medium. Not fair.
:21:14. > :21:18.I don't think it is right. You are paying more money, so you should be
:21:18. > :21:25.getting the same amount whether you are drinking in or taking it away.
:21:25. > :21:33.You shouldn't have to be penalised for drinking in. So if you are like
:21:33. > :21:41.me and love your coffee, wherever possible get it in a take-out cup!
:21:41. > :21:44.I knew there was a reason! How do the companies explain it?
:21:44. > :21:47.Well, firstly, Starbucks says it has 760 UK stores so you can't draw
:21:47. > :21:51.absolute conclusions from our comparison of two drinks from just
:21:51. > :21:55.a couple of them. It says the size of its drinks - whether to have in-
:21:55. > :21:58.store or take-away - are consistent. But, as they're handmade, there may
:21:58. > :22:01.at times be small variances in the amount of liquid in the cup. Costa
:22:01. > :22:04.told us its recyclable cups are made to an industry standard. It
:22:04. > :22:07.does acknowledge slight differences by ensuring its brand standard
:22:07. > :22:12.recipes take into account the cup size when it comes to the amount of
:22:12. > :22:16.milk and coffee used. This means customers enjoy the same taste,
:22:16. > :22:23.whether they stay in store or take their drink with them.
:22:23. > :22:26.As for Cafe Nero? It says there are two different customer experiences.
:22:26. > :22:29.The different pricing is based on the added value associated with
:22:29. > :22:32.enjoying a drink in store - where customers can stay throughout the
:22:32. > :22:36.day, and where there are newspapers, free Wi-Fi, music and comfortable
:22:36. > :22:41.furniture. It says this differential pricing is common
:22:41. > :22:45.practice not only throughout the UK but in many European countries.
:22:45. > :22:48.Next, dangerous toys, clothes and children's equipment. Our cameras
:22:48. > :22:51.are with the Consumer Cops trying to stop them being imported into
:22:51. > :22:55.the UK, then distributed to shops and markets around the country.
:22:55. > :23:03.It's a massive task, especially at this time of the year. Let's re-
:23:03. > :23:13.join Rhodri. In Southampton, Christmas has come
:23:13. > :23:14.
:23:14. > :23:20.early formal come and Lawrence. They are mid-way unpacking a
:23:20. > :23:28.container full of toys. Let's have a look in here. What is that one
:23:28. > :23:32.there? They have the hole for the screw, but they haven't put it in!
:23:32. > :23:36.The battery compartment, you have to make it childproof. This has
:23:36. > :23:39.been made to take a screw so that you can't get the battery
:23:39. > :23:46.compartment open without the screw, but they haven't bothered to put
:23:46. > :23:52.the screw in. So potentially access to the batteries, choking hazard.
:23:52. > :24:02.People can swallow them. Not a great idea. As well as the missing
:24:02. > :24:03.
:24:03. > :24:08.screws, this also causes concern. don't know how securely these - not
:24:08. > :24:12.very. You have a small LED there. There is an eye. Doesn't take a
:24:12. > :24:18.huge amount of strength. That is potentially getting into the hands
:24:18. > :24:22.of anyone from the age of a baby upwards, really. Next, the officers
:24:22. > :24:30.find a set of dolls in the container. Once again, there are
:24:30. > :24:35.problems. The quality of the - it is not a skin, it is glorified
:24:35. > :24:42.paper. You can - I don't know whether - some of these will - this
:24:42. > :24:49.is a bit better made. That's the sort of paper that crime scene
:24:49. > :24:52.suits are made out of. In the past, they have pulled apart very easily!
:24:52. > :24:57.LAUGHTER That is a potential choking hazard for children. So not
:24:57. > :25:00.particularly scientific, you can see what happens. It's the sort of
:25:01. > :25:07.thing which will encourage us to think we will have that tested.
:25:07. > :25:11.Yeah. One doll looks similar to others that have failed a previous
:25:11. > :25:15.test due to the plastics leaking chemicals. Another contains small
:25:15. > :25:19.parts which could pose another choking hazard. As you can see, we
:25:19. > :25:24.could be here all day on this one container. We will finish on this
:25:24. > :25:30.and have a look at another one. next container holds one design of
:25:30. > :25:34.doll they are concerned about. But there are lots of them! That is a
:25:34. > :25:44.good example of stuff to the gunnels! LAUGHTER They will now be
:25:44. > :25:46.
:25:46. > :25:52.testing this doll for moveable parts and flamability. Back in
:25:52. > :25:58.Felixstowe, Sasha is preparing to carry out a container inspection,
:25:58. > :26:02.her second of the morning. Brilliant. Is it all the same
:26:02. > :26:09.consignment? Yes. Brilliant. Again, she's acting on intelligence she's
:26:09. > :26:14.received about the importer. It's a mixed consignment of a variety of
:26:14. > :26:18.items from bottle openers, to fans, to camera straps. So we are going
:26:18. > :26:22.to look out for a number of items we have interest in because of
:26:22. > :26:32.previous failures with this company. It is a slow process. Initially,
:26:32. > :26:33.
:26:33. > :26:38.everything in the container appears safe and labelled correctly.
:26:38. > :26:44.Concerns soon surface. She is particularly worried about a
:26:44. > :26:49.product packed amongst the electrical items. The documentation
:26:49. > :26:55.says it's just bladeless fans in here. None of these would look like
:26:55. > :27:02.they would be such. Ly open one of these bags. It is not a fan -- I
:27:02. > :27:08.will open one of these bags. It is not a fan because it is soft. It is
:27:08. > :27:16.an inflatable boat? It doesn't have any correct warnings on it. There
:27:16. > :27:22.is an issue whether it is a device to assist with swimming, or whether
:27:22. > :27:28.it is a toy. I would say the fact that it looks like it's a boat with
:27:28. > :27:33.a steering wheel and a horn, it is more likely to be a toy so it would
:27:33. > :27:40.come under toy safety legislation. So we will take that one to get
:27:40. > :27:50.that looked at by the lab that do our testing for us. Here is one of
:27:50. > :27:51.
:27:51. > :27:54.those safety tests. You can see more of those tests later on.
:27:54. > :27:57.Now, earlier we reported on the EU regulations that allow airline
:27:57. > :28:00.passengers to claim compensation if their flight is cancelled. And the
:28:00. > :28:03.new rule that entitles you to a payout if your plane's delayed by
:28:03. > :28:05.more than three hours. Well, joining me now is Iain Osborne from
:28:05. > :28:08.the Civil Aviation Authority. Is this going to open the floodgates
:28:09. > :28:13.because you can claim retrospectively? You can. We are
:28:13. > :28:17.pleased that the court case has clarified the law for people. I
:28:17. > :28:20.think people often are confused about their rights. If people go to
:28:20. > :28:24.our website, there is a really clear statement there about what
:28:24. > :28:28.people are entitle to. They should, if they have had a bad experience,
:28:28. > :28:32.take it up with the airline. If they don't get their rights, we
:28:32. > :28:35.will take it up for them free of charge. When you are talking about
:28:35. > :28:41.flights that date back seven years, it will be hard for people to prove
:28:41. > :28:45.that they have had problems? That is true. People will need to have
:28:45. > :28:50.documents. As your package made clear, if there are extraordinary
:28:50. > :28:54.circumstances, it is not the air lain's fault, compensation isn't
:28:54. > :29:01.payable and quite often that is true. We see airlines getting this
:29:01. > :29:05.wrong. It is not all airlines. It is EU airlines leaving EU airports?
:29:05. > :29:09.If you are flying out of an EU airport, you have these rights. If
:29:09. > :29:15.you are flying into the EU, you have them if you are on a EU
:29:15. > :29:18.carrier. It could cost the airlines a huge amount of money? As I say,
:29:18. > :29:23.if there are extraordinary circumstances, they don't have to
:29:23. > :29:28.pay. The law, this law has been in place since 2005. The airlines have
:29:28. > :29:32.had lots of opportunity to get used to it. The main thing is that
:29:32. > :29:37.passengers are perhaps still not familiar with their rights and we
:29:37. > :29:41.are keen that people use our website or talk to the airline
:29:41. > :29:46.themselves. Get clear about your rights. This is part of what you
:29:46. > :29:51.are paying for when you buy a ticket. If the airlines have to
:29:51. > :29:54.fork out money, they will say the passengers will pay? We talk to
:29:54. > :29:58.airlines a lot about how they set their charges. They tell us prices
:29:58. > :30:01.are set relative to what people can pay, not relative to their own
:30:01. > :30:05.costs. No, I don't think that is likely. If anybody wants to know
:30:05. > :30:08.what to do, even if this is a flight that dates back several
:30:09. > :30:14.years, they can look at your website? The rights are complex,
:30:14. > :30:18.but it sets it out really clearly. If you don't get satisfaction from
:30:18. > :30:22.your airline, I have a team that can take up cases for people. The
:30:22. > :30:26.airlines don't always get it right. If you think you have been
:30:26. > :30:33.mistreated, bring the case to us. suspect you might be busy now!
:30:33. > :30:37.Thank you very much. Let's go to Rani now.
:30:37. > :30:40.Thanks, Sophie. Now, that story about the price differences in
:30:40. > :30:42.coffee bars has got you going. We'll have some of your many
:30:42. > :30:44.comments later. But we're also still getting
:30:44. > :30:48.messages about yesterday's report on returning faulty goods. Lots of
:30:48. > :30:52.viewers are asking us what they can do if they receive a service that
:30:52. > :31:02.isn't up to scratch. Well, we can answer that, or at least our expert
:31:02. > :31:07.
:31:07. > :31:11.Is there anything more annoying than when you have been promised a
:31:11. > :31:16.service only to end up disappointed with the end result? There are
:31:16. > :31:20.several sets of regulations that can help us out. Unfortunately,
:31:20. > :31:28.given the wide range of services available, the legislation is far
:31:28. > :31:36.more fragmented than if you are buying goods. The major piece of
:31:36. > :31:40.legislation is the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. This
:31:40. > :31:44.requires the trader uses reasonable care and still and any goods
:31:44. > :31:47.provided must be of a satisfactory quality, fit for the purpose and
:31:47. > :31:52.comply with description. It also states that where no specific date
:31:52. > :31:59.has been agreed for completion of the service, it must be done within
:31:59. > :32:02.reasonable time. One common example that I hear is that of poorly-
:32:02. > :32:06.fitting double glazing. You are paying for the service of having
:32:06. > :32:10.the glazing installed but also for the windows themselves. Another
:32:10. > :32:13.common example is taking your car into have it repaired. If you take
:32:13. > :32:17.your car in with the reasonable belief that it is going to take two
:32:17. > :32:21.days to do the job and the garage takes three weeks, then the trader
:32:21. > :32:25.has breached the requirement for reasonable time. If when you get
:32:25. > :32:29.the car back, the job has not been done properly, he will also have
:32:29. > :32:33.breached the requirement for reasonable care and skill. So what
:32:33. > :32:36.about your rights when it comes to mobile phones? If your handset is
:32:36. > :32:43.faulty, you should take it back to the company from which you bought
:32:43. > :32:47.it for a repair or replacement. It is always worth asking if you can
:32:47. > :32:53.borrow a phone temporarily while yours is being repaired. If your
:32:53. > :32:57.network coverage is poor, you should contact your network
:32:57. > :33:01.provider. And check the terms and conditions of your contract to see
:33:01. > :33:06.if it makes promises about network coverage. If your contract has been
:33:06. > :33:09.broken, you have a right to cancel it without penalty. If your problem
:33:09. > :33:12.is restricted to a specific building, such as your house, then
:33:13. > :33:17.it is going to be far more difficult to argue. Even if there
:33:17. > :33:20.is nothing specific in your written contract, if a salesman has led you
:33:20. > :33:24.to believe you will get a good quality signal where you live and
:33:24. > :33:28.you get no signal at all, you may have a claim of misrepresentation.
:33:28. > :33:32.While as in every other part of contract law something that has
:33:32. > :33:36.been said is every bit as legally- enforceable as something that's
:33:36. > :33:42.been written down, in practice it is a great deal more difficult to
:33:42. > :33:45.prove. She knows her stuff!
:33:45. > :33:48.For more information on how to complain if a service isn't up to
:33:48. > :33:51.scratch, see our website. The address is bbc.co.uk/watchdog.
:33:51. > :33:53.Time for our last visits to two of the UK's largest container ports
:33:53. > :33:56.now where the Consumer Cops have been seizing potentially dangerous
:33:56. > :34:00.products. Those goods were due to be moved from Southampton and
:34:00. > :34:02.Felixstowe, and then distributed across the whole of the UK. But
:34:02. > :34:10.right now they must undergo stringent safety tests. Here's
:34:10. > :34:13.Rhodri. The Southampton seizures have
:34:13. > :34:17.resulted in six different toys all due to be sold in the run-up to
:34:17. > :34:25.Christmas being sent for safety analysis. Until this is complete,
:34:25. > :34:30.all the goods must be held at the docks. The lab's based 20 miles
:34:30. > :34:36.away in Portsmouth. It is important that officers organise the tests as
:34:36. > :34:39.soon as they can. We are seizing and detaining somebody else's
:34:39. > :34:45.property so it's important from the whole point of view of trade and
:34:45. > :34:49.economy that we don't hold goods up unnecessarily for too long. In fact,
:34:49. > :34:53.Malcolm has 48 hours to get all the samples tested. He can then tell
:34:53. > :35:02.the importer if he will be holding on to the container, or releasing
:35:02. > :35:07.it. Sasha is about to send off her seized consignment for testing. She
:35:07. > :35:13.already has a good idea what the results will be. Especially those
:35:13. > :35:19.concerning the parts inside this child's police toy. With the gun,
:35:19. > :35:27.the gun looks like it's for use with the darts. The darts enter
:35:27. > :35:32.into the top of the gun and you can shoot out. This will get tested
:35:32. > :35:35.because we will be looking at the propelling dart as to whether it is
:35:35. > :35:43.too strong because it could be something that could be dangerous,
:35:43. > :35:50.whether it be shot at someone's eye. This small trunkaigs cylinder is an
:35:50. > :35:53.important toy safety tool -- truncation cylinder. We can test to
:35:53. > :35:57.see if anything would fit into it to indicate whether it is small
:35:57. > :36:01.enough for them to choke on the item. The items that we are going
:36:01. > :36:05.to be most concerned with, with having removable parts, are the
:36:05. > :36:12.darts and they have these end parts on them which are sticky and they
:36:12. > :36:15.do come off. So they are of a size that will easily fit into the
:36:15. > :36:19.truncation and could be a chokable part. What we are also concerned
:36:19. > :36:26.about is one other small item which is in the toy, which is a whistle.
:36:26. > :36:31.Again, that fits into the truncation. Results later do
:36:31. > :36:37.confirm that while it tested negative for toxins, the police kit
:36:37. > :36:41.fails toy safety regulations. Both the whistle and the suction from
:36:41. > :36:44.the darts could cause choking. The trumpet failed because of
:36:44. > :36:50.inadequate labelling. As for the inflatable product, it turns out to
:36:50. > :36:54.be a swim seat and not a toy. But its design is found to pose a
:36:54. > :37:00.significant risk of drowning so it is declared unsafe. The importers
:37:00. > :37:04.of the goods are based in Salford and Nottingham. So she must alert
:37:04. > :37:08.her Trading Standards colleagues to ensure they recall and destroy all
:37:08. > :37:16.the remaining products. Products which otherwise would have been
:37:16. > :37:21.making their way into Christmas stockings this year. Back at the
:37:21. > :37:27.Portsmouth testing lab, the scientist is about to start
:37:27. > :37:31.analysing the toy samples seized in Southampton. The lab team starts
:37:31. > :37:41.with a tension test on a shoelace from one of the dolls. This will
:37:41. > :37:46.
:37:46. > :37:52.establish how easily it can be detached from the toy. It not only
:37:52. > :38:00.broke, it broke easily. Units of force are measured in Newtons. This
:38:00. > :38:04.should have withstood 90. In fact 0.5 and it came apart. It could be
:38:04. > :38:10.deemed as a choking hazard. Next, the battery pack for the voice box
:38:10. > :38:16.in the doll. There's a small pouch in the back with the battery pack
:38:16. > :38:20.and, again, these ones are directly accessible. There is nothing saying
:38:20. > :38:24.it is not suitable for a child under three. That would fail.
:38:24. > :38:34.Another choking hazard. The next experiment tests the material on
:38:34. > :38:40.
:38:40. > :38:45.this doll to see how easy it will tear. The requirement is 70 Newton.
:38:45. > :38:49.This failed at 28. So it fails the requirement so it gives access to
:38:49. > :38:55.the filling material. The filling material shouldn't be accessible to
:38:55. > :38:59.children so that fails the standard. The team now perform one further
:38:59. > :39:09.tension test. This time on the nose and eyes of the toy dog, that was
:39:09. > :39:25.
:39:25. > :39:28.The wires on that, they have sharp points on there and lead joints
:39:28. > :39:33.which shouldn't be accessible to the children. Following this
:39:33. > :39:38.failure, it is time for the flamibility tests on some of the
:39:38. > :39:48.dolls. This one should not burn faster than 30 millimetres per
:39:48. > :39:57.
:39:57. > :40:01.210 millimetres. Finally, a pass. As the doll burned at a rate of 5
:40:01. > :40:07.millimetres a second, it is not considered a fire risk, but it did
:40:07. > :40:12.fail other tests. In fact, all of the toys seized and sent for
:40:12. > :40:16.testing failed. The fruit dolls failed to meet labelling
:40:16. > :40:21.requirements and the doll's dress kit was found to contain
:40:21. > :40:27.unacceptable levels of toxin. The other four were found to fail
:40:27. > :40:31.labelling rules. The toy dog, the baby doll in a bag also failed
:40:31. > :40:34.tension tests. And had choking hazards. These particular products
:40:34. > :40:37.won't be reaching the market so they won't get into the hands of
:40:37. > :40:42.young children where they might possibly have done them some damage
:40:42. > :40:45.or injury. We will be letting our colleagues know in the areas where
:40:45. > :40:51.these companies are based that are importing these products so they
:40:51. > :40:59.can go and offer them some advice so the companies can make sure that
:40:59. > :41:02.in future they import legitimate compliant goods. Joining me now is
:41:03. > :41:09.the Trading Standards officer who we saw in the film. We have seen
:41:09. > :41:13.how the toys identified as being dangerous. What about the goods in
:41:13. > :41:17.the other containers? We had some more failures. We removed both
:41:17. > :41:21.containers from the port, separated those that had failed from those
:41:21. > :41:29.that had passed and the ones that were failures, basically they all
:41:29. > :41:37.went to be destroyed. We filled a 30-yard skip from the containers
:41:37. > :41:42.seen on the film. What is your advice on how to get your hands on
:41:42. > :41:47.safe toys? You need to buy the stuff from reputable retailers.
:41:47. > :41:51.Have a good look at them. If you have any problems with them, let
:41:51. > :41:56.your local Trading Standards know. We saw in the film one of these
:41:56. > :42:03.small tubes, it is a choking hazard testing tube. You can get hold of
:42:03. > :42:13.these anywhere? You can. To be honest, commonsense is all you need
:42:13. > :42:15.
:42:15. > :42:25.to think about. Thank you very much. Thanks, Rhodri. Lots of you have
:42:25. > :42:27.
:42:27. > :42:30.been in touch with us today, Rani? Paul says, "I will be buying it to
:42:30. > :42:37.go in future" and Jane says, "Forget what they charge, they
:42:37. > :42:45.charge too much for hot water!" Lots have been in touch about the
:42:45. > :42:47.web address for flight compensation. Thanks, Rani. And that's all we
:42:47. > :42:51.have time for this morning. Coming up on Monday:
:42:51. > :42:54.Apple, Argos, M&S. Want to complain to any of them? It could cost you.
:42:54. > :42:57.British Gas, Scottish Power, EDF. Want to fight back against them and
:42:57. > :43:01.the other big energy providers? And the dangers of sunbeds. Just