Episode 10 Watchdog Daily

Hello, and welcome to Watchdog Daily. We're with you live for the

next 45 minutes. This morning: Flight delayed? A new rule means

you should get compensation. But will the airlines pay out?

Costa, Starbucks, Cafe Nero. Coffee to go or drinking inside? You'll be

surprised who gets the best deal. And Christmas toys bound for the UK.

The Consumer Cops clamp down on dangerous imports.

First, Thomas Cook and Monarch. Like all airlines, they're bound by

EU regulations that say they should compensate you if your flight is

cancelled or overbooked. Well, following a court judgment last

month, you're now also entitled to a payout if your flight is held up

for more than three hours. And, as that rule applies retrospectively,

it affects delayed flights going back seven years. But just because

the airlines are legally obliged to pay, it doesn't mean they will.

Here's Rani. With millions of flights landing in

the UK every day, there are bound to be some hitches. That is why the

EU brought in those regulations to protect passengers. One regulation

in particular. The rule called EU 261 was introduced in 2004 to

guarantee customers travelling within Europe, or into Europe,

protection against delays, cancellations. The intention was to

make sure that everybody got the same protection. Some airlines

don't always follow these rules leaving passengers frustrated at

best, out-of-pocket at worst. First up, delays. Noel and Marie Scotland

were due to fly out to Corfu in August. A 24-hour delay meant they

spent the first day of their holiday at the airport rather than

the beach. We were rather annoyed about that. You can cope with

delays. We have been travelling to Greece for over 30 years. We waited

around for two hours. Then they decided to put us in a hotel. I was

made up then, thinking we have somewhere to rest. The hotel stay

didn't last long. After just six hours, the airline said it was time

to move. After we left the hotel, we thought we were going to fly off

and we discovered there was still a further delay. We thought we would

be sent back to the hotel which was not the case. Under the rules, the

couple should have been given food and accommodation. The

accommodation provided by Small Planet Airlines, the airport

departure lounge. We were left all night at the airport. There were

only four blankets between all of the passengers, so that went to the

children and the elderly. Yeah. didn't get a blanket or a pillow.

They didn't receive any compensation for the delay either.

According to EU rules at the time, they weren't entitled to any. Now

they are. The recent court ruling means any passenger can get at

least 250 euros if their flight is held up for more than three hours.

That applies to delayed flights going back seven years. So what

about passengers whose flights don't take off at all? Robert Evans

and Melissa Taylor were booked on a Thomas Cook flight from Tenerife to

Bristol. We were told we had a nine-hour delay. So we checked our

luggage in. Then we got given a voucher for food. A good few hours

later, they said the plane was due to land at 10.00pm. Great. Then it

was on the screen it was cancelled. Remember those EU rules? If your

flight is cancelled, you have an automatic right to food,

accommodation and upwards of 250 euros in compensation unless there

are extraordinary circumstances. Thomas Cook offered no compensation.

And even though they flew out the couple the next morning, on a

different plane, to a different airport, they classed this as a

delay rather than a cancellation. What's more, they didn't even offer

them overnight accommodation. thought that was unfair. We had

been out of the room since 12.00pm, so we had nowhere to wash, change,

and we were sleeping on the floor and on the chairs in the airport.

So that's delays and cancellations. Next on the list - denied boarding.

This is the moment that newlywed Ray and Selina Mellon were

prevented from getting on their Monarch flight back to Manchester.

As the earlier rows got called to board, there was a rush of people

to the gate. It turns out that these people were from a previous

flight who had been delayed 24 hours. These people were trying to

get on the plane that was allocated to us. The ground staff initially

said that this wouldn't happen. Five minutes later, after a lot of

to-ing and fro-ing, that is what they did. They gave our flight away

and put the delayed passengers on our plane. The couple, along with

their fellow travellers, had to wait for 16 hours at a hotel before

they could fly home. Monarch blamed the delay on technical problems.

That was strange because the couple had watched the plane take off

filled with the angry passengers whose earlier flight had been

delayed. If your flight is there and you are about to board, and

they choose to put the delayed passengers on in front of you, you

are entitled to compensation. insisted their flight had been

delayed and they had not been denied boarding. Understandably

angry. It's tarnished the end and their service has been left wanting.

Although there are EU rules to protect passengers. There are none

for those whose luggage is last. If yours is one of the six million

bags airlines mislay every year, there is another rule. It is called

the Montreal Convention. It means if your carrier loses your bag, you

are entitled to compensation of up to �1,000. Perhaps someone needs to

tell Jet Airways. Anika Duggal flew with them in December 2011. We were

going to India to visit our family. There was a family gathering.

now 11 months since she checked in her suitcase. She has not seen it

since. When we got there, we were told that one of our pieces of

luggage was still in London. Then after three days, we found out that

wasn't the case and it was missing. We spent many hours of our holiday

trying to contact Jet Airways on the phone. It was a lot of time

spent when I could have been enjoying myself. Time as well as

money. Despite her suitcase containing goods worth a lot more,

all Jet Airways offered was �135. Half of the compensation they had

offered us would cover the suitcase alone let alone the contents inside

the suitcase. They haven't paid us despite chasing them up. They

ignore us. Providing the customer can show the value of her property,

she should be able to make a valid claim.

Before that, let's hear what the companies named in the report have

to say. Rani. Well, firstly, Jet Airways, who

lost that bag belonging to Anika Duggal. It says it did provide her

with regular updates and, in the absence of supporting receipts or

bills, offered suitable compensation which she agreed to.

However, it's apologised for the delay in settling that sum so is

paying more as a goodwill gesture. It's sent her a cheque for �212

this week. Small Planet Airlines says the

delay on their Manchester to Corfu flight back in August was caused by

aircraft safety shortcomings. It's sincerely apologised to all

passengers, including Noel and Marie Scotland. It says it told

them of their rights in the case of a flight delay, and offered free

meals and hotel accommodation. The passengers were transferred back to

the airport due to the updated time of the departure.

Thomas Cook says Robert and Melissa Taylor's flight was disrupted due

to extraordinary circumstances beyond its control - a combination

of unforeseen aircraft maintenance problems, and a passenger being

taken ill. It's apologised. But, although the plane left on a

different day, bound for a different airport, it maintains

this was a delay - not a cancellation. However, they have

now agreed to pay him �100 to cover his expenses.

Finally, Monarch. It now agrees that the plane that was supposed to

bring Ray and Selina Mellon back from Cyprus was instead used to

carry passengers booked on an earlier, delayed flight. It now

accepts that this was a case of denied boarding. It's apologised

for the inconvenience and distress this caused at the end of their

honeymoon. And has now paid them the sterling equivalent of 800

euros in compensation. Good news! Meanwhile, if you'd like to comment

on that, or any other of today's stories, here's a reminder of how

to do so. To send an email, the address is [email protected].

If you'd prefer to send a text, just dial 88822 and start your

message with the letters "WD". And if you want to join the

discussion on Twitter, our address and hashtag are on your screens.

Thanks, Rani. Earlier this week, we showed the

Consumer Cops in Wales and the South West seizing goods that put

buyers in danger. One product could even cause electrocution. Today,

we're going further south, to show how they're tackling the problem of

unsafe imports at source. Here's Rhodri Owen.

Yes, welcome to Southampton. This hi-tech container port is one of

the biggest in the UK, handling more than 40 million tonnes of

cargo every year. Among the cars, food and electronics, there are

It's Monday morning at the port, where a ship from Hong Kong has

docked during the early hours. On board, there are 509 containers.

These men have the job of ensuring everything inside them is

legitimate. Anybody who is doing the work at points of entry, that

is the first line of defence into the country. What we don't want to

do is we don't want to be stopping stuff once it is on the market and

particularly perhaps once somebody has been scruered. If we can stop

it -- injured. If we can stop it at the point of entry, that is the

ideal situation. Since April, the team have examined more than 50

containers, finding 42 products that later failed safety tests.

Today, intelligence reports lead them to identify two containers

believed to be holding dangerous goods. Inspecting all the contents

is a huge task. To make it more manageable, they have asked the

importers to provide a list of everything inside. What do we

reckon is in here? Anything exciting? Oh. We have a packing

list for this. 60 products, is it? 57 different products. OK. We will

dig a few out and have a look. Not quite sure where we will start,

mind you! With Christmas approaching, the officers are

keeping a keen eye out for potentially dangerous toys and

children's products. And as soon as the inspection starts, they find

one. LAUGHTER We know these! This is obviously a little kid's toy,

chair, whatever you want to call it. The problem we have had with these

in the past is that the feet come off relatively easily and then you

have got on some of them sharp edges. They are a potential hazard.

The plastic cap... That is a potential choking hazard for young

children. We won't be allowing that to go on into the marketplace so we

will stop that being transported off and ending up in the shops.

This early discovery suggests the intelligence they are working on is

correct. Closer investigations are now required. 180 miles away,

another team of officers are conducting a similar operation to

Malcolm and Lawrence. Felixstowe on the Suffolk coast is the country's

busiest container port with 4,000 ships loading and unloading each

year. It handles more than a third of the UK's sea borne trade.

With these two that we are looking at today, we have one which is a

bit of a mixed history. They have had some items that have past, they

have had some that have failed. The items are very cheap. They have

come from China. So we are going to have a look to see what it is that

they have brought in. With the help of Port Authoritys, the Felixstowe

Trading Standards officer has organised an inspection of some of

the suspect containers. It is those two that I'm most interested in.

It's actually a musical trumpet by the looks of it. From a company we

have seen before that we know have been advised on their labelling.

Straightaway, I can see that it is not labelled correctly. It has not

got any of the manufacturing or importer details on them. So we

will be taking this one. Next, a children's toy police kit. It's

particularly concerning as a similar product has already failed

safety tests. Yeah. So this is what we were expecting. This is a police

set. We have two different types. Straightaway, we would have

concerns with this one because the plastic is quite soft. So we would

be looking at having that tested for a toxin. And looks like we have

some possible bits that would fall off there which could be a choking

hazard. The products will undergo safety checks. These must be

carried out quickly as all the goods are due to be distributed

I have examined two of the containers. 61, that can be

released. 62, I want to keep on hold for another few hours while we

test it back at the office. And we'll show you the results of

that test later. Now, Starbucks, Costa and Cafe Nero.

Making millions each year providing us with our daily cup of coffee.

Some of us like to drink in. Others prefer to get their caffeine hit on

the move. But just before you make up your mind completely, there's

something our mystery shoppers would like you to know. We spend a

staggering �1.3 billion in coffee shops every year with two-thirds

buying hot drinks when we are out and about. It is that demand that's

fuelled the explosion of coffee chains on our High Streets. This

man loves his coffee. When he decided to have his morning cup

inside his local Starbucks rather than take it away, he discovered

something sneaky going on. noticed that if you sit in, where

you would be paying the same price as you would to take a drink out,

you always get less when you buy a drink to sit in. Given the price is

already quite expensive, I would really would expect that the size

should be the same whether I sit in or take out. It should be the same.

Same shop, same price, smaller amount just for opting to drink in.

Was that a stingy member of staff or company policy? Are the other

chains up to similar tricks? Time for the team to hit the road. Over

two days our shoppers visited two branches of Costa, Starbucks and

Cafe Nero. One got takeaway, the other ordered to drink in, but

poured the contents into takeaway cups once they bought them. The

cups were taken straight to the Watchdog Daily measuring mobile,

which was parked around the corner. The contents were measured to see

if one did contain more coffee. First, the UK's biggest coffee

chain, Costa. They cost the same to take away and to drink in, but

would they measure the same? In both stores, we were given less

Next, the lattes. Milky. Let's have a look. Again, in both stores, they

were smaller drinking in. So, in both the Costas, our drink-

in coffees were smaller than the take-out drinks. A small one.

What about Starbucks, the second largest chain in the UK? Again,

both the drink-in and the takeaway coffees cost the same. Would we get

the same amount of coffee in each cup? In one branch, they were the

same size. But in the other branch, there was

So in Starbucks, you could end up with a lot less for your money, but

it might depend on which branch you visit. If you are thinking you

received less coffee simply as a surcharge for drinking in, think

again. Cafe Nero charge up to 10p extra for drinking in. They say it

is to cover VAT. As we discovered, they still give you less coffee.

How much less? In the first branch, to drink, it was smaller. In the

second branch, they were both smaller. What do other coffee

drinkers think? I didn't know. I thought that they were all the same

sizes, whether you eat in or take away. Medium is a medium. Not fair.

I don't think it is right. You are paying more money, so you should be

getting the same amount whether you are drinking in or taking it away.

You shouldn't have to be penalised for drinking in. So if you are like

me and love your coffee, wherever possible get it in a take-out cup!

I knew there was a reason! How do the companies explain it?

Well, firstly, Starbucks says it has 760 UK stores so you can't draw

absolute conclusions from our comparison of two drinks from just

a couple of them. It says the size of its drinks - whether to have in-

store or take-away - are consistent. But, as they're handmade, there may

at times be small variances in the amount of liquid in the cup. Costa

told us its recyclable cups are made to an industry standard. It

does acknowledge slight differences by ensuring its brand standard

recipes take into account the cup size when it comes to the amount of

milk and coffee used. This means customers enjoy the same taste,

whether they stay in store or take their drink with them.

As for Cafe Nero? It says there are two different customer experiences.

The different pricing is based on the added value associated with

enjoying a drink in store - where customers can stay throughout the

day, and where there are newspapers, free Wi-Fi, music and comfortable

furniture. It says this differential pricing is common

practice not only throughout the UK but in many European countries.

Next, dangerous toys, clothes and children's equipment. Our cameras

are with the Consumer Cops trying to stop them being imported into

the UK, then distributed to shops and markets around the country.

It's a massive task, especially at this time of the year. Let's re-

join Rhodri. In Southampton, Christmas has come

early formal come and Lawrence. They are mid-way unpacking a

container full of toys. Let's have a look in here. What is that one

there? They have the hole for the screw, but they haven't put it in!

The battery compartment, you have to make it childproof. This has

been made to take a screw so that you can't get the battery

compartment open without the screw, but they haven't bothered to put

the screw in. So potentially access to the batteries, choking hazard.

People can swallow them. Not a great idea. As well as the missing

screws, this also causes concern. don't know how securely these - not

very. You have a small LED there. There is an eye. Doesn't take a

huge amount of strength. That is potentially getting into the hands

of anyone from the age of a baby upwards, really. Next, the officers

find a set of dolls in the container. Once again, there are

problems. The quality of the - it is not a skin, it is glorified

paper. You can - I don't know whether - some of these will - this

is a bit better made. That's the sort of paper that crime scene

suits are made out of. In the past, they have pulled apart very easily!

LAUGHTER That is a potential choking hazard for children. So not

particularly scientific, you can see what happens. It's the sort of

thing which will encourage us to think we will have that tested.

Yeah. One doll looks similar to others that have failed a previous

test due to the plastics leaking chemicals. Another contains small

parts which could pose another choking hazard. As you can see, we

could be here all day on this one container. We will finish on this

and have a look at another one. next container holds one design of

doll they are concerned about. But there are lots of them! That is a

good example of stuff to the gunnels! LAUGHTER They will now be

testing this doll for moveable parts and flamability. Back in

Felixstowe, Sasha is preparing to carry out a container inspection,

her second of the morning. Brilliant. Is it all the same

consignment? Yes. Brilliant. Again, she's acting on intelligence she's

received about the importer. It's a mixed consignment of a variety of

items from bottle openers, to fans, to camera straps. So we are going

to look out for a number of items we have interest in because of

previous failures with this company. It is a slow process. Initially,

everything in the container appears safe and labelled correctly.

Concerns soon surface. She is particularly worried about a

product packed amongst the electrical items. The documentation

says it's just bladeless fans in here. None of these would look like

they would be such. Ly open one of these bags. It is not a fan -- I

will open one of these bags. It is not a fan because it is soft. It is

an inflatable boat? It doesn't have any correct warnings on it. There

is an issue whether it is a device to assist with swimming, or whether

it is a toy. I would say the fact that it looks like it's a boat with

a steering wheel and a horn, it is more likely to be a toy so it would

come under toy safety legislation. So we will take that one to get

that looked at by the lab that do our testing for us. Here is one of

those safety tests. You can see more of those tests later on.

Now, earlier we reported on the EU regulations that allow airline

passengers to claim compensation if their flight is cancelled. And the

new rule that entitles you to a payout if your plane's delayed by

more than three hours. Well, joining me now is Iain Osborne from

the Civil Aviation Authority. Is this going to open the floodgates

because you can claim retrospectively? You can. We are

pleased that the court case has clarified the law for people. I

think people often are confused about their rights. If people go to

our website, there is a really clear statement there about what

people are entitle to. They should, if they have had a bad experience,

take it up with the airline. If they don't get their rights, we

will take it up for them free of charge. When you are talking about

flights that date back seven years, it will be hard for people to prove

that they have had problems? That is true. People will need to have

documents. As your package made clear, if there are extraordinary

circumstances, it is not the air lain's fault, compensation isn't

payable and quite often that is true. We see airlines getting this

wrong. It is not all airlines. It is EU airlines leaving EU airports?

If you are flying out of an EU airport, you have these rights. If

you are flying into the EU, you have them if you are on a EU

carrier. It could cost the airlines a huge amount of money? As I say,

if there are extraordinary circumstances, they don't have to

pay. The law, this law has been in place since 2005. The airlines have

had lots of opportunity to get used to it. The main thing is that

passengers are perhaps still not familiar with their rights and we

are keen that people use our website or talk to the airline

themselves. Get clear about your rights. This is part of what you

are paying for when you buy a ticket. If the airlines have to

fork out money, they will say the passengers will pay? We talk to

airlines a lot about how they set their charges. They tell us prices

are set relative to what people can pay, not relative to their own

costs. No, I don't think that is likely. If anybody wants to know

what to do, even if this is a flight that dates back several

years, they can look at your website? The rights are complex,

but it sets it out really clearly. If you don't get satisfaction from

your airline, I have a team that can take up cases for people. The

airlines don't always get it right. If you think you have been

mistreated, bring the case to us. suspect you might be busy now!

Thank you very much. Let's go to Rani now.

Thanks, Sophie. Now, that story about the price differences in

coffee bars has got you going. We'll have some of your many

comments later. But we're also still getting

messages about yesterday's report on returning faulty goods. Lots of

viewers are asking us what they can do if they receive a service that

isn't up to scratch. Well, we can answer that, or at least our expert

Is there anything more annoying than when you have been promised a

service only to end up disappointed with the end result? There are

several sets of regulations that can help us out. Unfortunately,

given the wide range of services available, the legislation is far

more fragmented than if you are buying goods. The major piece of

legislation is the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. This

requires the trader uses reasonable care and still and any goods

provided must be of a satisfactory quality, fit for the purpose and

comply with description. It also states that where no specific date

has been agreed for completion of the service, it must be done within

reasonable time. One common example that I hear is that of poorly-

fitting double glazing. You are paying for the service of having

the glazing installed but also for the windows themselves. Another

common example is taking your car into have it repaired. If you take

your car in with the reasonable belief that it is going to take two

days to do the job and the garage takes three weeks, then the trader

has breached the requirement for reasonable time. If when you get

the car back, the job has not been done properly, he will also have

breached the requirement for reasonable care and skill. So what

about your rights when it comes to mobile phones? If your handset is

faulty, you should take it back to the company from which you bought

it for a repair or replacement. It is always worth asking if you can

borrow a phone temporarily while yours is being repaired. If your

network coverage is poor, you should contact your network

provider. And check the terms and conditions of your contract to see

if it makes promises about network coverage. If your contract has been

broken, you have a right to cancel it without penalty. If your problem

is restricted to a specific building, such as your house, then

it is going to be far more difficult to argue. Even if there

is nothing specific in your written contract, if a salesman has led you

to believe you will get a good quality signal where you live and

you get no signal at all, you may have a claim of misrepresentation.

While as in every other part of contract law something that has

been said is every bit as legally- enforceable as something that's

been written down, in practice it is a great deal more difficult to

prove. She knows her stuff!

For more information on how to complain if a service isn't up to

scratch, see our website. The address is bbc.co.uk/watchdog.

Time for our last visits to two of the UK's largest container ports

now where the Consumer Cops have been seizing potentially dangerous

products. Those goods were due to be moved from Southampton and

Felixstowe, and then distributed across the whole of the UK. But

right now they must undergo stringent safety tests. Here's

Rhodri. The Southampton seizures have

resulted in six different toys all due to be sold in the run-up to

Christmas being sent for safety analysis. Until this is complete,

all the goods must be held at the docks. The lab's based 20 miles

away in Portsmouth. It is important that officers organise the tests as

soon as they can. We are seizing and detaining somebody else's

property so it's important from the whole point of view of trade and

economy that we don't hold goods up unnecessarily for too long. In fact,

Malcolm has 48 hours to get all the samples tested. He can then tell

the importer if he will be holding on to the container, or releasing

it. Sasha is about to send off her seized consignment for testing. She

already has a good idea what the results will be. Especially those

concerning the parts inside this child's police toy. With the gun,

the gun looks like it's for use with the darts. The darts enter

into the top of the gun and you can shoot out. This will get tested

because we will be looking at the propelling dart as to whether it is

too strong because it could be something that could be dangerous,

whether it be shot at someone's eye. This small trunkaigs cylinder is an

important toy safety tool -- truncation cylinder. We can test to

see if anything would fit into it to indicate whether it is small

enough for them to choke on the item. The items that we are going

to be most concerned with, with having removable parts, are the

darts and they have these end parts on them which are sticky and they

do come off. So they are of a size that will easily fit into the

truncation and could be a chokable part. What we are also concerned

about is one other small item which is in the toy, which is a whistle.

Again, that fits into the truncation. Results later do

confirm that while it tested negative for toxins, the police kit

fails toy safety regulations. Both the whistle and the suction from

the darts could cause choking. The trumpet failed because of

inadequate labelling. As for the inflatable product, it turns out to

be a swim seat and not a toy. But its design is found to pose a

significant risk of drowning so it is declared unsafe. The importers

of the goods are based in Salford and Nottingham. So she must alert

her Trading Standards colleagues to ensure they recall and destroy all

the remaining products. Products which otherwise would have been

making their way into Christmas stockings this year. Back at the

Portsmouth testing lab, the scientist is about to start

analysing the toy samples seized in Southampton. The lab team starts

with a tension test on a shoelace from one of the dolls. This will

establish how easily it can be detached from the toy. It not only

broke, it broke easily. Units of force are measured in Newtons. This

should have withstood 90. In fact 0.5 and it came apart. It could be

deemed as a choking hazard. Next, the battery pack for the voice box

in the doll. There's a small pouch in the back with the battery pack

and, again, these ones are directly accessible. There is nothing saying

it is not suitable for a child under three. That would fail.

Another choking hazard. The next experiment tests the material on

this doll to see how easy it will tear. The requirement is 70 Newton.

This failed at 28. So it fails the requirement so it gives access to

the filling material. The filling material shouldn't be accessible to

children so that fails the standard. The team now perform one further

tension test. This time on the nose and eyes of the toy dog, that was

The wires on that, they have sharp points on there and lead joints

which shouldn't be accessible to the children. Following this

failure, it is time for the flamibility tests on some of the

dolls. This one should not burn faster than 30 millimetres per

210 millimetres. Finally, a pass. As the doll burned at a rate of 5

millimetres a second, it is not considered a fire risk, but it did

fail other tests. In fact, all of the toys seized and sent for

testing failed. The fruit dolls failed to meet labelling

requirements and the doll's dress kit was found to contain

unacceptable levels of toxin. The other four were found to fail

labelling rules. The toy dog, the baby doll in a bag also failed

tension tests. And had choking hazards. These particular products

won't be reaching the market so they won't get into the hands of

young children where they might possibly have done them some damage

or injury. We will be letting our colleagues know in the areas where

these companies are based that are importing these products so they

can go and offer them some advice so the companies can make sure that

in future they import legitimate compliant goods. Joining me now is

the Trading Standards officer who we saw in the film. We have seen

how the toys identified as being dangerous. What about the goods in

the other containers? We had some more failures. We removed both

containers from the port, separated those that had failed from those

that had passed and the ones that were failures, basically they all

went to be destroyed. We filled a 30-yard skip from the containers

seen on the film. What is your advice on how to get your hands on

safe toys? You need to buy the stuff from reputable retailers.

Have a good look at them. If you have any problems with them, let

your local Trading Standards know. We saw in the film one of these

small tubes, it is a choking hazard testing tube. You can get hold of

these anywhere? You can. To be honest, commonsense is all you need

to think about. Thank you very much. Thanks, Rhodri. Lots of you have

been in touch with us today, Rani? Paul says, "I will be buying it to

go in future" and Jane says, "Forget what they charge, they

charge too much for hot water!" Lots have been in touch about the

web address for flight compensation. Thanks, Rani. And that's all we

have time for this morning. Coming up on Monday:

Apple, Argos, M&S. Want to complain to any of them? It could cost you.

British Gas, Scottish Power, EDF. Want to fight back against them and

the other big energy providers? And the dangers of sunbeds. Just