:00:09. > :00:13.NatWest - Are you safe from fraud? Fiat - Are you secure at the wheel?
:00:13. > :00:16.Tesco - Can you be sure about their latest offers? Plus: Barclays,
:00:16. > :00:21.Virgin Media, and British Gas - Selling boilers. What's really in
:00:21. > :00:31.it for their engineers? It's Watchdog. The programme you cannot
:00:31. > :00:49.
:00:49. > :00:57.afford to miss. Yes, hello and good evening. Welcome to watchdog, we
:00:57. > :01:03.are live, as usual, from Television Centre. Bank fraud, a customer's
:01:03. > :01:07.account drained of �18,000. Why would not NatWest pay it back?
:01:08. > :01:12.gentleman was away on holiday, he could not have done the trangs
:01:12. > :01:18.actions, therefore the bank has to pay back the money. Can Britain's
:01:18. > :01:25.Srongest Man get hold of the wheel? Tesco, price on the brochure �169.
:01:25. > :01:30.Price at the checkout, �1.99. How many other deals don't add up. Plus
:01:30. > :01:37.car insurance and other charges, �55 to change your address. We did
:01:37. > :01:41.not get a good deal from the Rogue's tonight, but we got a shot
:01:41. > :01:47.of them after they ripped us off. There is no hanging their heads in
:01:47. > :01:50.shame. There is is a smirk. Look, a high-five. Yes, prepare to meet the
:01:50. > :01:53.boys from Drainsafe Limited of Bexley in Kent. They look happy.
:01:53. > :01:58.That expression could be about to change.
:01:58. > :02:03.First, bank and credit card fraud. Every day, 2,500 customers find
:02:03. > :02:07.that details have been used to buy goods or withdraw money. Proving
:02:07. > :02:13.fraud is difficult. That is why the Financial Services Authority, the
:02:13. > :02:18.FSA, have drawn up new rules to make it easier for the customers to
:02:18. > :02:22.claim refunds so., are the banks following the rules? You decide.
:02:22. > :02:27.Thieves drain our bank accounts of more than �300 million a year.
:02:27. > :02:32.There are many ways to do it using lost or stolen cards or card
:02:32. > :02:36.details to order items over the counter, on the phone or over the
:02:36. > :02:40.internet. Or even by stealing your identity to take over the entire
:02:40. > :02:44.account. Criminals may find it easy to
:02:45. > :02:49.defraud you, but persuading the bank they have done so can be
:02:49. > :02:54.tougher. The FSA rules say that if you deny authorising a payment, the
:02:54. > :03:00.bank should give the benefit of the doubt to you, unless they can prove
:03:00. > :03:05.otherwise, but we found some banks using flimsy excuses to refuse
:03:05. > :03:13.refunds. Kulvir Kinder, recently went on
:03:13. > :03:17.holiday to India. While he was away, a fraudster claiming to be him,
:03:17. > :03:21.called NatWest and managed to alter personal details, changing the
:03:21. > :03:25.residence from Slough to Nottingham and persuading the bank to send a
:03:25. > :03:30.new card. When it arrived at the new address, the fraudster
:03:30. > :03:34.proceeded to empty the account of more than �18,000. Almost �5,000 of
:03:34. > :03:42.the total was stolen by transferring it into other accounts,
:03:42. > :03:47.money that NatWest has refunded. The other �13,000 came from ATMs
:03:47. > :03:51.and cash withdrawal, that is �13,000 that the bank is refusing
:03:51. > :03:56.to refund. Despite Kulvir Kinder being 4,000 miles away at the time.
:03:56. > :04:01.NatWest say that the withdrawals could not have been made without
:04:01. > :04:09.him being present, but is this proof for them to deny the refund?
:04:09. > :04:15.I have reviewed the case and I draw attention to two transactions worth
:04:15. > :04:19.�50. Cash withdrawals, done over the count ner branches -- �9506789
:04:19. > :04:23.Kulvir Kinder was away on holiday. He could not have done the
:04:23. > :04:28.transactions, therefore the bank must refund the money.
:04:28. > :04:32.Fraudulent use of the bank card is often obvious. The thief has spent
:04:32. > :04:36.money in a place you have never been to on goods you have never
:04:36. > :04:42.bought, but if the card was used for a transaction with a retailer
:04:42. > :04:46.you have used before, good luck getting a refund from Barclays.
:04:46. > :04:50.Muqtada Al-Sadr returned from a holiday to find two unauthorised
:04:50. > :04:58.payments had been made on his card. I contacted Barclays Bank. They
:04:58. > :05:07.came back to me. I was astounded to find that its with for a card I
:05:07. > :05:13.don't even own. They were two cars. The two cars, these ones are Ray's,
:05:13. > :05:18.the others are not. I went to the bank, they decided it
:05:18. > :05:22.was not fraud due the fact I had used the merchant before.
:05:22. > :05:26.Yes, if the criminal ues the card to buy something from a retailer
:05:26. > :05:31.which you have used before, Barclays may not be prepared to
:05:31. > :05:36.accept that there has been fraud. Why? Because the retailer has your
:05:36. > :05:42.details and then accidentally debited the account or that this is
:05:42. > :05:47.in line with theal pattern of spending, but if you are a motorist,
:05:47. > :05:51.you need a tax disc, there is own the DVLA available.
:05:51. > :05:54.The regulation says that the firm has to prove that the payment was
:05:54. > :05:59.authorised. To argue that, simply because the customer made purchases
:05:59. > :06:05.from the company in the past is a unreasonable argument. All of us
:06:05. > :06:08.that have cars or driving licences deal with the DVLA.
:06:08. > :06:12.Despite being able to prove that the cars were not his, Ray could
:06:12. > :06:16.not get a refund from Barclays. Having taken two months to provide
:06:16. > :06:20.him with details of the transactions, they gave him ten
:06:20. > :06:24.days to dispute them. As he was out of the country at the time he
:06:24. > :06:30.missed the deadline. I feel that Barclays have treated
:06:30. > :06:34.me shabbily. They don't seem to care.
:06:34. > :06:39.If thieves want to make a fraudulent telephone or online
:06:39. > :06:45.purchase, all they need are the card details, using sophisticated
:06:45. > :06:50.techniques to obtain them, going so far as to hack into retailers'
:06:50. > :06:54.databases. You can be unaware that a criminal has your details but you
:06:54. > :06:57.could be held responsible. Dharmadev Trivedi is a junior
:06:57. > :07:00.doctor and another Barclays customer. Last October, the bank
:07:00. > :07:03.noticed a number of unusual transactions on the card. One of
:07:03. > :07:09.which was made at a hotel in Northampton.
:07:09. > :07:14.At the time, he was on shift 120 miles away in Leeds.
:07:14. > :07:18.The bank had cancelled my card. They are stopped some of the major
:07:18. > :07:23.transactions and I was feeling much assured that the money was safe.
:07:23. > :07:29.However, there was a purchase made from a hotel and some food
:07:29. > :07:33.purchased from a food website, they redebited that from the account.
:07:33. > :07:38.Although Barclays refunded the hotel bill, they refused to refund
:07:38. > :07:42.the money for the food order, using the exact excuse that they had
:07:42. > :07:47.given Ray, that he had used the retailer before.
:07:47. > :07:52.The reason was the previous dealing with the merchant. I had ordered
:07:52. > :07:57.from them before, but many others have as well.
:07:57. > :08:02.Ray did manage to persuade Barclays to refund the money, despite the
:08:02. > :08:07.fact they could not prove he made the transactions, they still felt
:08:07. > :08:17.he was to blame. I read the letter that Barclays
:08:17. > :08:21.
:08:21. > :08:25.I feel it was a ridiculous statement to make.
:08:25. > :08:29.This gentleman has protected his card. Somebody has managed to use
:08:29. > :08:33.his card number that is a very different matter. As card holders,
:08:33. > :08:39.we are clearly responsible for making sure that we keep our fiscal
:08:39. > :08:46.cards safe, but lots of people have access to our card details and we
:08:46. > :08:52.cannot prevent some of those people from miss using those details.
:08:52. > :08:57.The FSA says that banks have to give customers the benefit of the
:08:57. > :09:02.doubt if they claim to be victims of fraud unless proven otherwise. A
:09:02. > :09:07.shame that some banks don't seem to be listening.
:09:07. > :09:11.The NatWest has investigated Kulvir Kinder's case and agreed to refund
:09:11. > :09:16.the remaining �13,000 drained from his account. They say that the
:09:16. > :09:22.investigation was complex and took time. They want to assure him and
:09:22. > :09:27.all other customers that they continue to develop their antifraud
:09:27. > :09:30.methods. And Barclays have refunded
:09:30. > :09:35.Dharmadev Trivedi but admit that they wrongly held him lible for one
:09:35. > :09:39.of the payments. They are also helping Muqtada Al-Sadr, they have
:09:39. > :09:44.offered him an extra �50 as a goodwill gesture. Saying that the
:09:44. > :09:48.security of the customers' money is prar mount. They guarantee to
:09:48. > :09:53.compensate genuine fraud victims and pay out an 85% of cases. When
:09:53. > :10:01.they get it wrong they put their hands up and take action to put it
:10:01. > :10:08.right. If you would like to comment on the stories here is how:
:10:08. > :10:13.To get involved in the Twitter discussion, the address and hashtag
:10:13. > :10:16.are on the screens. A huge response to last week's
:10:16. > :10:24.reports on British Gas and their engineers charges for unnecessary
:10:24. > :10:27.work. Chris Jansen came on watchdog to deny that the engineers receive
:10:27. > :10:31.financial incentives to recommend that customers replace the boiler.
:10:31. > :10:36.No. They do not get rewards for selling a boiler.
:10:36. > :10:41.So they are not in any way benefiting from the boiler? Your
:10:41. > :10:45.people that go in there, there is nothing in it for them what soever?
:10:45. > :10:50.Our engineers are engineers. They fix boilers. We visit 7 million
:10:50. > :10:55.home as year. 99% of the times we fix the boiler. Most of the time we
:10:55. > :11:00.fix it the first time. In the rare occasion, it is one in 100 when we
:11:00. > :11:05.cannot fix the boiler. The engineer sits with the customers to explain
:11:05. > :11:10.to them the reasons they should get a new boiler.
:11:10. > :11:15.That is odd. British Gas engineers have been in touch to say that they
:11:15. > :11:20.are given incentives. Watchdog obtained a letter sent to British
:11:20. > :11:27.Gas employers, spelling out how engineers can increase earnings.
:11:27. > :11:34.The company sent this to staff. It gave them guidance on how to answer
:11:34. > :11:39.customers' questions. In answer to the question, our engineers are
:11:39. > :11:43.incentivised to encourage customers to have their boilers replaced? It
:11:43. > :11:48.says no, but where a customer's boiler cannot be fixed or is
:11:48. > :11:56.reaching the end of its life, our engineers may ask if the customers
:11:56. > :12:01.would like a quote for a new boiler from a British Gas expert. If so,
:12:01. > :12:07.the engineer requires �15 for giving the lead.
:12:07. > :12:11.So there is an incentive? British Gas say this is a nominal payment.
:12:11. > :12:15.For introducing them to the British Gas new heating team. They say that
:12:15. > :12:19.the payments are made irrespective of the outcome of a sales process.
:12:19. > :12:24.It is, they say, not a commission. The full response and contact
:12:24. > :12:28.details are on our website. Coming up: The Grande Punto,
:12:28. > :12:34.stylish and safe say Fiat. Try steering it say the owners. How
:12:34. > :12:39.will Britain's Srongest Man fare behind the wheel? He won?! He must
:12:39. > :12:43.have beaten me by that much! Mind you, if there was a competition for
:12:43. > :12:53.Britain's cheekest man, neither would get a look in. We would be a
:12:53. > :13:03.
:13:03. > :13:13.long way behind one of tonight's # You've got a friend in me... #
:13:13. > :13:15.
:13:15. > :13:25.Dan and I go way back! We laugh bad that for days... Hello! Hello! We
:13:25. > :13:29.have stayed pals, mates, bosom buddies... It is one of of the --
:13:29. > :13:36.written of the moments that I wish that Dan was here. We tell the same
:13:36. > :13:39.stories all over again. I sent a text message that said
:13:39. > :13:48.Hello! I don't even know what it means!
:13:48. > :13:54.# Yeah, you have a friend in me. # Come on! You know, other friends
:13:54. > :13:59.are not so cuddly. Like the two we meet tonight. They work for Bexley-
:13:59. > :14:04.based Drainsafe Limited a company specialising in boilers and drains,
:14:04. > :14:09.imagine! Susanne Black called them out last December when her boiler
:14:09. > :14:14.went on the blink. It looks like Susanne Black is originally from
:14:14. > :14:18.Finland. I get a nice man who goes up there
:14:18. > :14:22.to look at the problem and says this is the part you need or two
:14:22. > :14:26.parts. He cannot get them for the same day. So we waited until he can
:14:26. > :14:31.come back the next day. He comes back the next day, what
:14:31. > :14:34.happens then? He fitted the parts. I was rather happy to have the
:14:34. > :14:40.heating back on the house. It was cold.
:14:40. > :14:44.40 minutes later, when he had gone, it all goes off again.
:14:44. > :14:48.The same guy came back 24 hours later, called the boiler
:14:48. > :14:53.manufacture and discovered he had not fixed the problem correctly. He
:14:53. > :15:00.had to start from scratch. I enquired whether it would be
:15:01. > :15:05.covered by the guarantee. They said no because I had
:15:05. > :15:11.misdiagnosed the problem. It was not their job to fix if, pay for it.
:15:11. > :15:15.So, to be clear, as a Drainsafe customer it is you who has to
:15:15. > :15:19.decide what is wrong with the boiler before you call them?
:15:19. > :15:24.Apparently so. An expert has said this is a simple
:15:24. > :15:30.fault for a trained gas fitter and should have been fixed for �220.
:15:30. > :15:34.Yet Susanne Black was charged a massive �724. From a company that
:15:34. > :15:40.promises satisfaction guaranteed! They just took my money. They took
:15:40. > :15:45.almost two weeks to do the work and... Yeah, it was a very
:15:45. > :15:50.unpleasant experience. So, �724 to fix a problem that
:15:50. > :15:55.should have cost �220. Not good. There is more, we heard from a
:15:55. > :15:57.landlord in a flat in south London. This is him. His name is Jas. When
:15:58. > :16:02.he called the company about a blocked bathroom drain. They said
:16:02. > :16:06.they would fix it the following morning. They asked him for a
:16:06. > :16:10.initial payment of �66 from the credit card. They said they would
:16:10. > :16:14.let him know the final bill. I phoned them. They said that
:16:15. > :16:22.everything was done. That everything was fine. I said how
:16:23. > :16:30.much was the charge. They said � 1,056. I was shocked. I said it
:16:30. > :16:34.can't be that much! Indeed! This job should have cost half of that.
:16:34. > :16:40.What is worse, Jas said that they took the full payment without his
:16:40. > :16:48.consent. Time to put on secret cameras and
:16:48. > :16:53.call Mike Griffin. Mike Griffin! Yes, not literally.
:16:53. > :17:03.Yes, it is Mike, he is a plumber. He is at the top of his game.
:17:03. > :17:06.
:17:06. > :17:11.We are in luck! Big builder? No, look here.
:17:11. > :17:18.We have had it powered through and washed, now we have filled it up
:17:18. > :17:25.with lots of rice, pasta and topped it off with a bit of broccoli.
:17:25. > :17:30.Yes, this is not just a blockage, it is a Mike Griffin blockage. Any
:17:30. > :17:36.plumber should be able to clear it in just under 20 minutes.
:17:36. > :17:44.Right, we are in position. Homeowner John is showing us his
:17:44. > :17:49.moves. Twin pistols. Shut up! And Drainsafe are on their way! At
:17:49. > :17:53.least, we thought they were on their way... I phoned up about an
:17:53. > :18:00.hour ago. I think they were about 3 minutes away, I was told.
:18:00. > :18:06.We are still waiting... Another 30 minutes? Any minute now... See what
:18:06. > :18:11.the time is now... The audience may be getting bored, I will show my
:18:11. > :18:17.Muppet. That's better. Finally, four hours late, they arrive.
:18:17. > :18:27.Better late than never. Jason is not alone. He is with his
:18:27. > :18:31.
:18:31. > :18:36.buddy, BuzzLightyear. Ryan, actually. I wonder what they will
:18:36. > :18:41.get up to today? Clearing the blockage should take 20 minutes and
:18:41. > :18:48.cost up to �100, but it turns out that Jason and Ryan have a lot more
:18:48. > :18:54.time and money on their minds. Next, Fiat, the puntow, the Grande
:18:54. > :19:01.Punto and the Panda. Three small cars, one big problem. The owners
:19:01. > :19:09.too scared to drive them. The Fiat Grande Punto. Good looking,
:19:09. > :19:14.affordable and most importantly, safe. Small. Sheerbgs -- chic, and
:19:14. > :19:18.Italian. A winning combination. So I hoped, but as for the safety, I'm
:19:19. > :19:24.not sure. There is a serious problem with power steering on some
:19:24. > :19:30.Fiats. That is costly to fix and potentially very dangerous. Not so
:19:30. > :19:36.attractive. Dominic's car was a Fiat puntow. He
:19:36. > :19:41.bought it second-hand in 2010. I always wanted a Fiat puntow. I
:19:41. > :19:45.always wanted one. Now I have one, I am happy. I'm in the army, I have
:19:45. > :19:50.the kit in the boot. They are reliable.
:19:50. > :19:53.Economical, but less than a year after he bought the car, the
:19:53. > :19:58.problems with the power steering began.
:19:58. > :20:02.Something beeped on the dash board. The power steering was a problem.
:20:02. > :20:06.It made it really hard and heavy to steer.
:20:06. > :20:10.A problem with the electrics caused the power steering to fail once.
:20:10. > :20:15.Within week it is went again. According to Dominic it failed 50
:20:15. > :20:22.times in the space of six months. Scary and costly.
:20:22. > :20:29.As the car was not under warranty, I had to fork out �654.
:20:29. > :20:33.But for other Fiat Grande Punto owners it proved even more costly.
:20:34. > :20:39.This is probably the most unreliable car I have ever had in
:20:39. > :20:41.my life it can go any time, the power steering. Even on the
:20:41. > :20:47.motorway. I have lost the confidence in driving the car. So
:20:47. > :20:52.much so, I have had to take out the highest level of insurance cover.
:20:52. > :20:56.What does it feel like? It is not like driving a car. It is really
:20:56. > :21:00.heavy. Of course, cars have not always had
:21:00. > :21:05.power steering. It is possible to drive without it but the problem
:21:05. > :21:11.comes when the system fails, it make it is difficult to handle,
:21:11. > :21:16.even for the strongest motorist. Now I might know the cars, I may
:21:16. > :21:20.even impress you with a bit of Italian, but if it is brute
:21:20. > :21:28.strength, don't look at me, look at him.
:21:29. > :21:34.Meet Eddie Hall. He can shift 160 kilograms of solid stone and drag a
:21:34. > :21:39.30-tonne truck, but can Eddie drive this obstacle course without power
:21:39. > :21:43.steering? Yes, it is the strong man's turn to drive Sarah's Fiat
:21:43. > :21:49.when the power steering cuts out without a warning.
:21:49. > :21:54.Our car expert has a special device now to de-activate the power
:21:54. > :22:04.steering on the car with a flick of a switch, but Eddie has no idea
:22:04. > :22:12.
:22:12. > :22:16.when it will happen. So, here goes. -- looking good at the moment. Look.
:22:16. > :22:22.Something has gone. Once the system fails, Eddie has to struggle like
:22:22. > :22:27.mad to steer the wheel. The seat belt even slips off his shoulder.
:22:27. > :22:31.He is working so hard! He is having to slow right down.
:22:31. > :22:37.He does not need to go to the gym, I tell you.
:22:37. > :22:41.So, if the power steering failure can cause struggle for the
:22:41. > :22:47.Britain's Srongest Man, what hope is there for other Fiat drivers?
:22:47. > :22:52.Watchdog heard from 132 of them complaining of power steering
:22:52. > :22:56.problems made between 2000 and 2008. Some are grand grandground and Fiat
:22:56. > :23:01.owners, others like John, own a Panda.
:23:01. > :23:08.My father always had Italian cars. When I went to Italy, we loved
:23:08. > :23:13.looking at Italian cars. I have had 30 Fiats. I have had this car five
:23:13. > :23:20.years, in the five years I have had three power steering units.
:23:20. > :23:25.I am fed up with it. It is a safety issue. I'm an
:23:25. > :23:29.experienced driver. I teach car driving.
:23:29. > :23:34.It is worrying and expensive. When it went the third time, the
:23:34. > :23:38.steering column was not under warranty. Fiat said: They don't
:23:38. > :23:42.accept that the problems that are experienced are a result of the
:23:42. > :23:47.manufacturing history. So they are basically saying it is not their
:23:47. > :23:51.fault? Yes, which is rubbish. Watchdog phoned five independent
:23:51. > :23:55.garages around the UK, they seemed well aware of the issue. In
:23:55. > :23:59.Scotland, they said that some Fiats have problems and the electric
:23:59. > :24:05.power steering can pack up. In Lincolnshire, they described the
:24:05. > :24:10.problem with the puntow as a well- known common fault. Four out of
:24:10. > :24:16.five garages told us that the power steering can be faulty on either
:24:17. > :24:21.the Fiat puntow and the Panda. So, what is the problem and should Fiat
:24:21. > :24:26.be taking responsibility? There is a fault on the electric side. That
:24:26. > :24:29.causes the loss of power steering. Given the fault lines, I think this
:24:29. > :24:34.should not happen in the hieftime of the car, I think that Fiat
:24:34. > :24:38.should be replacing the units. But until Fiat takes the action, it
:24:38. > :24:43.seems that the owners will have problems. It may be easier for
:24:43. > :24:48.Eddie to pull the car, rather than drive it. Fiat will not comment on
:24:48. > :24:53.individual cases but confirmed that a small number of puntow and Panda
:24:53. > :24:58.models have had power-assisted steering repairs. They say that the
:24:58. > :25:02.fault is indicated bay warning light. That the car can be driven,
:25:02. > :25:09.although with increased effort on the wheel. They say that they aim
:25:09. > :25:14.to give the customers exemplary service and advise people with
:25:14. > :25:20.problems to call their local dealer and the Fiat customer care team.
:25:20. > :25:26.Tesco, and the latest so-called bargains. Here is this month's
:25:26. > :25:31.brochure. Hundreds of price cuts, but getting to the checkout and
:25:31. > :25:36.some of the goods cost more. So, we went shopping to this Tesco branch
:25:36. > :25:44.up the road in West London. We found Nestle Shreddies advertised
:25:44. > :25:53.on sale for �1.34. The price at the checkout, �149. Nestle Cheerios,
:25:53. > :26:03.the brochure price, �137. The checkout price, �1 43.
:26:03. > :26:05.
:26:05. > :26:14.And Hellman's, headlines 1.69, the price we paid was �1.99. Reeocka,
:26:14. > :26:18.�5.99, we were charged �6.49. -- Rioja. They say that they are
:26:18. > :26:24.printing errors, they have high lighted the correct promotional
:26:24. > :26:30.prices. After all of that, Annie, no doubt you are tempted to do your
:26:30. > :26:34.shopping at a 9 p store? Never go anywhere else.
:26:35. > :26:41.But be careful. It started as a single shop 11
:26:41. > :26:45.years ago. Now there are more than 150 of them all across the UK.
:26:45. > :26:49.Generating profits 6 �6 .3 million. What is the secret.
:26:50. > :26:54.Cheap food and cheap cosmetics. think is good for the money. Money
:26:54. > :27:02.is tight, you have to look around. Where money is tight, we are bound
:27:02. > :27:07.to be attracted by promises like this... This... And this... We will
:27:07. > :27:14.not be beaten on price. Clear and definitive, yes. True? Let's find
:27:14. > :27:19.out. I wanted to check what you mean by
:27:19. > :27:24.we will not be beaten by price in your stores? Our researchers are
:27:24. > :27:27.putting the claim to the test, but let's confirm with a call to one of
:27:27. > :27:32.the stores that the company stands by the promise.
:27:32. > :27:37.It means that the product you buy from our store you cannot buy
:27:37. > :27:43.cheaper in someone else's store. As simple as that? As simple as
:27:43. > :27:50.that. So, let's buy products. 40 of them.
:27:50. > :27:56.Chosen at random and purchased over a three week period in March and
:27:56. > :28:00.April. Using data supplied by My Supermarket, we compared the prices
:28:00. > :28:05.with the 99p Stores with the big four supermarkets on the same dates.
:28:05. > :28:11.So, let's see if the claim really stands up to the scrutiny. We
:28:12. > :28:19.bought this bottle of Carex hand wash from the 99p Stores for guess
:28:19. > :28:25.how much? Yes, you have it, 99p, but then we bought this from Tesco
:28:25. > :28:31.and Sainsbury's, the same bottle was some 19 pence cheaper. Then
:28:31. > :28:40.Coke, at the 99p Stores you can get two pore �180, but ASDA and
:28:40. > :28:48.Morrisons had an offer, two bottles for �1.50. Finally, Oreos, at the
:28:48. > :28:53.99p Stores you can get two packets for, 99 pence, but at Tesco, two
:28:53. > :28:57.packets for 98 pence it does not sound a lot, but it all adds up. So
:28:57. > :29:03.despite the boost, the 99p Stores clearly can be beaten on price by
:29:03. > :29:08.the big supermarkets, but what about another of their claims, un
:29:08. > :29:13.beetable valuable? Well, that does not always stand up -- unbeatable
:29:13. > :29:20.value? That does not always stand up. Tyke this Right Guard that they
:29:20. > :29:25.are selling for 99 pence. At Morrisons we can buy a larger can
:29:25. > :29:33.for 26 pence more. It is Morrisons offering the better value.
:29:33. > :29:38.And finally, there is Flash, the all-purpose cleaner. We got this
:29:38. > :29:44.500 millilitre bottle for 9 pence from the 99p Stores but spending 1
:29:44. > :29:52.pence more at ASDA, you got twice the amount. What was that about
:29:52. > :29:57.unbeatable value? On at least one occasion, 70 of the 40 -- seven of
:29:57. > :30:02.the 40 products were cheaper. This store has a we will not be
:30:02. > :30:06.beaten on price claim. Now that claim is not qualified. There are
:30:06. > :30:12.no caveats to it. No points to support it. There is nothing so say
:30:12. > :30:17.if you find it cheaper elsewhere, what do you do, so therefore that
:30:17. > :30:21.gives the impression and leads consumers to be believing that this
:30:21. > :30:26.is an absolute promise of value, but what we stpiend that you can
:30:26. > :30:32.find the goods cheaper elsewhere. It is not as if the 99p Stores
:30:32. > :30:36.don't know what the prices of the big four supermarkets are charging,
:30:36. > :30:42.they make their own comparisons instore. Like this one.
:30:42. > :30:51.The stuffing for 99 pence for three at the 99p Stores, compared to
:30:51. > :30:56.�1765 at Sainsbury's. -- �1765.
:30:56. > :31:02.-- �1.65. It sounds good, if only it was accurate. We visited
:31:02. > :31:08.Sainsbury's. We found that the stuffing was not �1.65 for three as
:31:08. > :31:12.claimed, but �1.20. Over the course of the trip, we checked out 37 of
:31:12. > :31:16.their price comparison labels. Incredibly, 27 of them were not
:31:16. > :31:21.accurate. Sometimes the rival store's prices
:31:21. > :31:27.were less than claimed, sometimes more. In all 27 cases, 99p Stores
:31:27. > :31:31.were cheaper, but why the inaccuracies at all? Maybe because
:31:31. > :31:34.some price comparisons were made months ago, even as far back as
:31:34. > :31:39.2010. So the general image of the store
:31:39. > :31:43.is that it is good value, they will not be beaten on price, but not all
:31:43. > :31:48.goods are the best value on the market, then they are not making
:31:48. > :31:52.price comparisons that they should Oh, well, after all that hard work,
:31:52. > :31:59.at least our team could look forward to cheap refreshment,
:31:59. > :32:08.thanks to this great offer on Coca- Cola. Two bottles for 99 pence, but
:32:08. > :32:16.at the till they charged us �1780. Wow! OK. With me now is the co-
:32:16. > :32:21.founder and owner of 99p Stores, which incidentally are 186.
:32:21. > :32:27.Mr Lilani thank you very much for coming in. The sign says not to be
:32:27. > :32:32.beaten by value, unbeatable value, that is not true? Well, 82% of the
:32:32. > :32:36.time we beat the supermarkets. I am sorry that some signs would appear
:32:36. > :32:41.misleading. We have followed the research and removed the signs that
:32:41. > :32:47.say unbeatable value. We are to replace them with new signs to show
:32:47. > :32:53.that they are 82.5% of the time we beat the supermarkets. Those odds
:32:53. > :32:57.are stacked in the consumers' favour. Whys that taken you until
:32:57. > :33:00.watchdog got on to this to change which was accurate, which is not
:33:01. > :33:06.beaten on price and unbeatable value, when it should have been
:33:06. > :33:10.saying some of the time we are unbeatable on value? Well when the
:33:10. > :33:13.signs were put up they were unbeatable value, but in today's
:33:13. > :33:17.retail market, the prices change quickly. With the internet they
:33:18. > :33:22.change almost every hour. The mistake we made was not to keep
:33:22. > :33:27.checking the prices, but we have changed the systems now.
:33:27. > :33:32.You have comparison labels on the shelves, some of them as old as
:33:32. > :33:39.2010, so two-year-old prices that are not accurate. There were 27 out
:33:39. > :33:43.of 37 prices were inaccurate? the report acknowledged that
:33:43. > :33:46.although some were inaccurate, we are still beating the supermarkets.
:33:46. > :33:51.We are cheaper than the supermarkets.
:33:51. > :33:57.They are not accurate. We looked at the prices comparing with the
:33:57. > :34:03.supermarket. 27 out of 37 were inaccurate. That is 100% accurate
:34:03. > :34:11.research! But each product was cheaper than the supermarket. We
:34:11. > :34:15.are cheaper than the supermarkets. You are not, it is Carex that is 99
:34:15. > :34:22.pence at your store, it is 80 pence at Tesco.
:34:22. > :34:29.Let's take an example. The Flash cleaner, 99 pence for 500 mills at
:34:30. > :34:33.your store. In ASDA it is �1 for 1,000 mls.
:34:34. > :34:40.That offer has expired. ASDA has doubled the price.
:34:40. > :34:44.But when we did the research, there was twice as much value at ASDA
:34:44. > :34:49.than you do at the 99p Stores? acknowledge that the signage was
:34:49. > :34:51.inaccurate, some of it. We have taken that on board. Every price
:34:51. > :34:55.comparison has been removed from the shelves.
:34:55. > :35:00.I am glad we had a result from you. Thank you very much.
:35:00. > :35:04.Matt? Back to Bexley-based Drainsafe Limited, now. Not to be
:35:04. > :35:08.confused with companies of similar names, that is because this one has
:35:08. > :35:14.form for overcharging. We have asked them to clear a simple
:35:14. > :35:22.blockage. They sent two lads, Jason and Ryan to deal with it. So, will
:35:22. > :35:30.they turn out to be friends or foes? John is our stooge. There he
:35:30. > :35:34.is. His drain is in a jam. Nothing that the two boys should be able to
:35:34. > :35:38.clear with elbow grease. Mike say it is should be cleared in 20
:35:38. > :35:43.minutes, maximum. I don't know what is going on down
:35:43. > :35:51.here. We will work out the paperwork and tell you what is
:35:51. > :35:56.happening. The paperwork swrbg important, to be clear.
:35:56. > :36:03.-- the paperwork is important. That is �65 for the first hour and
:36:03. > :36:09.�55 on the half for the plant. It depends on the nature of the
:36:09. > :36:15.gravity of the situation. If we have to get the jetter out,
:36:15. > :36:19.it is a two-man job. Hmm... The trouble is that the
:36:19. > :36:25.forms he is asking us to sign say something different. He does not
:36:25. > :36:30.make this clear. On the phone he quoted the labour charge as �65 per
:36:30. > :36:35.half an hour. What he is not saying is that according to the forms in
:36:35. > :36:41.very small print we will pay �65 per man, per half an hour. With two
:36:41. > :36:45.of them on the job, that is a massive hike. Of course, there is
:36:46. > :36:55.the additional �55 for the jetter. So with charges like that, they
:36:55. > :37:00.better be good and quick. How long do you rek it will be?
:37:00. > :37:07.How long do you reckon it will be? We will have a look.
:37:08. > :37:12.I am worrying! There is no need for the blasting. It should be clearing
:37:12. > :37:17.the gully, sticking a rod down, job done in a couple of minutes.
:37:17. > :37:22.Instead of trying the cheap way first. They reach for the expensive
:37:22. > :37:26.jetter. You have to put the machinery away and get your hands
:37:26. > :37:33.dirty. Right, time for a look at that gully.
:37:33. > :37:40.Yeah, yeah, that definitely is a gully! Yeah, yeah, without a doubt,
:37:40. > :37:45.I would say that is definitely, that definitely is a gully! Right,
:37:45. > :37:50.now let's clear it up. Let's get on with it. Finally.
:37:50. > :37:56.Hold on? Are they pushing the stuff that is causing the blockage
:37:56. > :38:01.together. You have to pull it up, not push it in! Now the jetting
:38:01. > :38:07.starting up. It seems to have a nasty effect on the van. It is
:38:07. > :38:09.smoking! After a few moments of jetting. Dr Jason gives the
:38:09. > :38:14.Drainsafe diagnosis. It is not goofpltd
:38:14. > :38:19.This is lime scale. It will break under extreme pressure. You have to
:38:19. > :38:25.blast it to get it back up. That is solid.
:38:25. > :38:28.That is solid with that stuff. So, what is the plan? Just keep
:38:28. > :38:33.jetting. When we break through and clear it,
:38:33. > :38:39.we will let you know. All it is that they are not able to
:38:39. > :38:44.clear a basic gully. They should have stuck their hands
:38:44. > :38:47.in, picked out the dirt in there. It is rammed. It is rammed to the
:38:47. > :38:51.brim. Trying to push it down, but... I
:38:51. > :38:58.don't think that I can. He is pushing the dirt around the
:38:58. > :39:02.bend of the trap. He really should be dragging it out,
:39:02. > :39:11.not pushing it down. They carry on pushing it down which drags the
:39:11. > :39:16.whole thing out. In fact, in the end it takes two
:39:16. > :39:26.men a full hour to do the job. Even with the aid of a jetter! It should
:39:26. > :39:45.
:39:45. > :39:50.have taken one man 20 minutes. Mike? Is he OK?! No wonder our
:39:50. > :39:55.expert has gone faint. The job should have cost less than �100.
:39:55. > :40:00.How did they get this figure. I worked it out. See that machine.
:40:00. > :40:05.Obviously for health and safety reasons it cannot be manned by one
:40:05. > :40:15.of us. It still does not add up. Call the
:40:15. > :40:16.
:40:16. > :40:22.Open University! So, working on the basis that X is 65. When X is a
:40:22. > :40:30.halve hourly charge. Then we have two half hours, two X,
:40:30. > :40:36.two men they charged us for plus one Y. Times that for the jetter,
:40:36. > :40:42.it equals � 444. But they charge us two half an
:40:42. > :40:51.hours, plus two Y so double the charge for the jert, plus the VAT,
:40:51. > :40:55.it equals �576. Quite different. In other words, they have pulled a
:40:55. > :40:59.fast one. Exactly. Yes, they have. Although
:40:59. > :41:05.you would never think it, judging by Jason's expression. Before you
:41:05. > :41:15.go, guys, tell us again why the job was so complicated.
:41:15. > :41:34.
:41:34. > :41:41.What it was a build up of lime Hi-five! Actually, they have just
:41:41. > :41:47.ripped us off! Yes, and rather royally as well. Still, skraison
:41:47. > :41:54.and Ryan are only the -- Jason and Ryan are own the workers. We have
:41:54. > :42:02.to find the king of the hill. To see who is pulling their strings
:42:02. > :42:08.and who is the organ grinders, but before that, Ticketmaster, Virgin
:42:08. > :42:12.Media, -- Virgin Atlantic, and the Halifax.
:42:12. > :42:18.Here is Rick. Paperwork, sometimes it feels like
:42:18. > :42:23.we are drowning in it. Keeping on top of household bills. Or filing
:42:23. > :42:29.tax returns. Yes it is a pain. There is really only so much admin
:42:29. > :42:34.one person can do before giving up. Big companies -- companies, though,
:42:34. > :42:39.they have been an army of people to process paperwork, along with the
:42:39. > :42:44.best systems and technology. So why when they do admin do we end up
:42:44. > :42:48.paying through the nose? The big ticket agencies are among the worst
:42:48. > :42:54.offenders. They have always liked booking fees, but now it has gone
:42:54. > :42:58.way beyond the nominal charge. Fancy taking in a west end show in
:42:58. > :43:02.the summer? You're in for a shock. I'm on the website for We Will Rock
:43:02. > :43:07.You. If I want to book it takes me straight through to Ticketmaster,
:43:07. > :43:14.when I -- where I can buy a couple of tickets for �6 2. And where I
:43:14. > :43:18.will be charged an extra �8.25 fee per ticket! That is bad enough, but
:43:18. > :43:23.what I don't understand is why this company varies the fee, according
:43:23. > :43:29.to the price of the ticket you are buying. Surely it does not cost
:43:29. > :43:34.more to process expensive tickets? Why do they charge you more? And
:43:34. > :43:39.what's this?! Even after making me shell out over �8 on admin fees,
:43:39. > :43:45.they are now charging me an extra �4 on my order to collect the
:43:45. > :43:52.tickets from the box office! Or, even to e-mail them to me! In which
:43:52. > :43:56.case I will have to print them out myself! I'm being charged to do my
:43:56. > :44:00.own admin! I wonder if it is the same on Broadway as the West End?
:44:00. > :44:04.Well, I'm planning to go to New York later this year. So let's have
:44:04. > :44:10.a look at a couple of the main airline carriers and see what they
:44:10. > :44:16.have to offer. On the lowest fares, well, Virgin Atlantic ticket prices
:44:16. > :44:20.seem OK, but hold on. If I have to change the day of travel, they will
:44:20. > :44:24.charge me up to a whopping �120 to do so.
:44:25. > :44:30.OK. What about British Airways? Well, if you have to alter your day
:44:30. > :44:38.with them over the phone, the fee is much less, just �30, but hold
:44:38. > :44:46.up... I've just found out that they will also charge �100 for a penalty
:44:46. > :44:51.fee for changing the details, so it comes to �130! Perhaps it is just
:44:51. > :44:56.me, but these admin charges are not only now more expensive, they are
:44:56. > :45:01.becoming more widespread. There are eye-watering arrangement fees on
:45:01. > :45:06.mortgages. Unjustified chargess for paying by plastic and huge
:45:06. > :45:10.penalties for going overdrawn on the bank account. Don't get me
:45:10. > :45:15.started on cars. Drivers are hammered with the cost of the fuel,
:45:15. > :45:19.the tax, the servicing, and the parking! As if all of that is not
:45:19. > :45:29.enough, there is the insurance! Plus the admin fees that they pile
:45:29. > :45:30.
:45:30. > :45:37.Joe Townsend insures his car with Halifax. When he moved house, they
:45:37. > :45:41.hit him with a premium as it was a higher risk neighbourhood, but they
:45:41. > :45:47.slapped on an �25 admin charge, he was told for producing new
:45:47. > :45:51.documents. That is right, �25 for a couple of letters! Have you had a
:45:51. > :45:54.similar charge from your car insurer lately? This could be the
:45:54. > :45:59.reason. Companies can charge what they like as long as the charges
:45:59. > :46:03.are considered fair. Do you know it is like when buying
:46:03. > :46:08.a ticket for an airline, you think you have a deal. Then you discover
:46:08. > :46:12.that you are charged �30 for the baggage, more for the use of the
:46:12. > :46:16.credit card and lots of extra fees. In other words, some insurers are
:46:16. > :46:20.looming you in with seemingly low- costs, then hitting you are a range
:46:20. > :46:25.of additional fees. Yes, it sounds familiar.
:46:25. > :46:29.When you buy a policy you have to look at the total cost. That is not
:46:29. > :46:34.just the monthly or annual premium, but the other fees. Go through the
:46:34. > :46:38.small print. Find out the other charges that could be lumped on you.
:46:38. > :46:47.There may be reams of terms and conditions, but you have to go
:46:47. > :46:52.through all of them! Just ask Karen. She called her insurance company to
:46:52. > :46:57.say she had moved house. In the documents it said to advise
:46:57. > :47:02.them to contact them with a change of details. So I did. They then
:47:02. > :47:08.said they would charge a �55 for the change of address. When I first
:47:08. > :47:13.took out the policy, I looked at the small print. It says an admin
:47:13. > :47:18.fee for changing or amending, which I believed it would be if I changed
:47:18. > :47:25.the car or to change the insurance from comprehensive to third party,
:47:25. > :47:29.but I did not think that changing the address would incur a �55.
:47:30. > :47:37.�55 to change an address?! You would not catch me being stung like
:47:37. > :47:44.that. I read everything before going into a deal.
:47:44. > :47:49.Wait res! This does include service, doesn't it? We asked one call in
:47:49. > :47:53.United Nations -- we asked One Call Direct about the charge. It says
:47:53. > :47:58.that the charges are transparent to make clear to customers at the
:47:58. > :48:02.point of sale. Halifax said that fees were in line with industry
:48:02. > :48:07.standards. As for the others, Ticketmaster say that the feels are
:48:07. > :48:11.the sole source of revenue. That they don't set them independently,
:48:11. > :48:16.that they are agreed with the clients. The charges for We Will
:48:16. > :48:20.Rock You are not typical. It can only offer the print-tickets-at-
:48:21. > :48:26.home once the high-level instruction has been installed in
:48:26. > :48:30.the venue and the flight changes, braise and Virgin Atlantic say that
:48:30. > :48:35.they explain to customers that there is a price change before the
:48:35. > :48:40.purchase. Here are a few more stories:
:48:40. > :48:50.Barcelona versus Chelsea, one of the billingest upsets of recent
:48:50. > :48:50.
:48:50. > :48:55.times. I am not talking about the result. BSkyB, Go go, -- Sky Go,
:48:55. > :49:00.suffered technical problems, the fans were prevented logging on
:49:00. > :49:06.through desktops and hand held twices as John Terry went off and
:49:06. > :49:11.Chelsea went 2-0 down. Sky acknowledged the problems, but were
:49:11. > :49:15.hit with complaints at the same time that Ramirez was leading the
:49:15. > :49:20.fightback. Then Fernando Torres had equalised and the Blues were
:49:20. > :49:27.through to the Champions League final. Sky apologised and is
:49:27. > :49:35.investigating. What a Messi! Low Cost Holdiays with dedicated and
:49:35. > :49:38.experienced customer care. Offering 24/7 advice, but don't ask
:49:39. > :49:44.geography questions. Jamie O'Neill wanted to know why cheapest flights
:49:44. > :49:48.that the customer offered Scottish customers were from over the border
:49:48. > :49:53.in Newcastle. He got this reply: Newcastle is indeed located in
:49:53. > :49:59.Scotland. It is a city, not a capital. Low Cost Holdiays has
:49:59. > :50:09.apologised, blaming the error on a call centre trainee in India, which
:50:09. > :50:09.
:50:09. > :50:15.is, indeed, a country! And Virgin Media, the Avertising Standards
:50:15. > :50:21.Authority ruled this promotion miss leading as the small print was too
:50:21. > :50:24.small. It contained key information about availability, costs, contract
:50:24. > :50:28.lengths, information that the customers have to know. Virgin
:50:28. > :50:34.claimed that the lettering was larger than industry standard, that
:50:34. > :50:39.it was not responsible for the poor print quality. The ASA banned the
:50:39. > :50:46.ad. Very clear. Last call for Drainsafe Limited, of
:50:46. > :50:52.Bexley in Kent, now, the company that massively overcharged us for a
:50:52. > :50:57.simple drainage clearance job. The employies, celebrated the fact by
:50:57. > :51:00.hi-fiving each other. Are they company men? Or just two bad
:51:00. > :51:05.apples? During the course of the investigation, we called the
:51:05. > :51:10.company out on two other occasions. Both times one plumber turned up,
:51:10. > :51:15.we were not overcharged, but we have been ripped off once. So had
:51:15. > :51:22.the customers in touch with us. We have to know if the instructions
:51:22. > :51:27.are coming from the top. So So what now? Time to complain to the boss.
:51:27. > :51:32.A team maybe we will call Claire phoned the manager to see how he
:51:32. > :51:37.explained the behaviour of the lads. I wanted to give you a ring about
:51:37. > :51:41.pricing. It seems extortionate. I don't understand how it got so
:51:41. > :51:46.high? Claire plains that the charges were not made clear. Plus
:51:46. > :51:52.we were charged twice for the jetter. Stuart councils up with a
:51:52. > :51:58.new explanation. Our calculations are at �65 for
:51:58. > :52:01.half an hour. I have just checked. They were on site for hour-and-a-
:52:01. > :52:06.half. Really? On our calculation it is
:52:06. > :52:12.would have come to more, they would have given you discount.
:52:12. > :52:16.He goes on to say that they were there for 1737 minutes.
:52:16. > :52:23.I can give you a re-worked invoice, but with the correct figures it
:52:23. > :52:29.will cost you more money. They wanted to charge us more!
:52:29. > :52:34.is outrageous pricing! I do apologise. I can offer a 10%
:52:34. > :52:38.discount in the future. Now, there is an offer we can
:52:38. > :52:47.refuse. As the manager is clearly backing the boys who overcharged us.
:52:47. > :52:51.We reckon to -- it is time to visit him in Bexley. We are meeting up
:52:51. > :52:57.with Stuart in Drainsafe Limited to ask him about the crazy amount of
:52:57. > :53:03.money we had to pay to have the drains unblocked and the hi-five
:53:03. > :53:10.moment that was beautiful. So, here is Stuart Johnson, any
:53:10. > :53:20.moment. Fingers crossed. Stuart is here. We are ready to go.
:53:20. > :53:30.That's him there. He has won... A trophy! I wonder what that is for?
:53:30. > :53:37.
:53:37. > :53:43.Hi, Stuart, how is it going? Stuart? Stuart? BBC Rogue Traders,
:53:43. > :53:53.so that we are clear. So you can get in touch with us. I noticed you
:53:53. > :54:01.
:54:01. > :54:08.were carrying trophies, was that for overcharging? Why can't we talk
:54:08. > :54:14.now? We are talking about �576 for an hour's work. That is what we are
:54:14. > :54:24.talking about. That is �576 for one hour's work with a hi-five and a
:54:24. > :54:28.celebration afterwards. I wonder what the trophies were
:54:28. > :54:33.for? It is clear that Stuart and his colleagues are not keen to chat.
:54:33. > :54:38.Stuart says he will talk to us later. I don't quite know what the
:54:38. > :54:42.problem with talking to us right now is, but there you go.
:54:42. > :54:48.Drainsafe! As you can see, operating, charging ridiculous
:54:48. > :54:52.somes of money and at the moment -- charging ridiculous sums of money
:54:52. > :55:02.and at the moment not willing to talk to us. That may change.
:55:02. > :55:05.
:55:05. > :55:15.Stuart Johnson did call us later. What about the blatant rip-off that
:55:15. > :55:22.
:55:22. > :55:28.involved us? The problem is... When we spoke to you afterwards about
:55:28. > :55:36.that you said in fact that it should have been more. So, we as
:55:37. > :55:42.the kust mer, we come to you to point that out -- we as the
:55:43. > :55:47.customer point it out to you, then you say you should be charging more
:55:47. > :55:50.for us. I must have misunderstood. Stuart
:55:50. > :55:55.says that the guys are not on commission. So there is no benefit
:55:55. > :55:58.to them for cheating the customer. We don't rip people off.
:55:58. > :56:01.Unfortunately, our evidence suggests the opposite.
:56:01. > :56:08.Matt, I've completed over 1,000 jobs.
:56:08. > :56:13.In all of that time, mate, I have had maybe ten complaints? That is
:56:13. > :56:18.not bad. I tell you what, Stuart... On that
:56:18. > :56:23.note, he says he will look at all of the evidence and get become to
:56:23. > :56:27.Thank you very much, Stuart. The company now tell us that they
:56:27. > :56:31.take our allegations seriously and deny they are rogues, they say that
:56:31. > :56:38.they are open and fair with the pricing. They say that they don't
:56:38. > :56:42.lie about the scale of the problems and always carry out a drain clean
:56:42. > :56:48.unless customers specify otherwise. They have offered a partial refund
:56:48. > :56:54.for the billing mistake. That the boys' high-five was to celebrate
:56:54. > :56:59.that they completed the job. They say that they went out of their way
:56:59. > :57:03.to help Susanne Black and they refunded Jas not because they were
:57:03. > :57:11.in the wrong, but because he complained so much.
:57:11. > :57:15.Meanwhile, Stuart and the two hi- fiverings are going here on the
:57:15. > :57:21.Rogue's Gallery. And the power steering problems.
:57:21. > :57:26.Dan Worthington says his system packs up about once a week. Mike
:57:26. > :57:32.Lynton says he had the same problem, that he had to pay more than �800
:57:32. > :57:37.to replace the steering column. And Will Frost has an interesting
:57:37. > :57:42.idea: Can I charge companies an admin fee for ringing them.
:57:42. > :57:52.Nice work. I like it. Keep sending your stories and tip-offs. Go to
:57:52. > :57:56.
:57:56. > :58:01.Or write to us: Coming up next week: Vauxhall, the
:58:01. > :58:04.fault with the Insignia, is it causing cars to burst into flames?
:58:04. > :58:10.The Royal Mail about to raise the cost of stamps again. What sort of
:58:10. > :58:14.service are we getting in return? And ASDA roll-backs, the