:00:12. > :00:17.Tesco offers disappearing, RBS, Lloyds, savings vanishing. Aerial
:00:17. > :00:27.liquids size shrinking, plus Orange, day lover Wimpey and Paypal. It's
:00:27. > :00:41.
:00:41. > :00:45.Watchdog, the programme you cannot Yes, hello and good evening and
:00:45. > :00:49.welcome to Watchdog. Tonight: Fan tomorrow offers from Tesco, beware
:00:49. > :00:56.of the deals that don't exist. Into it it were a mistake, which I
:00:56. > :01:00.suspect the retailer will say it is, then they have a duty to recommend
:01:00. > :01:04.dithat mistake. Lloyds, nationwide, RBS, why saving money with them
:01:04. > :01:09.could leave you worse off. And, Travelodge break the smoking ban,
:01:09. > :01:13.pay the price. Keep to the rules, cow still be fined. Plus, Taylor
:01:13. > :01:18.Wimpey, it's won a contract to develop the Olympic Park. No prizes
:01:18. > :01:22.for these earlier efforts. And no medals for tonight's rogue
:01:22. > :01:27.either. He puts his name to a string of TV aerial businesses that
:01:27. > :01:34.leave your house looking like this, they get rid of your old aerial
:01:34. > :01:42.like this. When you try to put the complaints to him... Hi, Mark. BBC.
:01:42. > :01:48.He reacts like this. How did it go today? Was it not too
:01:48. > :01:53.good? I would like to talk to you about the BBC and why we are
:01:53. > :01:58.paying... Was that urine? It certainly had the bouquet. If I am
:01:59. > :02:03.not mistaken, it was a bottle of Mark Smith, 2012. For him, is about
:02:03. > :02:07.to become a very bad year. Before that, Tesco and great offers
:02:07. > :02:12.that never materialise. Now remember earlier this year it
:02:12. > :02:17.advertised the new iPad 3 for a knockdown �50. An incredible
:02:17. > :02:21.reduction on the normal prize of �400. As you would expect,
:02:21. > :02:26.customers piled in only for Tesco to announce there had been an IT
:02:26. > :02:32.glitch and it wouldn't be honouring the offer. A one-off mistake? Since
:02:32. > :02:36.then, we found repeated examples. Fancy a few bargains? How about a
:02:36. > :02:42.this for �5.50. A pressure washer for �25.
:02:42. > :02:45.And even a bouncy Castle for under a tenner. Amazing deals all offered
:02:45. > :02:50.online by Tesco. But all leaving customers
:02:50. > :02:55.disappointed. Janet and Carl were tempted by
:02:55. > :02:58.Tesco's offer for a steam cleaner and who wouldn't be? At just �19.93
:02:58. > :03:04.it was a fraction of the usual price. Never heard of the brand
:03:05. > :03:09.before so I just thought maybe it was an introductory offer or bank
:03:09. > :03:14.holiday offer. So I placed an order with Tesco Direct, received an e-
:03:14. > :03:19.mail within a matter of minutes confirming that they had got my
:03:19. > :03:22.order and with an order reference number. This is the e-mail they
:03:22. > :03:26.received and you can see it clearly states that it's an order
:03:26. > :03:30.confirmation. But two days later, Tesco sent them another e-mail,
:03:30. > :03:35.saying there had been a mistake and the order had been cancelled.
:03:35. > :03:42.When they checked the website again, the cleaner was still on there but
:03:42. > :03:49.now for �358, that's 17 times more than previously. Fair? They don't
:03:49. > :03:54.think so. If something's advertised at a certain price, you do expect
:03:54. > :03:59.just to pay that price. Unfortunately, these mistakes seem
:03:59. > :04:02.to keep happening at Tesco Direct. In just ten weeks we know of 28
:04:02. > :04:07.offers that were cancelled because the low prices on the website were
:04:07. > :04:12.found to be incorrect. In every instance, cancellation took place
:04:12. > :04:16.only after customers had parted with their cash. Or their money was
:04:16. > :04:21.refunded. Does this sound sneaky? Not according to the small print.
:04:21. > :04:25.Despite customers receiving an e- mail entitled: Order confirmation,
:04:25. > :04:29.Tesco terms and conditions state this e-mail is not an order
:04:29. > :04:32.confirmation, or an acceptance of your order. That's nice and clear
:04:32. > :04:35.then! We have discovered these pricing
:04:35. > :04:40.mistakes are happening across the entire range, no matter the size of
:04:40. > :04:47.the price reduction. This children's easel was advertised at
:04:47. > :04:53.�7.50, down from �30. And this game usually �9.89 was on sale for �3.
:04:53. > :04:57.Barry bought them along with seven other toys for �32.75. The prices
:04:57. > :04:59.were really good and I thought these are a bargain and we will get
:05:00. > :05:02.these and put them away for birthdays. We had confirmation e-
:05:02. > :05:08.mails for all of them and they said they would be ready for collection
:05:08. > :05:11.the following day after 4.00pm our local Tesco store. So, Barry had an
:05:11. > :05:16.e-mail confirmation, a designated collection time and the money had
:05:16. > :05:20.been taken from his account. What could possibly go wrong? Well,
:05:20. > :05:23.a lot actually. When Barry wept to his local -- went to his local
:05:23. > :05:26.Tesco there was nothing there. They had never been sent. Later this
:05:27. > :05:31.evening he received the now familiar cancellation e-mail.
:05:31. > :05:34.of the stuff we knew that they would absolutely love. It was ever
:05:34. > :05:39.so disappointing not to the get the items, especially for their
:05:39. > :05:42.birthdays. It turns out that not only is the
:05:42. > :05:46.order confirmation not a confirmation of an order, a
:05:46. > :05:53.promised delivery date is not a promise of a delivery.
:05:53. > :05:57.Confused? So are we. Apparently, Tesco only enters into
:05:57. > :06:01.a contract with a customer once it confirms the goods have been
:06:01. > :06:04.despatched. So, as long as it cancels the order before the
:06:04. > :06:09.products have been sent out to the customer, then Tesco are within its
:06:09. > :06:15.rights to cancel the transaction. We found out it's doing it time and
:06:15. > :06:21.time again. Is that fair? There is an expectation there that when the
:06:21. > :06:25.purchaser gets an e-mail confirming the order and the delivery time and
:06:25. > :06:28.place, that that is the conclusion of the contract. Then we see they
:06:28. > :06:33.haven't actually purchased anything. If it were a mistake, which I
:06:33. > :06:39.suspect the retailer will say it is, then they have a duty to remedy
:06:39. > :06:49.that mistake as quickly as possible. But, if it is a mistake it's one
:06:49. > :06:55.
:06:55. > :06:58.that keeps happening, so what This is the reply Mr Gupta got.
:06:58. > :07:01.Tesco blamed staff, saying the wrong price had been put on the
:07:01. > :07:04.website. They promised it wouldn't happen again. That was at the
:07:04. > :07:08.beginning of July. But guess what? We know of five
:07:08. > :07:12.more examples of it happening since then.
:07:12. > :07:16.28 glaring mistakes in ten weeks. Lots of unhappy customers. And a
:07:16. > :07:21.set of terms and conditions so confusing you don't know which
:07:21. > :07:28.offers you can trust. Well, it's quite clear from the consumer
:07:28. > :07:33.regulations that that it can be interpreted as a misleading to set
:07:33. > :07:38.up ambiguity in this way. Retailers have a special responsibility with
:07:38. > :07:41.consumers and in contracts with consumers to ensure that there's no
:07:41. > :07:46.ambiguity and that the terms and conditions are very clear. So it's
:07:46. > :07:54.up to the Tesco store to make sure that it's very clear in the mind of
:07:54. > :07:57.the consumer. Every little helps Tesco, please sort it out!
:07:57. > :08:00.Tesco have since told us they have a huge range of products on Tesco
:08:00. > :08:04.Direct and they manage a large number of orders every week. They
:08:04. > :08:06.say that on rare occasions they make mistakes for which they
:08:06. > :08:09.apologise. They add that they always listen to feedback from
:08:09. > :08:12.customers and are making improvements to ensure they give
:08:12. > :08:22.them the best possible service. If would you like to comment on that
:08:22. > :08:24.
:08:25. > :08:29.or any of tonight's stories here is If you want to get involved in the
:08:29. > :08:33.Twitter discussion our address is: Meanwhile, loads of have you been
:08:33. > :08:43.in touch about the size of food and other products shrinking while the
:08:43. > :08:44.
:08:44. > :09:32.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 48 seconds
:09:32. > :09:36.price stays the same. Here are a It's outrageous, Chris. And you
:09:36. > :09:39.have more. I have indeed. Rather than go through the whole list we
:09:39. > :09:42.are going to concentrate on a couple of the less obvious examples.
:09:43. > :09:49.Examples that some people might even describe as sneaky. Look at
:09:49. > :09:55.this. Aerial ExCel jel. It used to be over a litre, that bottle there.
:09:55. > :09:59.Now it's gone down to 925 mill litres. That one. Can you tell the
:09:59. > :10:05.difference? If you put the two bottles side by side they're
:10:05. > :10:12.virtually the same but as you can see, just over a litre there, and
:10:12. > :10:21.925ml there. Even though the volume inside is less. Scandalous. Yes,
:10:21. > :10:26.then we have Fry Light oil RSPCA -- spray. This used to be 250. They
:10:26. > :10:32.display that at the front. Now they've downsized to 190ml and
:10:32. > :10:35.feeling coy about the new waegt because they've touched the
:10:35. > :10:40.information down at the bottom and at the back. Just there. What do
:10:40. > :10:43.they have to say? Firstly, they say they reduced the size due to a
:10:43. > :10:47.significant rise in production costs. They say they felt most
:10:47. > :10:54.consumers would prefer to see a smaller more affordable cans rather
:10:54. > :10:57.than increase in prize and probg -- price and Procter and Gamble said
:10:57. > :11:02.they introduced the size. The changes were clearly identified on
:11:02. > :11:08.the pack. Thank you. Coming up: Taylor Wimpey, Britain's
:11:08. > :11:10.biggest house-builder getting ready to develop the paoeurbgs park. --
:11:10. > :11:15.Olympic Park. Hope they don't leave a legacy like this.
:11:15. > :11:20.Yes, the Olympic Park. I can still feel the buzz now. Isn't it? The
:11:20. > :11:24.excitement, the pride, the sense of togetherness. Britain's not such a
:11:24. > :11:34.bad place after all, you know. It would be even better if we didn't
:11:34. > :11:44.
:11:44. > :11:48.have characters like tonight's Yes, London London 2012. The
:11:48. > :11:54.Olympics and Paralympics made our hearts swell. It was the greatest
:11:54. > :12:00.show on earth, our athletes thrilled us, moved us, unspired us
:12:00. > :12:03.and showered us in gold. Gold, gold!
:12:03. > :12:08.Let's not get too carried away with this whole national pride thing,
:12:08. > :12:12.because as well as producing those wonderful men and women, we also
:12:12. > :12:16.gave the world this fella. Yeah, Mark Smith is on top of a
:12:16. > :12:20.completely different kind of podium. True, he does leave people staring
:12:20. > :12:24.at their screens in disbelief, but only because of the shoddy work and
:12:24. > :12:28.overcharging of the aerial businesses that bear his name.
:12:28. > :12:32.Those businesses are many and so are the number of complaintants who
:12:32. > :12:38.got in touch about his company Mark Smith Digital Aerials. Wonder where
:12:38. > :12:42.I can get hold of them? Hit the button. Hi, Matt, I need
:12:42. > :12:47.your help. Mark Smith has ripped off my nan. Strong words. They
:12:47. > :12:50.charged her �310 for a new aerial. Sounds a lot. We got a second
:12:50. > :12:55.opinion and they said they would have done the same job for half the
:12:55. > :12:58.price. I would really like my nan to get a new aerial installed, but
:12:58. > :13:04.financially we couldn't do that. I would like at least some of the
:13:04. > :13:10.money back that we paid out. much to ask.
:13:10. > :13:14.Let's see what else is on. Hi, Matt. I had an aerial fitted by
:13:14. > :13:19.Mark Smith Digital Aerials. The workmanship was shoddy and the
:13:19. > :13:23.engineers all round were shoddy. Shoddy then. I have had the
:13:23. > :13:31.engineers out five times, paid �200 and I still have poor signal on my
:13:31. > :13:35.Hi,. Hi, Matt Matt... All right, I get the picture. I wonder what our
:13:35. > :13:38.expert Keith makes of it all. Matt. I have seen some of this work
:13:38. > :13:45.and I am not surprised they're disappointed. It's the shodiest
:13:45. > :13:49.work I have ever seen in all my life. That's weird, I am only
:13:49. > :13:54.getting audio. All this from a company that boasts a quarter
:13:54. > :13:58.century's experience spwu less keen to shout about a County court
:13:58. > :14:02.judgment or over �2,000 or a slap on the wrist for misleading
:14:02. > :14:07.advertising. Mark Smith Digital Aerials Limited was wound up last
:14:07. > :14:12.May but since then it seems he's rebranded and expanded.
:14:12. > :14:15.Look at these Mark Smith ads. All with similar names, all using the
:14:15. > :14:19.same photo of Mark and all with telephone number that is go through
:14:19. > :14:25.to the same place. So will we get the same kind of
:14:25. > :14:31.job? There's only only one way to find out. That's by getting a
:14:31. > :14:37.bungalow in Kidderminster, some secret cameras, and an abg actress
:14:37. > :14:40.called June who is more strictly than X Factor and a signal blackout
:14:40. > :14:45.courtesy of Keith. The fault I am going to set is replace this
:14:45. > :14:49.working cable with a faulty cable, which will cut the signal to the
:14:49. > :14:52.digi box and result in no picture. No picture, no problem. A decent
:14:52. > :14:56.aerial man would spot and repair the fault within 20 minutes and we
:14:56. > :15:01.would be covered bay standard callout charge of �40 or so. But we
:15:01. > :15:11.have called a Mark Smith man who arrives in a Mark Smith aerial
:15:11. > :15:25.
:15:25. > :15:30.services van. I told you there were 22 years? Well, June is in good
:15:30. > :15:40.hands then. Imagine how many simple faults he has come across in that
:15:40. > :15:41.
:15:41. > :15:45.time. For a man of his experience doesn't turn out that way with the
:15:45. > :15:50.engineer you saw there. As for another using the Mark Smith brand,
:15:50. > :15:56.watch him walk while he works. Watch him text while he works. Just
:15:56. > :16:02.don't stand underneath him while he works! Part two is coming up soon.
:16:02. > :16:08.Stay truned. Travelodge with seven million rooms sold last year. Those
:16:08. > :16:11.rooms can be a bargain, as low as �19 a night. Be ware, you could be
:16:11. > :16:17.hit with a bill bill for seven times that as a punishment for
:16:17. > :16:22.something you haven't done! Smoking. It is unhealthy. Sometimes
:16:22. > :16:27.anti-social and in enclosed places of work illegal. Smoke on business
:16:27. > :16:31.premises and you can be fined up to �50. Not only that, the company
:16:31. > :16:37.concerned can seek more money for damages. Companies like Travelodge
:16:37. > :16:40.which has a policy of pursuing customers who light up in their
:16:40. > :16:46.rooms. The problem is, even if you haven't been smoking the hotel
:16:46. > :16:50.might still come after you anyway. Kelly was aware of Travelodge's
:16:50. > :16:54.strict no smoking policy when she booked six rooms at Birmingham's
:16:54. > :17:01.branch. She and her friends stayed there for her 21st birthday.
:17:01. > :17:04.Then two weeks later I received two letters demanding �300, a fine of
:17:04. > :17:06.�150 per room saying we breached the terms and the conditions of the
:17:06. > :17:11.Travelodge and we smoked in two of the rooms.
:17:11. > :17:15.The betters were from CRS or civil recovery solutions a claims
:17:15. > :17:20.recovery company employed by Travelodge. According to their
:17:20. > :17:26.website, they recover compensation on behalf of our clients directly
:17:26. > :17:31.from the individuals that commit acts of theft, fraud or who wrong
:17:31. > :17:35.wrongfully cause losses. In Kelly's case those losses amounted to the
:17:35. > :17:37.cost of cleaning the rooms. She was given 14 days to pay or face legal
:17:37. > :17:42.action. I was shocked when I read the
:17:42. > :17:44.letter. I burst into tears. We were aware there was smoke alarms in the
:17:44. > :17:48.rooms. There were signs up everywhere saying you could get a
:17:48. > :17:52.fine if you did smoke in the rooms and we have grew up with the
:17:52. > :17:56.smoking ban in place so we know it is illegal.
:17:56. > :18:01.Kelly does smoke, but is adamant she only did so outside the hotel.
:18:01. > :18:07.Still, the official looking letter scared her so she did pay up. So
:18:07. > :18:10.should she have done? Some people will be tempted to pay even though
:18:10. > :18:13.they done nothing wrong. Don't do that, to get the money off you,
:18:13. > :18:18.they have to take you to court and prove their case.
:18:18. > :18:21.As the legal onus is on Travelodge to prove that guests have been
:18:21. > :18:24.smoking in its rooms you would have thought they would come up with
:18:24. > :18:28.evidence before pursuing a claim especially if the guest concerned
:18:28. > :18:33.doesn't smoke! Mary stayed in the Birmingham
:18:33. > :18:40.Central Travelodge with her daughter in February. We received a
:18:40. > :18:44.le demanding �150 from us because they said that we had tampered with
:18:44. > :18:47.the smoke detector in the room and they said that the room smelt of
:18:47. > :18:52.smoke. Do you smoke? No. Never have have
:18:52. > :18:53.done and nor has my daughter. Are you telling me the truth?
:18:54. > :19:00.I'm going to find out. You wait there!
:19:00. > :19:05.I met some of the people who know Mary and Ella best. Have you ever
:19:05. > :19:10.seen her smoke? No, never. No smoke coming over the fence? Maybe a
:19:10. > :19:18.barbecue, that's about it. I have never seen any evidence in
:19:18. > :19:21.not a smoker? Yes, she is a non- smoker.
:19:21. > :19:25.They do not smoke. Joo. Mary, you are telling the
:19:25. > :19:31.truth, you don't smoke. You must have told Travelodge this, right?
:19:31. > :19:33.Yes. What happened next? They wrote back and sent me photographs of the
:19:33. > :19:37.smoke detector covered with a plastic bag.
:19:37. > :19:41.A photograph? Evidence? Have you got it here? Yes.
:19:41. > :19:47.Right. OK, well this does look like a bag over a smoke alarm on a
:19:47. > :19:51.ceiling, but it could be anywhere in the world, couldn't it really?
:19:51. > :20:01.CRS told Mary that to succeed in a claim Travelodge have to show on
:20:01. > :20:03.
:20:03. > :20:06.the balance of of of probabilities you have broken the rules.
:20:06. > :20:10.Travelodge seem satisfied with their evidence, but what about our
:20:10. > :20:13.expert? The photographic evidence doesn't seem to have any relevance
:20:13. > :20:16.at all. It is not linked to a particular room or to the person
:20:16. > :20:21.receiving the letter. I don't think a photo of that kind would convince
:20:21. > :20:25.a judge. It is for them to prove the case, not for you to disprove
:20:25. > :20:27.the case. They would need to show a judge that you have done something
:20:27. > :20:30.wrong. Well, if a judge would have taken
:20:30. > :20:35.some convincing about the photographic evidence against Mary,
:20:35. > :20:38.I'm not sure what he would make of the next exhibit. Take a look at
:20:38. > :20:45.this. Can you tell what it is? Well, it is another smoke alarm, but this
:20:45. > :20:51.time with a sock wrapped around it. A sock apparently put there by
:20:51. > :20:55.Henry Pugh in a Travelodge branch in Manchester.
:20:55. > :21:00.That's according to Travelodge who demanded yes, �150 to cover the
:21:00. > :21:03.cost of cleaning his room. Two problems - this photo could be of
:21:03. > :21:10.anyone's room and there is something you need to know about
:21:10. > :21:14.Henry! I have been in a wheelchair for over five years. I have had
:21:14. > :21:21.operations on my neck, spinal damage which affects my movements.
:21:21. > :21:24.It would be impossible for me to do it. Travelodge withdrew its claim,
:21:24. > :21:29.but if you can't point to similar proof of your innocence, well
:21:29. > :21:35.Travelodge believe you? I don't think it is right that a hotel
:21:35. > :21:44.chain should be able to say with minimum or no evidence, "You smoked
:21:44. > :21:49.in our hotel room. We are going to go for you for �150." Despite
:21:49. > :21:57.requests for proof or evidence, it is very difficult to get them to
:21:57. > :22:00.back down. It is not right. They are a self
:22:00. > :22:06.appointed judge and jury. Travelodge apologised to Henry Pugh
:22:06. > :22:16.and sent a a voucher. It said it is looking into the case involving
:22:16. > :22:20.
:22:20. > :22:26.Mary and her daughter. No action It says action is only started if a
:22:26. > :22:32.staff member is confident that someone has breached the terms and
:22:32. > :22:35.conditions. The case is passed to CRS who investigate the claim. It
:22:35. > :22:38.adds the zero tolerance smoking policy applies to staff who will be
:22:38. > :22:46.subject to disciplinary action if they break it. You can see the
:22:46. > :22:50.company's full response on our Next, Taylor Wimpey, it won the bid
:22:50. > :22:55.to redevelop the Olympic Park in a deal worth �250 million. Taylor
:22:55. > :23:01.Wimpey is promising over 800 homes on the site in East London. Let's
:23:01. > :23:07.hope the owners end up with better houses thang -- than these. 2007,
:23:07. > :23:09.Taylor Wimpey get planning permission to build over 100 homes
:23:09. > :23:15.in Cheltenham. 20 2012 and this estate is the
:23:15. > :23:19.result. Battle Down Park, a new community built from scratch.
:23:19. > :23:26.It was designed with green spaces, dedicated communal areas and not
:23:26. > :23:31.one, but two children's playgrounds. It sounds idyllic, but is it?
:23:31. > :23:34.Well, see what you think. After looking at the boarded up
:23:35. > :23:40.playgrounds that have never been used and the overall workmanship,
:23:40. > :23:44.that's not the highest quality. Residents complain of landscaped
:23:44. > :23:48.areas that are not properly maintained and they are not alone.
:23:48. > :23:52.The local council council won't adopt the estate until Taylor
:23:52. > :23:57.Wimpey improves and maintains the communal areas and until then
:23:57. > :24:06.residents will have a neighbourhood in limbo. The problems would be
:24:06. > :24:10.relax indoors. One home-owner has been left with a problem, you can't
:24:10. > :24:15.see, but you can hear. You hear them in the morning,
:24:15. > :24:17.afternoon, late at night. You don't feel comfortable in your house and
:24:17. > :24:25.you don't feel comfortable having people around.
:24:25. > :24:30.Andrew paid �180,000 for a house plagued by rats in the walls.
:24:30. > :24:33.What did Taylor Wimpey say when he reported it? I need to prove how
:24:33. > :24:36.they are getting in, in order for them to admit whether it is their
:24:36. > :24:39.fault. Andrew for a drain survey, maybe
:24:39. > :24:44.that could prove how the rats are getting in.
:24:44. > :24:54.According to footage from inside the pipes, the drains deneth the
:24:54. > :25:19.
:25:19. > :25:22.for it, we gave the report to an chaps suggested that the rats are
:25:22. > :25:25.getting in around the drain pipes and they are living underneath the
:25:26. > :25:31.voids and getting access to the walls.
:25:31. > :25:34.continue to build up in the pipes and recommended excavating the
:25:34. > :25:38.garden to carry out repairs. Our expert believes neighbouring homes
:25:39. > :25:42.could be affected. This Is a problem that is very, very serious
:25:42. > :25:47.and affecting a terrace of properties and it really requires
:25:47. > :25:51.urgent investigation. It is unacceptable at the present time.
:25:51. > :25:56.Whilst Taylor Wimpey left Andrew with a serious structural fault,
:25:56. > :25:58.they have given other customers a host of problems. When you buy a
:25:58. > :26:03.brand-new home, the odd problem here or there is to be expected.
:26:03. > :26:07.But imagine how you would feel if the house you spent hundreds of
:26:07. > :26:16.thousands of pounds on was riddled with them.
:26:16. > :26:19.Scott bought a three bedroomed Taylor Wimpey house on the the
:26:19. > :26:25.Buckingham estate. It still isn't finished.
:26:25. > :26:29.We have had loads of faults in the last 15 months. This step for
:26:29. > :26:34.instance has been replaced on two separate occasions and it still
:26:34. > :26:41.wobbles around. The the front door has been leaking. We have had to
:26:41. > :26:45.have the inside resealed. OK, so we are in the shower now.
:26:45. > :26:55.The original original tiles were peeling away from the wall. So they
:26:55. > :26:57.had to replace all of the tiles. We kitchen leaked and caused a
:26:57. > :27:02.substantial flood. The whole of the kitchen ceiling needed to be
:27:02. > :27:07.removed to stop what they called microcracking.
:27:07. > :27:11.Scott reckons that Taylor Wimpey made over 40 visits to repair the
:27:11. > :27:16.faults. Now, most of those have been fixed.
:27:16. > :27:21.I think the whole experience over the last 15 months has been
:27:21. > :27:26.dreadful and not what we expected. One of Scott's neighbours had
:27:26. > :27:32.similar problems. Adam has been left with unfinished guttering.
:27:33. > :27:37.Doors that are peeling apart. A wonky porch canopy, creeky stairs
:27:37. > :27:42.and power sockets that don't switch off. These are the last of nearly
:27:42. > :27:45.70 different issues he had with the house since he moved in in November
:27:45. > :27:50.2010. But that's not always the case. We
:27:50. > :27:58.heard of one Taylor Wimpey development where residents homes
:27:58. > :28:02.are being torn apart. The first crack I noticed down here,
:28:02. > :28:05.it was winter time and I thought it was frost getting into the mortar.
:28:05. > :28:08.Unfortunately, it was the start of the house moving.
:28:08. > :28:12.Aidan Taylor's house in Cambridgeshire is heaving. That
:28:12. > :28:17.means there is movement underground causing one side to dip and the
:28:17. > :28:26.other to rise. Aidan's house is cracking up along
:28:26. > :28:30.with his neighbours. What does our really significant cracking which
:28:30. > :28:34.shows that the corner of the building is actually rotating
:28:34. > :28:38.against the remaining part of the building. Yes, we have got a
:28:38. > :28:46.serious problem with this wall. Whilst you might expect some
:28:46. > :28:50.This is something that needs to be addressed urgently.
:28:50. > :28:57.A survey found that the clay soil under the house is expanded and
:28:57. > :29:01.contracting with the seasons. The inspector suspects the developer
:29:01. > :29:05.used the wrong foundation for the soil and didn't take into account
:29:05. > :29:09.the removal of large tree frts site. -- from the site.
:29:09. > :29:13.It is a severe problem because you can't leave this on the hope that
:29:13. > :29:17.it is going to correct itself because it won't. The one one
:29:17. > :29:20.corner of the house is particularly badly damaged and needs to be put
:29:20. > :29:25.right. And obviously the foundations need to be put back
:29:25. > :29:30.into a condition that is adequate to support the structure.
:29:30. > :29:37.What would Barry do to tackle the problem? Take down the house. Dig
:29:37. > :29:40.up the foundations and start again and of course, that would be the
:29:40. > :29:43.ideal scenario because you get rid of the problems at once
:29:43. > :29:47.Heartbreaking really after moving into what you think is a dream home
:29:47. > :29:52.and it, what it feels like, it is falling down around you basically.
:29:52. > :29:59.Unfinished estates and shoddy workmanship and crumbling houses as
:29:59. > :30:08.Taylor Wimpey prepares work on 800 new homes at the Olympic Park, we
:30:08. > :30:12.have one wish, that this isn't the Taylor Wimpey told us it's
:30:12. > :30:15.dedicated to delivering excellence in design and construction of its
:30:15. > :30:18.homes and has a long history of delivering a high level of customer
:30:18. > :30:25.service. And no doubt the vast majority of
:30:25. > :30:28.their customers say 99.9% are delighted? Not quite 99%. 91% of
:30:28. > :30:31.them them apparently. They're so satisfied with the quality of their
:30:31. > :30:36.new home they would recommend them to a friend. Good for them.
:30:36. > :30:39.company goes on to say it builds around 10,000 homes each year and
:30:39. > :30:44.regretably it's clearly not met high quality standards in the cases
:30:44. > :30:47.we have highlighted. It says it was already working with each of our
:30:47. > :30:49.interviewees to rectify problems and it's committed to resolving
:30:49. > :30:56.their remaining issues as quickly as possible. It's also apologised
:30:56. > :30:59.to each of them. Reashaouring. -- reassuring.
:30:59. > :31:06.Vanishing savings. Why putting your money in these accounts could prove
:31:06. > :31:11.expensive. Back to Worcestershire, home to a
:31:11. > :31:14.string of TV aerial businesses bearing the name Mark Smith,
:31:14. > :31:19.businesses that overcharge and leave your TV reception in a worse
:31:19. > :31:24.state than it was to begin with. All that's wrong with our aerial is
:31:24. > :31:27.a single faulty cable. An engineer has told us he has 22 years'
:31:27. > :31:31.experience. This shouldn't take very long then.
:31:31. > :31:35.Wayne's offer to a flier, checking the signal strength on the cables
:31:35. > :31:42.behind the TV. Now, those look like the right
:31:42. > :31:47.moves to me but I am no expert. Yeah, he does earn his money later
:31:47. > :31:55.on, honestly. Wayne has found the faulty cable so that should wrap
:31:55. > :32:05.things up. Well, there is a signal.Est it's
:32:05. > :32:07.
:32:07. > :32:17.not just getting past the dodgy cable. Wayne wants to investigate
:32:17. > :32:20.
:32:20. > :32:27.He is right! Our booster is doing what it's supposed to. Wayne fits a
:32:27. > :32:37.new one anyway. One our expert can't see. I wish I knew what that
:32:37. > :32:37.
:32:37. > :32:41.amplifier was up there. That, Keith, is an anti-ference. That's been out
:32:41. > :32:47.of production for years now, it's not suitable for reception and and
:32:47. > :32:52.worse than the amplifier in there in the first place. At �80 we have
:32:52. > :33:02.been charged twice what we should have been. Tell me, Wayne, who
:33:02. > :33:22.
:33:22. > :33:29.OK, a successful sting but no sign of Mark himself. I need a think. I
:33:29. > :33:36.need advice. I need cake. From the slightly resentful actresses now so
:33:36. > :33:45.well known they can no longer work on the show. Come on, give me...
:33:45. > :33:48.Too late! Sit down love. Tricky sting? Yeah, aerials.'s's got it
:33:48. > :33:53.wrong. He's fitted parts which are inappropriate. But he hasn't
:33:53. > :33:59.charged that much. There's not that much financial benefit, a bit, but
:33:59. > :34:05.not a lot. Well, they might just be a bit rubbish rather than dodgy. I
:34:05. > :34:14.would give them another go. Really? That would be my advice. If I still
:34:14. > :34:22.worked on your programme. And I would use this. Yeah, what is that
:34:22. > :34:26.exactly? It tells whether you are dealing with a rogue. You spelt it
:34:26. > :34:31.wrong. I will take that. Thank you very much. Cheers. See you again.
:34:31. > :34:36.Lovely. There are other tea shops, you
:34:36. > :34:46.know! Yes and other low roofed residential properties, like this
:34:46. > :34:48.
:34:48. > :34:52.one with cameras and flies, that's weird. It also has Joseph. To the
:34:52. > :34:57.untrained eye this may look like a device for barbecuing fish but it's
:34:57. > :35:00.a television aerial. It is, it's well designed. And you have Cream
:35:00. > :35:04.Crackered it, how? What I have done, I have removed the connector here,
:35:04. > :35:09.from the aerial, and made it so it doesn't actually make a connection.
:35:09. > :35:17.How much time and money would this take to fix? It would take in the
:35:17. > :35:27.region of 20-30 minutes, covered by a standard a -- callout charge,
:35:27. > :35:29.
:35:29. > :35:35.�40-�50. Keith gets ready to say what he sees. And I have the rogue-
:35:35. > :35:41.o-metre. They can put a car on Mars and this is the best we have. Not
:35:41. > :35:46.my idea. It's twitching because two engineers have arrived. This one's
:35:46. > :35:52.called Jamie and he's from Mark Smith Aerials Company.
:35:52. > :36:02.He's got a sidekick. About four or tpoeuf days ago it
:36:02. > :36:05.
:36:06. > :36:10.started playing up. Do you want to Didn't try the telly. Cutting
:36:10. > :36:14.corners. Not a great start. Jamie tells Joseph he is going
:36:14. > :36:22.outside to test the aerial. Fetching a ladder then, climbing on
:36:22. > :36:28.to the roof? Well, no. A quick glance around and he is back inside.
:36:28. > :36:32.You see, that's not checking, that's just looking. That's a
:36:32. > :36:36.medium-sized pork pie. Back in the living room Jamie's assistant uses
:36:37. > :36:46.a meet tore check signals behind the TV, that's the beeping. Jamie's
:36:47. > :37:14.
:37:14. > :37:19.Yeah, that's just nonsense. And there's more to come. But in
:37:19. > :37:29.the meantime, where is the other one?
:37:29. > :37:47.
:37:47. > :37:55.Danger, danger! # I climb way up... #.
:37:55. > :38:05.I am up on a roof. Neither man bothers looking for the
:38:05. > :38:11.
:38:11. > :38:16.actual fact pwau they -- but they Yeah, one good aerial out, one
:38:16. > :38:26.cheap and unnecessary replacement in. Along with a second amplifier.
:38:26. > :38:46.
:38:46. > :38:50.Oh no, it's going wild, because... It's a rip-off. Yes, �180 is four
:38:50. > :38:55.times as much as the bill should be. They did work that didn't need
:38:55. > :39:01.doing and left us with a worse signal than before. I think we're
:39:01. > :39:05.done here. Done with the boys bearing the Mark
:39:05. > :39:10.Smith name, that is, but not with the man himself. Yes, it's almost
:39:10. > :39:15.time to have a word with the face of the TV aerials brand. His boys
:39:15. > :39:21.go up a ladder, but he can't control his bladder.
:39:21. > :39:28.Thanks, Matt. MUSIC
:39:28. > :39:32.. We are back in the corner of shame. Earlier we are looking at
:39:32. > :39:39.products that have gone down in size and stayed at the same prize
:39:39. > :39:47.price this is different. This is a litre of SMA baby milk, old price
:39:48. > :39:52.�2.19, new price, a 70 increase. This is why, recently they've
:39:52. > :39:59.changed packaging to this new bottle. They've also changed the
:39:59. > :40:04.250ml version so they're now resealable and it and you can get
:40:04. > :40:09.the same amount of milk as with the old carton but it costs 20p extra.
:40:09. > :40:13.Quite a few parents fuming over this, including Jo. She has two
:40:13. > :40:17.babies on SMA milk and she reckons this change in packaging that she
:40:17. > :40:23.never asked for is going to cost an extra �17 a week. I bet you SMA say
:40:23. > :40:26.it's for the customers' benefit. Yeah, they do. Apparently the 250ml
:40:26. > :40:30.bottles are more convenient for feeding babies when you are out and
:40:30. > :40:35.about. And the new one litre bottle can be resealed which reduces
:40:35. > :40:44.wastage and allows leftover milk to be stored hygienically for later
:40:45. > :40:49.use. They say individual retailers decide what to charge. Fabulous. We
:40:49. > :40:57.have had shoppers feeling cheated, but with interest rates stuck at a
:40:57. > :41:01.record low, savers should feel even worse. Here is Rick.
:41:01. > :41:06.It's an age-old gripe, if you want to borrow from your bank the
:41:06. > :41:16.interest rate is high. But if you want to save with your bank, the
:41:16. > :41:16.
:41:16. > :41:20.interest is, well, how can I put this? How about derisory or paltry
:41:20. > :41:24.or in some cases insulting? Think I am going overboard? Well, consider
:41:24. > :41:29.this. Inflation is currently running at 2.5% per year, which
:41:29. > :41:33.means that if my savings rate is less than that figure, I would be
:41:33. > :41:37.losing money. Well, I have looked at savings ktsz on offer from --
:41:37. > :41:40.accounts on offer from the ten big banks and over 85% of those rates
:41:40. > :41:44.are below that of inflation. I might as well leave my money under
:41:44. > :41:47.the mattress, which of course is what I have always done. Bank of
:41:48. > :41:51.England base rate has been at a historic low of half a percent for
:41:51. > :41:55.quite sometime now. With that it's dragged all of the savings rates
:41:55. > :42:00.down, which means that these days people are getting a very small
:42:00. > :42:04.return on their savings, the average instant access account is
:42:04. > :42:07.0.94%. If you take into account inflation, eaten into that interest,
:42:07. > :42:13.you are actually losing money on your return.
:42:13. > :42:17.OK. So the average account is bad. But which are the worst of the big
:42:17. > :42:23.ten? Armed with with �500, just about the cost of my entire
:42:23. > :42:27.wardrobe, I am on the hunt for the UK's lowest savings rates.
:42:27. > :42:33.It doesn't take me long to find a couple of early contenders. Take
:42:33. > :42:35.this, the E-savings account from Nationwide offering 0.45% a year,
:42:35. > :42:45.under quarter of the rate of inflation.
:42:45. > :42:46.
:42:46. > :42:52.Or the smart saver account from the the scoop scoop -- Co-operative.
:42:52. > :42:58.I would earn just �1.25 of interest after 12 months.
:42:58. > :43:02.And that's before tax. But it turns out that these aren't
:43:02. > :43:09.the worst. Because when it comes to finding a savings deal there is one
:43:09. > :43:12.particular phrase you need to look out for - introductory rate.
:43:12. > :43:16.They are an extra bit of interest that's added to an account when you
:43:16. > :43:21.first open it and it lasts for a limited period. It's usually a year.
:43:21. > :43:24.The problems with them are that people forget when that
:43:24. > :43:27.introductory rate disappears and when that happens the interest
:43:27. > :43:30.drops down to usually a very uncompetitive rate and unless you
:43:30. > :43:35.are aware you are just going to end up getting hardly any interest at
:43:35. > :43:39.all. Out of the top ten big banks nine
:43:39. > :43:44.out of ten offer you an attractive introductory rate which is slashed
:43:44. > :43:48.just 12 months later. One of the biggest offenders here is Lloyds.
:43:48. > :43:55.Yes, the same Lloyds that needed bailing out by the taxpayer and in
:43:55. > :44:02.which you and I now own a 40% stake. So, seeing as we kept them affloat,
:44:02. > :44:06.who do they give us in rush -- in return? Well, if we were to open an
:44:06. > :44:10.easy saver account we would be offered 1.6% and if we opted for
:44:10. > :44:15.the advantage saver account that rate would be 1.8%.
:44:15. > :44:22.But in both cases those very attractive rates expire after 12
:44:22. > :44:28.months. The interest rate our money will earn afterwards just 0.1 and
:44:28. > :44:32.0.2% which mean that is with the easy saver account my initial �500
:44:33. > :44:36.could be earning just 10p every year.
:44:36. > :44:41.It wouldn't be so bad if Lloyds were the exception, but they're not.
:44:41. > :44:46.In fact, when the research group Moneyfact analysed 186 of the low
:44:46. > :44:50.erst plans this year they found that 0.1% was the most common
:44:50. > :44:54.interest rate of all with 60 accounts offering it. But what do
:44:54. > :45:01.you know, even they weren't the worst.
:45:01. > :45:05.There is 19 accounts that pay 0.05% and three accounts that pay 0.01%
:45:05. > :45:08.and this is high street brands, as well. RBS Group is amongst these.
:45:08. > :45:18.If you were to have �500 in one of these accounts for a year, you
:45:18. > :45:18.
:45:18. > :45:23.Some of the most micely rates on offer were to kids and among the
:45:23. > :45:27.worst offenders were bank accounts affiliated to football clubs. Open
:45:27. > :45:32.one and your club gets a proportion of the interest so it is a goal for
:45:32. > :45:38.them every time. But what interest do you get. Leeds United gives you
:45:38. > :45:43.0.1%. I give that a red card. Open one with Norwich City or or Derby
:45:43. > :45:53.County and you will get 0.1% and if you are with Birmingham City, you
:45:53. > :45:54.
:45:54. > :46:00.will only pocket 0.05%. Oh, come on r ef. So rates as low as 0.05%.
:46:00. > :46:09.Enough to make your eyes water! That's something I know about only
:46:10. > :46:14.Joining me now is is James Daily, you wonder if it is worth having a
:46:14. > :46:19.saving account? Well, of course, it is worth having a savings account.
:46:19. > :46:22.Everybody needs to have some money put away for a rainy day. People
:46:22. > :46:25.are disappointed with the rates they are getting paid and you have
:46:25. > :46:30.to work hard to get anything that gets close to descent.
:46:30. > :46:34.So are there descent deals out there? Well, you can get something
:46:35. > :46:39.close to 3% if you want instant access, but if you are willing to
:46:39. > :46:42.tie it up for longer, you can get something approaching 4%. But these
:46:42. > :46:47.are not high rates and they have come down over the last year.
:46:47. > :46:56.What's the advice? Well, the advice is, you heard it time and time
:46:56. > :47:01.again, shop around and be ware they going to have access to that money,
:47:01. > :47:05.you need to start putting dates in your diary and going back and find
:47:05. > :47:11.a new account a year later. You are saying move on? Most of the best
:47:11. > :47:18.rates out they will be paying you 2.39% and after a year that will go
:47:18. > :47:24.to 1 1% and you won't notice.. you have to keep being a new
:47:24. > :47:26.customer? Some banks don't allow existing customers to become new
:47:26. > :47:36.customers again so you have to take your business to a different
:47:36. > :47:46.
:47:46. > :47:56.Nationwide said, "Inflation is not a factor." "Lloyds say it advises
:47:56. > :47:57.
:47:57. > :48:05.customers to review its rate. ""Ulster Bank says its Ease y
:48:05. > :48:08.account is the only account that offers 0.4%.". The football clubs,
:48:08. > :48:18.the money goes to the clubs concerned.
:48:18. > :48:21.. There are details on our websites. Seeing double at the supermarket,
:48:21. > :48:26.the big retailers have been accused of making some of their own
:48:26. > :48:29.products look too much like famous brands. The property office has
:48:29. > :48:33.started an investigation following complaints and expects to report by
:48:33. > :48:38.the end of the year. In the meantime, we have done a shop
:48:38. > :48:47.around and found a few lookalike products. They include Tesco My
:48:47. > :48:57.Senses conditioner. Ring any bells? And Asda's Choco Snaps and these
:48:57. > :49:02.examples, Samson's vinegar and this one. I can't believe it is not -
:49:02. > :49:06.Utterly Buterly! Should I compare thee to a few
:49:06. > :49:15.terms and conditions. Some of you have noticed some companies have
:49:16. > :49:24.small print that is windier than Shakespeare's endics.
:49:24. > :49:29.Window's Live. ITunes have more. Their T and Cs clock in at 20,140,
:49:29. > :49:38.that's 2,000 more than the script for Macbeth.
:49:38. > :49:45.This script has 6,000 more words than Shakespeare's play, Hamlet.
:49:45. > :49:49.Alas poor PayPal. I knew it well. Orange is pressing ahead with plans
:49:49. > :49:52.to withdraw free broadband for users on monthly contracts despite
:49:53. > :49:57.a customer back lash. Those who took out the contracts between
:49:57. > :50:01.October 2006 and the end of 2008 were promised the service at no
:50:01. > :50:06.charge. Now, Orange says the deal was time limited and if customers
:50:06. > :50:10.want to continue with broadband, they will have to sign up to its
:50:10. > :50:16.line rental at �11.50 for the first three months and �14 afterwards. It
:50:16. > :50:26.is not known how many customers are affected, but Watchdog has been
:50:26. > :50:29.
:50:29. > :50:34.deluged with complaints. Orange A final trip to Worcestershire to
:50:34. > :50:40.catch up with the man behind Mark Smith Aerials and Mark Smith Aerial
:50:40. > :50:44.Services. Mark Smith sure has an original way with words and faced
:50:44. > :50:52.with difficult situations, he tends to lose control. How embarrassing.
:50:52. > :51:00.Yes, we've seen some of the work. We've seen some of the workmen. But
:51:00. > :51:05.to see Mark Smith himself despite our best efforts. We have had a
:51:05. > :51:11.tip-off that he is going to be in court today. The Small Claims Court
:51:11. > :51:15.is hearing about the way he treated one of his customers so hopefully
:51:15. > :51:23.we will have a chance to catch up with Mark Smith. But it appears we
:51:23. > :51:33.out, but there is a rumour he is hiding inside. We know now that he
:51:33. > :51:34.
:51:34. > :51:37.is actually agreed to pay his customer in there, the claimant the
:51:37. > :51:43.amount thea owed her, so -- that he owed her. So that's good, isn't it?
:51:43. > :51:46.Let's see if we can sort out a few of his other cust customers. That
:51:46. > :51:50.would be nice. He is refusing to leave the courthouse building, as
:51:50. > :51:56.it is not residential, I don't know what is going to happen. Well, here
:51:56. > :52:03.with Mark Smith appears with a camera. We are being filmed as well.
:52:03. > :52:10.Just so you know we have got this is Mark is about to come out of the
:52:10. > :52:17.court. Hi Mark. How is it going? Matt Allwright BBC Rogue Traders...
:52:17. > :52:25.So mm. Have a bit of that. Did you miss it? Have another look.
:52:25. > :52:29.Action replay, you lucky people. good. That was salty.
:52:29. > :52:35.I would like to talk to you about the BBC and why we're paying the
:52:35. > :52:39.licence fee. Was that urine, Mark Smith takes
:52:39. > :52:44.the floor. We can't show you what he said as we would end up in court,
:52:44. > :52:47.but it is a ran about a few BBC presenters past and present who may
:52:47. > :52:57.have had the odd spot of bother. You can probably guess the name of
:52:57. > :52:57.
:52:57. > :53:00.one of them at least! Your colleagues... Let's talk about
:53:00. > :53:04.Dan, your colleague. Let's talk about Dan, your colleague. I
:53:04. > :53:07.written back to you saying I would come back to you in 30 days. That's
:53:07. > :53:13.the BBC's stated time for a reply. Accept it.
:53:13. > :53:18.We wrote to Smith weeks ago. He had time to reply to our allegations
:53:18. > :53:23.but chosen not to. He is probably too busy crafting this response and
:53:23. > :53:29.filling his bottle! So can we talk about your customers
:53:29. > :53:34.and the fact... Let's talk about Richard Bacon.
:53:34. > :53:39.How is that relevant? Does he install aerials? No, he works for
:53:39. > :53:42.the BBC. Does he rip off customers? No, he works for the BBC and we pay
:53:42. > :53:47.the BBC licence. It is safe to say he would rather
:53:47. > :53:52.talk about anything rather than the terrible work carried out by
:53:52. > :53:59.companies carrying the Mark Smith brand. Talking of rubbish, why did
:53:59. > :54:06.you cover me in water? You shocked me when I came out.
:54:06. > :54:11.You had known for ages. You took me by shock. Can you step away from my
:54:11. > :54:15.car door now? Are the cust customers who come with problems...
:54:15. > :54:18.As I say, let's talk about Dan, your colleague... He is not working
:54:18. > :54:20.on the programme anymore. That's why it is not relevant.
:54:20. > :54:24.Enjoy your afternoon. Thank you.
:54:24. > :54:30.If you wouldn't mind please getting out of my door.
:54:31. > :54:36.Can we talk about your customers. Sorry, if you would step back from
:54:36. > :54:42.my door please. OK. OK. I asked you politely.
:54:42. > :54:47.You have still not answered about your customers and your operatives.
:54:47. > :54:53.The battery has gone, has it? have to do a 30 day response.
:54:53. > :54:55.That's not a flattering angle. I'm going to leave you now. Enjoy
:54:55. > :55:00.your day. Thank you.
:55:00. > :55:08.Have a nice journey. See you, Mark.
:55:08. > :55:13.Mm, Mark Smith, I don't need to shower tonight!
:55:13. > :55:20.It turns out mm, that I will need a shower because Mark Smith's water
:55:20. > :55:26.bottle was empty when he went into the toilet with it and it was full
:55:26. > :55:36.know, I could go to the police with that. It could be assault or it
:55:36. > :55:43.
:55:43. > :55:53.He denied any involvement with the that had Mark Smith is a trading
:55:53. > :55:54.
:55:54. > :55:57.businesses have nothing to do with him or any other businesses using
:55:57. > :56:01.it and they said they have no complaints and condition be held
:56:01. > :56:09.responsible for complaints about others. Wayne denies the amplifier
:56:09. > :56:12.he fitted was unsuit iab for digital -- unsuitable for digital
:56:12. > :56:17.reception. He said he charged for an unnecessary part. He has given
:56:17. > :56:25.us a full refund. Jamie denies doing anything wrong. He accused us
:56:25. > :56:28.of entrapment and says his opinions were on a fault we fabricated. He
:56:29. > :56:35.says he has completed the health and safety at heights course and he
:56:35. > :56:39.carried out a full risk assessment assessment prior to working on our
:56:39. > :56:42.bungalow. Mark Smith hasn't answered any of
:56:42. > :56:49.the customer complaints. So here is a wee reminder of what he looks
:56:49. > :56:54.Thanks, Matt. Thanks to everyone who has been in touch. Please keep
:56:54. > :56:59.sending us your stories and tip- offs. Go to our website:
:56:59. > :57:03.Click where it says, "Your story." You can write to us now. The
:57:04. > :57:06.address is on your screens now. You are used to getting drenched?
:57:06. > :57:12.Yeah, it is working out that way. I prefer water.
:57:12. > :57:22.You smell all right. I've showered. Five Star Cars of Brentford,
:57:22. > :57:30.
:57:30. > :57:34.remember them? You couldn't forget Well, the good news is that since
:57:34. > :57:38.our report, they have packed up and gone. They have cleared their yard
:57:38. > :57:42.and are nowhere to be seen. If they resurface in your area, make sure
:57:42. > :57:48.to let us know! Thanks, guys.
:57:48. > :57:56.Next week, been turned down for a loan, the mistakes on your credit