Episode 3 Watchdog

Ryanair, the cards that cost you. Tesco, the ad that misled you.

Haven Holidays, the cleaning manual that will shock you. L'Oreal,

Stella Artois and the companies that want to fight the banks on

your behalf - beware. This is Watchdog, the programme you can't

Yes, hello, and good evening. Welcome to Watchdog. We are live

from Television Centre. Tonight: Barclays, Lloyds, RBS, they mis-

sold millions of Payment Protection Plans. If you are battling to get

your money back, don't get fleeced again. It does make me angry that

these customers, many of whom have already suffered from the mis-

selling of Payment Protection Insurance, are being mis-sold.

Ryanair - if you want to avoid their booking fees, they are making

you jump through another hoop. Lancome, Maybelline, who else is

making false claims? Can you clean a caravan in 18

minutes? How about garages from hell? We are

booking our car into one tonight. It is a big job, a very complex job,

a job that calls for someone who Definitely not someone like him. It

was the one we got! The results? We will show you later. NatWest, RBS,

Barclaycard - a few of the banks and credit card companies who mis-

sold Payment Protection Insurance. They added it to loans to cover

repayments in case you had an accident, became ill or unemployed.

But for most people, it was useless. Now, after a High Court ruling,

those people are entitled to their money back. Billions of pounds are

up for grabs. If you are about to claim, beware. You could be fleeced

a second time. Watch daytime TV? You will be

familiar with ads like these. Claiming is easy. Claims management

companies offering to get your PPI refunds for you. All you have to do

is sit back and wait for the cheque to arrive. You do know we get a

cheque to people in eight weeks on average. Yes, sometimes it only

takes ten days. No wonder there are so many ads like these around. Some

two million of us were mis-sold PPI by banks and credit companies and

there is now an estimated �4.5 billion waiting to be reclaimed.

That is a lot of money and claims management companies want a cut. In

return, they say they will do the work for us. But do all of them

deliver what they promise? I paid �50 to Gladstone Brookes. After a

couple of weeks, they came back to me and said they couldn't do

anything with my claim. I told them this was a no win, no fee, so I

should be getting the money back. They refused. Many phone calls

later, they finally, after a couple of months, gave me the money back.

They said I would get over �6,500 back. I have not received a penny.

Lengthy waits, complicated processes, unhappy customers. But

should they have even used a claims management company at all? If you

want to make a complaint, it is straightforward. It is something

that I would advise you can do yourself. There was a period before

the judicial review where some banks were not dealing with

complaints fairly. That is now in the past. So customers can be

confident they will get a fair deal from the banks. All you have to do

is get in touch with the bank, say you want to make a complaint about

your Payment Protection Insurance policy. The only thing a claims

management company can do is act as a middleman. Contacting your bank

or the Financial Ombudsman on your behalf. That is it, they can't

promise to get you anything that you couldn't get if you claimed on

your own. The Ministry of Justice, which regulates the claims industry,

forbids companies from telling customers they will get a more

favourable outcome if they use a claims company rather than the

Financial Ombudsman Service. But have all the companies been

sticking to the rules? No. As Watchdog has found out. Our

researchers made three calls to 12 claims companies, each time posing

as consumers who thought they had been mis-sold PPI. Hello. I have a

loan... First, one of the calls we made to Gladstone Brookes Limited.

They advertise on TV and say they have a 92% success rate in making

PPI claims. What is the benefit of This is untrue. Banks don't pay out

less to those who make their claim independently and if people are

unhappy, they can still appeal to the Financial Ombudsman free of

charge. Other companies made similar false statements in some of

the calls to them. They included Ismart. And Belmont Thornton:

People end up losing out by going on their own. As well as the

company promoted by professional boxing champ Joe Calzaghe.

success rate is over 90% of claims that we take up. Only a 10% chance?

Nice claim, pity it is wrong. One company told us we couldn't claim

on our own unless we had a Ministry of Justice licence. Your Ministry

of Justice licence, we can obtain you evidence. Do I need that to get

it back? Exactly! That is untrue. It does make me angry to be frank

that these customers, many of whom have already suffered from the mis-

selling of Payment Protection Insurance, are now being often mis-

sold claims management services as well. Out of the 12 companies we

called, six broke Ministry of Justice rules on two out of three

calls by telling our researchers they would get more money or get it

more quickly if they used the claims company rather than claiming

on their own. But what about the money they themselves stand to

make? All of the companies we contacted offer a no win, no fee

service and charge up to 30% of whatever refund we received. But,

we fight any claim also wanted some of their fees upfront. The cost for

us to review your claim will be �24 5. I thought this was no win, no

fee. The way it works, if you claim would ever be unsuccessful, it is

refunded to you. Thanks for the offer, but we will pass. Tucan

Claims Limited also asked for fees up front. Helen Elrick paid them.

They said it will be about 12 weeks to process, maybe a bit more. We

thought great. September 09, by Christmas it will be lovely.

fact, it took them a year to process it. When the �1,548 cheque

arrived, Tucan Claims didn't send it to Helen, they sent her a bill

for their 10% fee on top of the �250 she had already paid.

husband and I said we have got this money, we will send them the cheque,

which we did. No cheque has arrived. We are still waiting for this

cheque. I feel as if I have been the one that has been ripped off

here T there are times when it's got to me. It's been constant.

far this year alone, the banks have paid out �215 million to people who

were mis-sold PPI. And all the banks have jointly put aside

several billion pounds to refund their customers. Some have promised

to repay eligible customers with no questions asked. Claims management

companies may want a share but if you are one of those planning to

get your money back, the words of the Financial Ombudsman couldn't be

clearer. My advice, if you want to get the compensation you are due,

is to try and do it yourself. response, the Ministry of Justice

says it takes a "zero tolerance" approach and companies that break

the rules should be in no doubt they will be closed down.

The companies themselves - Gladstone Brookes say based solely

on the extracts of the calls we have told them about, they have

potentially breached the regulations. They don't agree they

mis-sell their services. They say our calls are not representative of

the service they give to the vast majority of clients. They do admit

taking two months to refund Richard Abbot, but they say they have

stopped charging upfront fees in March. Tucan Claims says one

employee did fall short of industry standards. He's been removed from

his normal role, disciplined and is undergoing retraining. The case of

Helen Elrick has now been settled. We Fight Any Claim are fighting

hard to resolve Mary Munro's claims. To comment on that, or any of

tonight's stories, e-mail us at [email protected]. Or you can text.

Start your message with WD. If you want to follow us on Twitter, the

address is on your screen. Coming up: Ryanair trying to point

their booking charges. The truth about those cosmetics ads.

Plum is so 2010. She's had a lot of work done! Clearly a fake. Of

course, I only read these for the gossip. I need to keep up with

celeb culture, who is hot, who is not, who is in, who is out. Most

Yes, celebrity couples. The Mags and tabloids love them. They give

them pet names, too. It is a good job Sting is too old for Pink. If

they got together they would be Ping! That is one permutation!

if we were a couple, we would be... If we were a couple! Which we

aren't! We are both happily married with two kids. OK, darling -

Darlington, let's go to Darlington! A bit awkward! Yes, it is.

Darlington is near the home of our rogues tonight, another couple,

Christopher Wyatt and his wife Catherine Hardwick. They are famous

for selling reconditioned engines or, according to customers,

infamous. He bought one of their reconditioned engines but once

fitted, his cab still wasn't running properly. There is only one

thing for it. I decided I would ring Christopher Wyatt up and

suggested he picks the engine up and takes it back and gives us

another engine. So he promised me a new engine within four days. Four

days arrived, no engine. A week- and-a-half, no engine. Fourth week,

I think it was roughly, I said what's happened to this engine? It

was sent out and it got lost! William never did get his engine.

He had been dealing with the couple's former company, Head

Exchange Limited based in North Yorkshire. He took the company to

court and won. When he tried to get his money back he was told it had

folded. I am probably never going to see my money back. It would be

nice to see him stopped. Well, strong words, but he has lost his

engine and his money. Dan, though, is less convinced. This could cause

a domestic. One firm, one engine, it is a snapshot. You want the

bigger picture? OK, let's hear from someone in Lancashire. Me and my

big mouth! Yeah, that will teach him to argue. 250 miles away,

Nicola Oaten has been dealing with Complete Engine Solutions Ltd. She

sent them her broken VW Golf engine to be exchanged for a reconditioned

one, but when her local garage tried to fit it... It was

discovered the engine didn't work, it had to come back out and be

taken to pieces and then they found that it was my original engine.

They had spray-painted parts of it to look new and filled my oil pump

full of Vaseline so it would never work. Complete Engine Solutions,

which has customers all over the UK, lists a Christopher Chilton as its

director, but it is based half a mile away from Head Exchange

Limited. And the man who says he is in charge is Christopher Wyatt, yes

the male half of our celebrity couple! OK, I get the bigger

picture. You sure? I have other cases. We have Wigan,

Cambridgeshire... Point taken. Everything OK? Yeah. Yeah. He sends

his love. Is that it? They come up with the

goods. A 1.4VW Golf, sweet runner, mint condition. Once we have

finished with it, though, it will need a re-conditioned engine. Don't

know what that involves? Have no fear. Our car expert is here.

A re-conditioned engine, what does it mean? It needs to be stripped

out, cleaned, every item checked to see if the item is servicable. A

typical job is the cylinder bore. You take the cylinder block,

examine the bores, if they are scored, worn out, then it would be

re-bored to a larger diameter, it would be honed and new pist ons

fitted. Pist ons and another pist on.

Obviously with rings as well. Piston rings! That would be very,

very nice. That's the way it should be done.

That is part of the job? That is fairly essential and basic in any

reconditioning job. Got it? It can be worth it. Don

properly your engine can be as good as new. Any way, for our Golf to

knead a re-conditioned engine, we need to do serious damage to it.

John is our man. He drains the life blood from our car, without oil it

seizes up and dies. A few revs and it is broken. Now we need to pour

the oil back, so it does not look like we have sabotaged the car.

Goodbye my engine, what have I done? We then book it in to

Complete Engine Solutions where we meet Christopher Wyatt and

Katherine Hardwick. Lisa says she is looking for a re-

conditioned engine. Is it really what they do? We are about to find

out. 7 And how are we going to do that? Well, we might have taken the

engine oil out, but we put something else in.

A camera is hidden under the bonnet. It will be beaming back pictures a

little layer. Rain air, buying tickets with a

credit card or debit card, it charges �6. So for a family of four

on return flights to Spain they pay an extra �48.

Ryanair allowed you to avoid the charges if you paid with a visa

electron card, then they changed the rules and said you needed a

pre-paid MasterCard. Now another hoop, Martin Lewis is to explain

what they are up to. What are they up to? You have to admire the

hutzpah of what they are doing. Coming October, they are to launch

their own Ryanair branded pre-paid MasterCard. Then in November,

unless you pay with their own pre- paid MasterCard, you are charged

the �12 per person return. So pay with a card that is not theirs, an

electron or debit card, it is �12 return. Had they done this and

allowed the old pre-paid MasterCard to be free, I would say it is an

improvement, but without Ryanair's name on the door, you have to pay

to come in. So, if you have been a Ryanair

customer, you have been through two credit cards or you could be

booking to go next week, you will not get the card in time?

system has not started yet. It is starting in October, but you have

to get another card. This could be the third different card.

Why are they doing this? What is in it for them? But, we assume that

one is presuming that tkpwhet money back for their own card.

You have said it yourself, �48 per family, it takes ten people not to

do that, that is �480, it is a huge amount of money. It cuts

competition, the choice of getting other cards.

What about the card for other uses? Well, these cards are generally

used for those who cannot get other forms of plastic or foreign

exchange transactions as they are cheap. This card is not out. I have

not seen the full terms, I cannot tell you if it is cheap to use or

not. You should say that there are no

booking charges? Well, if pri in charge, but what I have said, I

have been supporting a Which? Superclaint. It has been said that

the charges must be transparent. It has said that the debit card price

is the price advertised, but it does not have the power to make

that happen. The Government must do so, but they are not doing anything.

So, to levy the �12skharpblgs that should be in the main -- the �12

charges, that should anybody the main price.

Can we hope that they change it? hope that they have tweaked the

nipples of consumers a little too far. For those watching in

Westminster, foreheaven's sake, do something.

Now, Ryanair have told us that they have moved from the visa electron

and master pre-paid following criticism that the cards were hard

to get hold of. The new one will be available through the website. So

everyone can use it as soon as they are registered. The one-off charge,

will be refunded with a Ryanair voucher. They insist that the cost

is not a booking fee, but an admin charge! Next, Lancome and

Maybelline, in July, the Advertising Standards Authority

banned two of their adds, saying that the models, Julia Roberts had

been airbrushed, but cosmetic companies continue to use images

altered, touched up or enhanced. How-do they get away with it? Jo

Swinson has a personal report for watchdog.

We all know the story by now, this becomes this... These become this...

This is made longer... This fuller... That thinner... And those,

well, those disappear all together. Flawless models, glossy-haired

celebrities, even politicians, are not immune.

Mr Speaker, I think that I should start by saying that he looks very

different from the poster that we see out there! Three years ago, my

party asked me to chair a working group to find out what matters to

British women today. One of the things I was surprised that came up

was body confidence or the lack of it. It concerned everyone, men as

well as women. Unattainable images of perfection were part of the

problem. My team and I started to take a closer look.

The first add that was complained about that got 700 complaints was

this Twiggy advert for anti-wrinkle cream. The Advertising Standardz

Authority upheld the complaint, after finding out that this add was

made with retouching. Since then, the cosmetic companies have found

that they can get around the rules by using disclaimers.

We have this one, Eva Longora, with these ridiculous lashes, they look

like fur on the ends of her eyelashes, it is not realistic.

And at the bottom, enhanced production. Pick up any woman's

magazine and you see the similar disclaimers. Here, her hair colour

looks great, but how was it achieved? By using the product on

her alright lightened hair and extensions.

Then, want lashes like Beale, well, look underneath, enhanced in post

pro duk. New guidelines from the Committee for Advertising Practise

permit the use of fake hair extensions as long as tus does not

misrepresent what the product does, so they can use the enhancement

techniques, but it depends on how far that they go.

These are the beforehand images. Looking lovely.

If I move the image on top a cross, you see the rehad touched image of

her. You can see for yourself.

Yes, it looks quite scary actually. What I noticed initially, is that

you have done things around the eyes, but I had not noticed you

made the mouth bigger. I wonder how much people are aware at that those

changes are going on. How routine is that? This retouching has been

around as long as photograph has been. It has been since the advent

of computers that it is more acceptible, more affordable and

quicker. Retouching is easier and common

place, but remember, the companies still have to show what the product

does. I am not sure that is always the case.

This one caught my eye because even if you had a lot of lights on this

picture, I wonder if they have gone in with the White House and the

graphic suite and added shine to her hair? It does not seem like

normal hair. If we make a complaint, the company

can come forward, if they have the original undoctored image to show

how it looked then fair enough. But I don't have to pursue the

complaint. When watchdog contacted Wella about the add, they admitted

post production enhancement. They said it was produced before the new

guidelines, prok tor and gamble have decided not to use it in the

future. Meanwhile, other enhanced and unrealistic adds abound.

I believe that sthre a negative effect on our body image, but some

disagree. I think that the British public are

not sucked into airbrushing. Everyone knows that mascara will

not make your lashes grow by a few inches, but I think that we want to

look at pictures that make us look good.

Some of the images are putting pressure on people. I think that is

something that the advertising agencies are playing on people. I'm

not sure it is a healthy thing in society.

True, but it is a business, they are to use anything that they can

to sell their products, a new angle, something to break through the

thousands and the millions of products that are out there to grab

the consumers attention. What does the average consumer

think? Boots have done away with airbrushed models, do the people

prefer their images to the enhanced ones. Time for some testing. There

are two mascara products, which do you prefer and would you be more

likely to buy and why? Probably this one it is more natural. That

one is too fake. Unrealistic. Probably the No7 one. To me it

looks like, I don't know, she looks more natural. That is obviously

fake. That would be the better one. Boots are not alone when it comes

to using natural images in their advertising campaigns. Debenhams

have done it too, but I want to see all companies moving away from the

impossible images of beauty that they currently rely on to sell

their products. With one in four people feeling depressed about

their body, is it not time to stop the distortions and is it not time

that the advertising authorities came down on them harder? Well,

with me is Lynsay Taffe from the Advertising Standardz Authority.

You are there -- you are in charge. You have to clear up the confusion.

If I saw something that Julia Roberts was advertising, I would

not think that I would look like Julia Roberts, but if I saw an add

on mascara with all of those lashes, I would think that I would look

like that picture. That is why there are new guidance measures. As

we have said when there was a problem with the Julia Roberts add,

they know that they can't look like Julia Roberts but they want Julia

Roberts to look like Julia Roberts. But looking at the small print,

eyes styled with insets, and enhanced prost production, so they

are not all of her eyelashes, and in your guidelines, you say that

the false eyelashes cannot be more than replacing the damage s --

damaged ones of Eva Longoria? have contacted the advertiser to

have that add removed so adds like that shall not be appearing and

disclaimers that contradict the add cannot be used.

So, that add is out now? Yes. How about Gw yen? This preference

that changes the colour of your hair, in the small print it says

that the colour was achieved after she had had her hair lightened and

extensions? What I cannot do, I have not seen that add, what I

cannot do is a trial by TV, but we will look into it if the add is

still running. Advertise eers cannot mislead about the capability

of the product. It must be an effect we can achieve at home.

Would you, for example, what do you think, would that pass, that she

has had colour in her hair before she put on the product? We have

lots of rulings with we have shown where an advertiser has presented a

product that is misleading either by using false eyelashes or

extensions the same you would do you with a -- do with a floor

cleaner. But are the companies pushing the

boundaries? They are showing the product in the best possible light.

When they go too far and mislead about it, we are here to step in.

L'Oreal told us all their current ads meet the guidelines.

They add Cheryl Cole was not required to wear hair extensions in

their Elvive ad. They also told us they reject the notion that images

in beauty advertising contribute to low self-esteem and Revlon, whose

ad featuring Jessica Beale, they say they are always complying with

advertising codes, laws and regulations and will continue to do

so, the same with Rimmel. Coming up: Haven, 18 minutes to

clean a caravan kitchen. Can it be done? Tesco - this ad shows pigs

free to roam. Bit of a porky? Back to Complete Engine Solutions

now. They confused one of our viewers. They promised her a

reconditioned engine. They gave her the old one back instead, botched

and painted to look new. What will happen when we give them our car?

Before putting it in, we had to sabotage it, running the engine

without oil led to a total engine seizure. It also caused a few tears

among the production team who had grown very fond of it. Cheer up, it

is in good hands, Complete Engine Solutions Limited. They probably

feel the same way about VW Golf's with 1.4 litre petrol engines.

Or maybe they don't. Sorry about the picture quality, by the way.

You are watching the BBC, that's Blurry Bonnet Camera! They have had

a poke around so it is time to call I think probably for safety go for

the engine to be honest. How much would that cost to get a

That's to get reconditioned engine put in and installed. OK. That

couldn't be clearer. We have asked for a reconditioned engine, they

have charged us accordingly, they also say they have one in stock

ready to be fitted. All we need now is the mechanic. He is bound to be

good. I mean, reconditioned engines good. I mean, reconditioned engines

it may help explain why getting the car back takes rather longer than

we first thought. I wanted to check whether it's available to be picked

up tomorrow. Would we be able to Finally, 13 days after we put the

car in... Fantastic! Yes, it will be fantastic, if they had done what

they have been paid for, supplying our Golf with a replacement

reconditioned engine. The early signs are promising. They give us a

guarantee, the engine is good for 50,000 miles. What's this? Sounds

like it isn't a replacement, reconditioned engine. They have

given us our old one back. Which would be OK, if they had done

everything necessary to recondition it, so have they? Over to you, John,

who is going all CSI on us. Yes, he is a car scam investigator. Of

course, this isn't CSI: Miami. If it was, John would be taking his

shades off, putting them back on again, taking them off, then

putting them back on again. Taking them off, putting them back on

again. And taking them off... OK, what's the evidence? Here he comes.

dragging a bit. Yeah. Hi, John. Take us through them, one by one.

What did they do This had seized. What they have done is they have

had a go at cleaning it up. These lobes here, which are damaged,

nothing's happened to those. This camshaft should have been replaced

with a good, serviceable one. Piston! Yeah. They have reused it.

It is a very borderline case, not particularly good. They have

cleaned out the grooves, they have put new piston rings in. It it

would have just about done. What is the point? The cylinder bores were

scored. The sin Lin der block needed to be bored out and new --

cylinder block needed to be bored out and new pistons put in? Yeah.

That was the basic minimum. John shows us another of the pistons.

This one's been taken from a different car. It's gouged around

the edges and not serviceable. Then there is the camshaft carrier. They

have just cleaned it. I will go on in a moment! We have paid for a

reconditioned engine, John. What have we got? What you have got fell

far short of a reconditioned engine. The engine was cobbled-together to

get it going again, nothing more than that. Right. Moment over. What

did we get after paying �1,698 for a reconditioned engine? Well, old

spark plugs, should have been replaced, camshaft carrier, should

have been scrapped, damaged camshaft, cylinder not rebored,

damaged battery, battered piston, mystery metal, wrong bolts, no

coolant and they didn't clean up after themselves. A massive bodged

job and a car that won't get anywhere near the 50,000 miles

promised. The pistons is wonky, I'm wearing my Dimbleby pants! It is

Question Time! Yes, it is a special edition tonight. Instead of five

guests, just the one, Christopher Wyatt. Anyanswers from him? Find

Wyatt. Anyanswers from him? Find out in ten minutes. A quick update

on your texts and e-mails. A few of you getting in touch about claim

management companies. Some of you are getting calls with pre-recorded

announcements. "Like us we have had a better chance of a refund if we

go through a company" which is of course untrue. We are still getting

e-mails about rising energy bills. Last week we said E.ON was

frontloading its gas bills, that is charging more for the first set of

units used so those consuming the least were being hit with a bigger

percentage increase. In fact, it is only a small number of customers,

those on the Go Green tariff who are affected. The majority, on

E.ON's standard tariffs, are not. Next Haven, no stranger to Watchdog.

Last year our undercover researchers looked at caravans in

three of their parks. Sorry if you are eating. It is covered in

staining. Oh! That is disgusting. Not nice. Haven promised to clean

up their act. Have they? Time to find out. How Clean Is Your Haven

Caravan? Well, if this year's ads are anything to go by, Haven's

camps look like great places to stay. More than two million of you

are choosing to holiday with them. Are the cleaning staff struggling

to keep up? You see, we are still getting reports from unhappy

campers at Haven. Take the Hunt family from Bolton who sent us

these snaps of scummy taps and grit in the shower. All this in a so-

called deluxe caravan. We have also had these photos in from familys

who stayed at Haven's Devon Cliffs Camp. Despite the promise to clean

up, it looks like there may still be a problem. Is it any wonder when

according to a cleaning supervisor at one of Haven's parks the staff

are simply not given enough time to do their jobs properly. She agreed

to speak to us anonymously. We have a very tight schedule. We are given

from 10.00 to 4.00 to do our jobs. In these six hours, we have to

clean five caravans sometimes. We all cut corners. We have to do to

get the caravans ready for the time they are required. The handbook

Haven gave to her lists the procedures all cleaning staff must

follow, along with guide times for each section of the accommodation.

Ten minutes to make five beds. 18 minutes to clean the kitchen from

top to bottom. A lot of the pots get left. Don't clean the cupboards

out. Don't clean anything properly in all honesty because there isn't

enough time. In all, the staff are given 64 minutes to clean each

caravan thoroughly. Doesn't sound possible to me. But then again I am

no expert. So... If we are going to put the Haven time limits to the

test, we are going to need an expert. We are going to need

someone who could tackle the filthyest caravan, a champion grime

Buster, any thoughts? Hello, luvvies. Of course. We snuck her

into one of the parks our researchers visited last year.

First impressions? You don't walk in and think fresh and clean, you

think a mop was dragged over the place. This is a typical eight-

berth caravan that Haven cleaners are expected to have spick-and-span

in 64 minutes. You see, it is a smell of unclean. These are the

exact same cleaning products y used by Haven staff. -- used by haiv hey

staff. Our crew get to work with a spot of untidying. It is only fair

that Kim has to tackle the same level of grime as your average

Haven cleaner. Right. On with the gloves. Let's see how long this

will take me. Start the clock! Kim's got 64 minutes to clean the

whole caravan. First up, the pre- clean. She's got to turn down the

fridge and leave it to air, open all the windows, spray de-greaser

on the grill pan, bleach the toilet, spray the bathroom walls and put

the stain remover on any conspicuous stains. All this in one

minute. She better get moving! Next, the kitchen. 18 minutes to scrub it

from top to bottom. In that time, I have to clean the cupboards, the

toaster, the kettle, the fridge freezer - I better get going!

Ridiculous! 35 minutes in, and Kim hasn't started on the bathroom. Or

don't know what the heck I'm doing. The handbook allows seven minutes

to tackle the lounge. And don't forget the vacuuming. We want max!

Time's up. I have cleaned for 64 minutes. I haven't got to make the

beds up yet. Things I half did because I wouldn't have had the

time. I worked so hard. I'm hear to tell you that to get this place

spotless, as people who pay for it should find it spotless, 64 minutes

is a farce! As well as cleaning against the clock, staff are

expected to complete a set of health and safety checks, in just

60 seconds. Not possible, says our whistleblower. What about Kim?

have one minute to do my health and safety. You read how many things I

have got to do. No, here we are. This should take one minute. I mean,

one minute for all of them! checks include testing the smoke

alarms, switching off the fires, and sanitising the door handles and

light switches. You are not able to do all the health and safety in one

minute. It's so ridiculous, I don't know what to say. I'm never stuck

for words! Madness! Delia did have a few words to say when we showed

her the handbook. In an ideal world, where families are leaving these

caravans spotless, the timings as given would be OK. They are lean,

but they are OK. We don't live in The pre-clean is supposed to be

done in one minute. That is not possible. My opinion is that it

would be at least ten minutes. 18 minutes for a hygienic clean of

a kitchen is really not sufficient. The health and safety checks after

the completion of the clean are crucial, therefore a minute is not

sufficient time. I would be liking at a minimum of six minutes for

that to be done. So, the cleaning procedures for

Haven's caravans are looking good on paper, but in reality, well,

Kim? If a caravan were like this, you, Haven can clean in 64 minutes,

I will show my bare bum outside of Buckingham Palace! That is all I

can say. Well, that is exciting. No, sir

perhaps as exciting as your pink shorts, the ones that we saw last

week? Yes, again, I have only one pair. They did match Kim's gloves.

We will have a whip around. Thank you very much.

Do you always have pink with flowers on? Yes.

Back to Haven? They have spent over �27 million on new caravans this

year. Plus, a further �2 million transforming cleaning services and

upgrading caravans. There has been a 10.6% improvement and 10% more

holiday-makers would recommend them to family and friends.

OK. The 64 minutes to clean a caravan? That is mist leading. It

is an optimum time and it is flexible. They arrived at the

figure after an independent time and motion study using different

caravans with their own trained and experienced clearance. Their own

training video shows one caravan being cleaned in 64 minutes.

Great. Thank you to all who has been in touch with the story. Here

are a few more. Pork sausages, tasty, the add for Tesco's

Butcher's Choice range is mist leading.Ed Avertising Standards

Authority banned it, after it said that these animals were reared in

an unrestricted environment. They do look it.

But, as Pinky may have said to Perky, life is not like that not

for these, any way it turns out that some of the pigs are reared

outside, but then kept inside once they are weaned at just 28 days old.

26ow says it is baffled by the ruling. That its pigs enjoy world-

class standards of welfare, before being turned into sausages, that is.

Bought any botles of the new cider from Stella Artois? Trouble could

be brewing inside your fridge. More than a quarter of a million "Cee-

dre" bottles are being recalled after customers reported theirs

exploded without a warning. It has been said that only a small number

6 bottles are afecked. Their all in a small size and sold individually

or in packs of 12. Drinkers have been warned not to consume the

bottles and urged to wear gloves and goggles before handling them.

Stella Artois, "Cee-dre", it certainly has a kick in it.

Check out your holiday in advance? Don't take the online reviews too

seriously. TripAdvisor has been accused of publishing fake,

critical comments about hotels and resorts. In a move it claims is un-

related it has changed the slowing an on its hotel pages from "Reviews

you can Trust" to "Reviews from our Community". Meanwhile, Low Cost

Holidays is asking customers to write nice comments about them on

the Review Centre website, there is even �25 in it for you. Low Cost

Holidays say that the money is a thank you for booking with them and

sharing 306 reviews with others. Meanwhile, of course, we will keep

an eye out for negative reviews about them.

Time for a final visit to Complete Engine Solutions. The North

Yorkshire-based company, taking payment for re-conditioned car

engines, but who then give them back without doing the proper work.

They have botched the engine on our car too, and it took them 13 days,.

-- unluck you for us, even unlucker for them.

We are back to see Complete Engine Solutions.

Christopher Wyatt is used to compliants from unhappy customers,

so this visit should not worry him, but what he does not know is that

we have an extra resource that most customers don't have at their

He's also in for another surprise... Because unlike most customers, Lisa

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 48 seconds

knows everything there is to know Yeah, whatever. We used to have an

operator to take calls like this, but in the tough economic times, it

is all about multi-tasking. Do you want the Portuguese one or

the chinless one? Not the Portuguese one! I will get the

other one for are you. He will be with you in a short moment.

An extremely short moment, as it happens, I am parked outside, that

comes as a shock to Christopher Wyatt.

Hi, Chris, the thing is, of course, you are likely to get unhappy

customers like this if you esend out wonky engines that you claim

are reconditioned but when they are just our engines that you have done

the bare minimum work on and you have put back in our car with a

piston that is used, and does not really suit the car it is non-

servicable. If you are doing that, it is no wonder that there are

unhappy customers coming out of the woodwork. They were not typical

customers, they are part of our team.

What do you allege that we have done to the engine, it is engine

yearingly perfect. No, it is not. What you promised us

and what we paid for is a reconditioned engine. You said you

had 13 up on the rack. You took our engine out, you got it to a level

where there was the bare minimum of work to be done. You fitted a pist

on and a couple of little things but charged us as if it were a

reconditioned engine. We have given you 50,000 miles on

the engine. Do you know what happens with this situation? You

fob them off. We have so many customers that are saying that has

happened. At the end of the day, quality and

price. At the end of the day you can pay �6,000 for an engine or pay

�2,000. You cannot expect both engines to do the same job.

People expect an engine that is reconditioned or you have

reconditioned it. That is not what has happened. You have said one

thing and done another. It is not about the price.

At the end of the day the vehicle came not working. We got it back

working. As far as I'm concerned we have done what we agreed with them

what we were going to do. No you did not. You agreed to fit a

reconditioned engine. That must be to a certain specification. The

ones you are sending out on the evidence we have seen does not fit

the bill. I disagree.

He disagrees with all of our allegations and continued to deny

wrongdoing. OK. I respect the show, I respect

what you do, but you have picked the wrong man.

No, Chris, we have the right man. We have some happy customers.

We have a lot of happy customers. We have the engine, we have seen

what you do. You say one thing, promise one thing, charge for it,

and doing something else, that is a Rogue Traders, that is what you are.

I disagree entirely. Can you leave. Yes, no problem. Just in case he is

thinking of re-branding here, you know, coming up with a different

name, we have a suggestion. High winds in Darlington! Yeah, it

kind of worked. We have received a statement from the company, they

say that Haed Exchange Limited was dissolved some time ago, it has

nothing to do with Complete Engine Solutions, it should not be

confused with any company of a similar name. They did not comment

on the majority of our allegations but offered Nicola a replacement

reconditioned engine. They is a that our conduct and the tenor of

our letter was designed to make good television. Thank you.

Meanwhile, Christopher Wyatt you become the latest face on our

Rogues' Gallery. OK. Just a few more texts and e-

mails before we go. Here is one about the airbrushed

models in the cosmetic adds. Kelsey says that enhanced images in

magazines are to blame for young girls have a negative body image.

It is so wrong, they do not realise that the images are fake.

It appears I have started something. Chris, finally, some viewers

including Ross and Gareth say that they are wearing their Dimbleby

pants. I don't even know what Dimbleby pants are? Paxman pants, I

know what they are! Keep sending your stories and tip-office.

Go to the website: Or write to us: -- tip-office.

Coming up next week: Rocketing energy bills, if you are tempted to

swap to solar panel, be careful. Travelodge, look what some of the