:00:18. > :00:23.delays. Superdrug. Cashing in on the hay-fever epidemic. Plus. Tesco.
:00:23. > :00:25.Harveys. Virgin Rail. And. Have you got an Indesit or Hot-Point washing
:00:25. > :00:35.machine? Hope it's still in one piece. It's Watchdog. The programme
:00:35. > :00:48.
:00:48. > :00:52.Hello and good evening. Welcome to Watchdog. We're live, as usual, for
:00:53. > :01:02.the next 60 minutes. Tonight. Thomson. Thomas Cook. Monarch.
:01:02. > :01:07.Ignoring the flight delay rules. So no payouts for passengers. For them
:01:07. > :01:13.to not only have treated us the way they did in the airport, but to then
:01:13. > :01:17.not be compliant with the rules, you are just really let down.
:01:17. > :01:20.Also tonight. Indesit. Hotpoint. Machines that go bang. Is yours one
:01:20. > :01:23.of them? Plus. Tesco. Toys for boys. Protests from girls. And, same
:01:23. > :01:26.product. Different price. Don't catch a cold fighting hay fever.
:01:26. > :01:30.Don't know about fever, but he certainly loves his hay. Yes, we're
:01:30. > :01:40.talking horses tonight. And we're featuring a dealer who
:01:40. > :01:46.
:01:46. > :01:53.know about it. Well, explain this. And what about this other one he
:01:53. > :01:57.sold? It is clear to me that you have a
:01:57. > :02:03.problem. A very big horse shaped problem, and
:02:03. > :02:08.one caused by dealer David Thomas, we are on the hunt for him and I
:02:08. > :02:12.have the bit between my teeth. And so as he!
:02:12. > :02:15.First, Thomson. Thomas Cook. Monarch. Three of the biggest names
:02:15. > :02:18.in holidays. And all bound by a new European rule, entitling passengers
:02:18. > :02:21.to compensation if their flight is delayed by more than three hours.
:02:21. > :02:26.Even better, the rule is backdated, meaning you can claim for delays
:02:26. > :02:29.stretching as far as 2007. But don't go too excited. The rule has
:02:29. > :02:39.changed. But some companies are determined not to pay up. Here is
:02:39. > :02:40.
:02:40. > :02:44.Ever experienced scenes like these? Thousands of flights to and from the
:02:44. > :02:54.UK are delayed every year, leaving passengers frustrated, board and
:02:54. > :02:58.
:02:58. > :03:01.angry. But thanks to the catchily titled EU regulation 261, delays can
:03:01. > :03:07.mean money. If your flight is held up, you could be eligible for up to
:03:07. > :03:13.�480 per person, even better, the rule is retrospective and a plate of
:03:13. > :03:19.flights taken during the last six years. -- and apply. So how do you
:03:19. > :03:25.qualify for this compensation? Well, first, you need to have flown
:03:25. > :03:29.in or out of a European airport. Secondly, the delay must have been
:03:29. > :03:37.for more than three hours. And lastly, the airline needs to have
:03:37. > :03:45.been at fault. That last bit is important. Why? If the airline can
:03:45. > :03:49.show it was not to blame, you can wave the high to your payout! -- you
:03:49. > :03:53.can wave by bike. Judging by complaints to this programme, the
:03:53. > :04:00.most common way to wriggle out of payment is to blame an extraordinary
:04:00. > :04:07.circumstance, but what does that mean? It is an event outside the
:04:07. > :04:09.control of the airline. Such as an aircraft that gets hit by a bird on
:04:09. > :04:12.the windscreen or in the engine would clearly have an exceptional
:04:12. > :04:18.circumstances -- circumstance and would have to land. An emergency on
:04:18. > :04:22.board like a medical emergency might make the aircraft lands suddenly,
:04:22. > :04:25.that would also be extraordinary. And it whether event like the
:04:25. > :04:29.volcanic ash in 2010 when all aircraft were grounded for a week
:04:29. > :04:37.would be exceptional circumstances for which no compensation would be
:04:37. > :04:42.paid. A straightforward explanation, simple to understand, with so why
:04:42. > :04:49.are so many airlines struggling with a definition? Take Thomas Cook. Andy
:04:49. > :04:52.was delayed for 12 hours on a flight to try -- on a last year. Once over
:04:52. > :04:57.the English Channel, the pilot announced we had been diverted back
:04:57. > :05:01.to Gatwick and had to land and we would get in one evening, but we got
:05:01. > :05:06.in the following lunchtime. We got back to the UK and I contacted
:05:06. > :05:09.Thomas Cook who wrote a letter explaining it was a chilly unit and
:05:09. > :05:12.that the galley cot had a technical fault and had started smoking on the
:05:12. > :05:19.plane. They felt it was extraordinary circumstance and
:05:19. > :05:23.because of that they were not prepared to pay out.
:05:23. > :05:27.Thomas Cook were right to ground the flight but were they right to blame
:05:27. > :05:34.someone else? Does a smoking cart count as an extraordinary
:05:34. > :05:39.circumstance? These do not include normal technical faults, the courts
:05:39. > :05:41.have made it clear technical faults are something one should therefore,
:05:41. > :05:50.they should have adequate maintenance and if necessary they
:05:50. > :05:54.should have been done by aircraft if an extraordinary fault occurs. So in
:05:54. > :05:58.our opinion, no extraordinary circumstance. Monica next. Anthony
:05:59. > :06:04.tried to claim compensation when his flight from Portugal was delayed for
:06:04. > :06:10.more than nine hours in October. air bus we were due to flight back
:06:10. > :06:14.on had a technical fault, something to do with the front landing gear,
:06:14. > :06:20.so no evidence was available and we had to go on to two planes. We went
:06:20. > :06:26.on the second plane and that is not go until 7:30pm. Mynach told us it
:06:26. > :06:33.was extraordinary circumstances, so no claims. -- one. A delay on a
:06:33. > :06:36.fault on a different fight, -- flight, how should this be classed?
:06:36. > :06:41.Extraordinary circumstance is only applicable to your own flight so if
:06:41. > :06:46.the plane was subject to a technical fault any previous fight, that is
:06:46. > :06:51.not an extraordinary circumstance. -- on a previous fight. Who do
:06:51. > :06:56.airlines and is too? When the new rule was introduced, the CAA urged
:06:56. > :07:01.passengers to make claims. They said it was ready to ensure airlines
:07:01. > :07:06.complied, strong words, but have they followed it with action? Not
:07:06. > :07:14.enough, says Anthony. I contacted the CAA and they said there was a
:07:14. > :07:20.claim, go back to Monarch and say, in their ripping you, it is a claim.
:07:20. > :07:27.-- in their opinion. Monarch said, no. That is because the CAA cannot
:07:27. > :07:29.force airlines to pay out. But six weeks ago, beat you promised to
:07:29. > :07:36.strengthen rights with new legislation tightening the
:07:36. > :07:39.definition of extraordinary circumstance -- the EU. Only delays
:07:39. > :07:46.caused by natural disasters and air traffic control strikes can be so
:07:46. > :07:50.defined. Those caused by technical circumstances cannot.
:07:50. > :07:59.However clear the rules, at least one line appears determined to play
:07:59. > :08:05.by its own. Karen's flight from the brand -- from the Dominican Republic
:08:05. > :08:12.was delayed in 2008, so as the rule covers claims going back six years,
:08:12. > :08:15.she made a claim. They said I should have applied for the compensation
:08:15. > :08:23.within two years and they were not prepared to do anything and I did
:08:23. > :08:28.not have a claim. Not so, says Alan. The airline has alleged the time
:08:28. > :08:35.limit is two years, the European Court have made it clear the time
:08:35. > :08:40.limit is six years from the date of the flight. So surely Thomson do
:08:40. > :08:44.have a case to answer? With all three of these airlines seemingly
:08:44. > :08:49.doing their best to sidestep the legislation and with the CAA unable
:08:49. > :08:57.to force them, where does that leave us? And our own, according to the
:08:57. > :09:00.experts. You should write direct to the airline and you should notice --
:09:00. > :09:05.give notice you are going to take proceedings if you do not like their
:09:05. > :09:08.ancestor Mike OK, some responses to that report.
:09:08. > :09:11.Firstly, Thomas Cook Airlines have apologised to Andy Edge for the
:09:11. > :09:14.delay on his flight to Tunisia, caused by smoke in the cabin. They
:09:14. > :09:17.say that since the update to EU legislation, they are now reviewing
:09:17. > :09:19.the case as a priority. Monarch Airlines say they have
:09:19. > :09:22.investigated Antony Durran's claim, but they remain satisfied that the
:09:22. > :09:25.nine-hour delay on his flight home from Portugal was the result of an
:09:25. > :09:27.extraordinary circumstance. As a result, they say that he does not
:09:27. > :09:30.qualify for compensation. And finally, Thomson, whose flight
:09:30. > :09:33.carrying Karen Strahan home from the Dominican Republic was delayed for
:09:33. > :09:39.14 hours. Now, interestingly, they still insist they can't consider her
:09:40. > :09:42.claim because the delay occurred back in 2008. Despite the new
:09:42. > :09:45.ruling, which applies to flights going back six years, Thomson are
:09:45. > :09:48.adamant that all claims to do with "international carriage by air" are
:09:48. > :09:55.subject to the Montreal Convention, which says claims must be brought
:09:55. > :10:00.within two years. As we heard, if you're -- if your
:10:00. > :10:07.airline will not pay up, you can take your case to the CAA. You are
:10:07. > :10:12.from the CAA, what is your response to Thomson? They say two years, the
:10:12. > :10:18.law is six years. It is great you are raising this because people do
:10:18. > :10:22.not know they have got rights all the time. People need to understand
:10:22. > :10:25.this fault question does not apply to most of their rights. If you are
:10:26. > :10:30.not allowed to fly, they have to look after you and put you in a
:10:30. > :10:34.hotel overnight and so forth, regardless of whose fault it is.
:10:35. > :10:42.Somebody spent the night in an airport terminal, that is not right.
:10:42. > :10:46.And it is six years, not two years. You are the regulator and if you
:10:46. > :10:50.disagree, why are they not listening? We advise people to get
:10:50. > :10:55.their claims in as quickly as possible. How many of us have
:10:55. > :10:57.tickets from five years ago? Airlines say they do not keep
:10:57. > :11:03.records for that long, so although people have the right, it is
:11:03. > :11:06.difficult handling a case going back a long ways that Mac back to the
:11:06. > :11:11.extraordinary circumstances. Monarch, it was a problem with an
:11:12. > :11:17.earlier flight, is that an extraordinary circumstance? You need
:11:17. > :11:21.to look at individual circumstances. We have a team of people who provide
:11:21. > :11:25.a free mediation service. If people do not get their rights, about half
:11:25. > :11:30.of people, airlines to pay at their first claim, but if you do not get
:11:30. > :11:37.rights, come to us because a lot of people will charge you. We do it
:11:37. > :11:41.free. Do not sit on the fence, is a delay of another flight and
:11:41. > :11:44.extraordinary circumstance? I do not want to give airlines give
:11:44. > :11:52.airlines if Blunkett passed, it can be, but if the airline has failed to
:11:52. > :11:59.do proper maintenance, that is not extraordinary -- a blanket pass. And
:11:59. > :12:02.the trolley on fire? It depends whether they followed manufacturers
:12:02. > :12:11.instructions. I do not want to give rulings that let airlines of the
:12:11. > :12:17.hot. How quickly can you resolve it? It usually takes two to three months
:12:17. > :12:20.to get evidence from the airlines, we have about �85,000 worth of
:12:20. > :12:27.compensation for passengers over the last few months because we have a
:12:27. > :12:31.free service. They could go to the Small Claims Court. Repro -- we
:12:31. > :12:36.provide a free service, it costs money to go to court. People still
:12:36. > :12:41.have the right to go to court. The law is complicated and we welcome
:12:41. > :12:47.the fact the EU is trying to simplify it and we can act on behalf
:12:47. > :12:57.of people to get things sorted out. Thank you very much.
:12:57. > :13:05.
:13:05. > :13:08.If you want to comment on that, this know these machines can explode. Why
:13:08. > :13:18.aren't they warning the owners? And, cashing in on the hay-fever
:13:18. > :13:19.
:13:19. > :13:22.epidemic. The medicines that cost more, despite being the same. Bikes.
:13:22. > :13:32.So last series! Isn't that right? See that? Little shake of the head
:13:32. > :13:33.
:13:33. > :13:43.there? That means he agrees with me. But then, I've had a very special
:13:43. > :13:53.
:13:53. > :13:58.understanding with horses. Always Yes, me and horses go back a long
:13:58. > :14:02.way, and I have even called the most natural horseman of my generation.
:14:02. > :14:07.And in no way do I look like a very scared monkeys strapped onto a
:14:07. > :14:12.spaniel! I still like bikes, but these different horses have brains
:14:13. > :14:17.and feelings. I do not like it -- they do not like it if you put
:14:17. > :14:24.petrol in them. You should treat a horse well and if you write one, you
:14:24. > :14:30.should be sure it is safe, asked James. No relation to this legendary
:14:30. > :14:36.Irish Thoroughbred and Cheltenham cup winner of the same name. She
:14:36. > :14:44.paid �4000 for two horses from the stables near Scunthorpe. One of them
:14:44. > :14:50.was called Ed. No relation to Mr Ed, legendary star of the 1950s US it,
:14:50. > :14:55.of the same name. He was sold as a six-year-old when he turned out to
:14:55. > :15:05.be four. The other horse was Monty, who Jane wanted to buy for her
:15:05. > :15:11.
:15:11. > :15:15.six years old. She wanted to compete in showjumping. He said Monty would
:15:15. > :15:23.be perfect. Perfect except for the serious ligament injury which Jane
:15:23. > :15:29.discovered after buying him. He was sold to us as a jumping horse. When
:15:29. > :15:34.I found out about the injury and got advice from the vet he should not be
:15:34. > :15:43.jumping, not with having that injury in the past because there is a high
:15:43. > :15:48.chance of it re-occurring. He may well have thrown my daughter.
:15:48. > :15:52.Kelly's Cobs agreed to take back the horse and refund the money except
:15:52. > :15:59.for the final �500 which they refused to hand over. This is their
:15:59. > :16:03.website where they sell horses, ride horses and stand on horses. That is
:16:03. > :16:08.strange. Even stranger, the man Jane dealt with is nowhere to be seen but
:16:08. > :16:13.we know he is called David Thomas. You will not find him mentioned.
:16:13. > :16:23.Funny, it is almost as if there is something he is keen to hide. You
:16:23. > :16:25.
:16:25. > :16:29.know what, there is. Yes, let's return to 2005 when Watchdog exposed
:16:29. > :16:37.the same David Thomas selling horses as one of them when they were quite
:16:37. > :16:43.another. David Thomas, had you got anything to say about horse imports?
:16:43. > :16:48.One year on, Thomas was jailed after Watchdog found him selling so-called
:16:48. > :16:52.pedigree puppies in such poor condition many of them died. Francis
:16:52. > :16:58.of Assisi he is not. Now is a disqualified company director he is
:16:58. > :17:04.not allowed to be involved in the running of the company either. Yet
:17:04. > :17:08.Lisa would dealt with him direct when she went to Kelly's Cobs
:17:08. > :17:16.looking for horse for her grandkids. She said she did not want a
:17:16. > :17:23.difficult young horse, she wanted an adult. He offered her woody. I was
:17:23. > :17:29.told he was four. I discovered his true age when the vet started
:17:29. > :17:36.vaccinations. He lifted his lip up and looked at his teeth and informed
:17:36. > :17:42.me he was only 2.5. So not an out all at all but in horse terms, a
:17:43. > :17:49.teenager, and a typically moody one. The reality is, he barges, he
:17:49. > :17:53.kicks, he is unpredictable. I had a friend who led him for me once. He
:17:53. > :18:03.yanked her so bad she had to go to a friend who led him for me once. He
:18:03. > :18:08.yanked her so bad she had to go to A&E. That is clear to me that you
:18:08. > :18:14.have a problem there. A big problem and as you can see for yourself with
:18:14. > :18:23.the rolling, how could I put a child on him? Just too dangerous.
:18:23. > :18:29.dangerous. It is time for a stint with hidden cameras and stuff. Enter
:18:29. > :18:34.our expert. She is visiting Kelly's Cobs posing as a customer. She's
:18:34. > :18:44.very specific in her request. She wants a horse suitable for a novice
:18:44. > :18:53.
:18:53. > :19:03.rider. In return they recommend one prime and has seen much of the
:19:03. > :19:13.world. Sure my hooves it is David Thomas. Restrain yourselves, ladies,
:19:13. > :19:16.
:19:16. > :19:22.this is business, not pleasure. It sounds like a bargain but I am no
:19:22. > :19:32.expert. Fleur however is. Being the expert she is she thinks she has
:19:32. > :19:42.
:19:42. > :19:49.spotted signs of an injury, a swollen hind leg. Yes, my leg swells
:19:49. > :19:56.up when I stay indoors as well. Happens all the time. Very painful.
:19:56. > :20:01.Our team leaves to mull over the deal. Will we be back? You bet. And
:20:01. > :20:06.what are the odds of him selling us a fine healthy beast like this one
:20:06. > :20:13.rather than one that is not fit to be written? Exactly. Saddle up, we
:20:13. > :20:16.are in for a bumpy ride. A lot of you getting in touch about
:20:16. > :20:21.that flight delay compensation story. Here is one from Paul
:20:21. > :20:28.Bentley. He said his flight from Corfu was delayed by 16 hours due to
:20:28. > :20:33.a hydraulic failing. The aircraft say they do not have to pay out. An
:20:33. > :20:38.e-mail from Julia said her flight suffered along delayed because of
:20:38. > :20:41.damage to an aircraft wing by a set of steps. The airline are claiming
:20:41. > :20:48.this can be classed as an extraordinary circumstance they do
:20:48. > :20:52.not have to pay compensation. An update on one of last weekstories.
:20:52. > :20:56.It concerns Boots and their decision to take down a sign saying a range
:20:57. > :21:02.of scientific toys was suitable for boys only. There were complaints
:21:02. > :21:06.from some customers that it was sexist. In their response, Boots
:21:06. > :21:11.insisted they were very supportive of women in science. I wanted to
:21:11. > :21:18.know, quite reasonably, if they took women so seriously, how many women
:21:18. > :21:23.are on the Boots board? It is one out of 16. Almost as many as Tesco
:21:23. > :21:28.which has three women on the board out of ten. That has not stopped it
:21:28. > :21:33.doing the same thing. This is how they have been advertising chemistry
:21:33. > :21:41.sets on the Tesco Direct website. They say suitable age range, nine to
:21:41. > :21:45.12 and gender, boys. An explanation from the spokes man or spokeswoman?
:21:45. > :21:50.It is a Tesco spokesperson. He or she has sent out apologetic e-mails
:21:50. > :21:54.to customers who have complained. The company has now agreed to stop
:21:54. > :21:59.labelling the chemistry sets for boys only. From now on they will be
:21:59. > :22:04.branded as unisex. It also says it is carrying out a review of how all
:22:04. > :22:08.toys are labelled on its website. Another result. Next, Indesit and
:22:08. > :22:14.Hotpoint, two of the bestselling washing machine brands in the UK.
:22:14. > :22:20.Last year we showed how a fault which caused some Indesit machines
:22:20. > :22:25.to explode on the spin cycle. I was in the lounge with the
:22:25. > :22:30.children, playing with their toys and keeping them amused. I heard a
:22:30. > :22:35.horrendous bang go off in the kitchen. There was the most almighty
:22:35. > :22:40.crash you could ever wish to hear. Thinking half the house was coming
:22:40. > :22:45.down. It sounded basically like a bomb or something like that had
:22:45. > :22:53.exploded. I was so angry and livid at the fact that one of them could
:22:53. > :22:58.have got injured. The response from Indesit was the
:22:58. > :23:03.fault is confined to two models, only a small number of machines are
:23:03. > :23:09.affected. The size of the risk does not warrant a recall. Really? Have a
:23:09. > :23:14.look at this. Machinery mangled, work services
:23:14. > :23:18.destroyed, owners terrified. When we asked an expert what had caused
:23:18. > :23:24.these explosions, he pinpointed a potentially dangerous flaw when they
:23:24. > :23:30.were spinning. I believe what happens is a seam splits open. Then
:23:30. > :23:33.what happens is the drum itself will open like a can. When it splits it
:23:33. > :23:41.hits the outer drum and breaks through the outer drum. That is made
:23:41. > :23:47.of plastic. Hitting the concrete. This is the weight on the top it is
:23:47. > :23:57.hitting. This is smashing through the top and causing the damage.
:23:57. > :23:59.
:23:59. > :24:04.of damage. But according to Indesit, just two models. They said
:24:04. > :24:10.only these two models were affected. A big relief to other
:24:10. > :24:16.Indesit owners like Lee. It could be catastrophic. I saw Watchdog last
:24:16. > :24:21.year and I checked the model number and it wasn't anything to do with
:24:21. > :24:27.that so I was not wary about it. I thought it was just those models.
:24:27. > :24:31.Lee's model is different and it turns that she should have been
:24:31. > :24:39.worried. In March she was in the kitchen with her friend Claire and
:24:39. > :24:44.her four-year-old daughter. I was leaning on the washing machine and
:24:44. > :24:48.there was a massive bang, an explosion and I was pushed forwards
:24:48. > :24:53.into my friend who was cradling her daughter on the floor. We tried
:24:53. > :24:57.asking if she was all right but she had been hit by the drawer and she
:24:57. > :25:03.could not speak. I could not breathe, it had winded me. I managed
:25:03. > :25:08.to get the plug and turn it off. If I had not been standing in front of
:25:08. > :25:12.the washing machine my friend and her daughter would have been hit. I
:25:12. > :25:17.went to the doctors and they said I have whiplash to my back and now I
:25:17. > :25:23.have a trapped nerve to my spine. Incredibly, Lee is one of 50 Indesit
:25:23. > :25:26.owners who got in touch after the last series to tell us that they're
:25:26. > :25:31.washing machines had also exploded and not just the two the company had
:25:31. > :25:36.told us about but a wide range of machines. We have received
:25:36. > :25:46.complaints about 14 models made by Indesit and its sister company
:25:46. > :25:53.
:25:53. > :25:55.Hotpoint. The story is always the same. When the machine is in its
:25:55. > :25:58.peak spin cycle, the machine explodes firing Babe Ruth through
:25:58. > :26:03.the front and the concrete block through the lid. In the vast
:26:03. > :26:10.majority of cases Indesit pay compensation for damage. They also
:26:10. > :26:14.pay for damages. This machine, although it is a different model, it
:26:14. > :26:20.is exactly the same as the pictures we have seen and the one I took
:26:20. > :26:25.apart. This is where the scene is here. It has split. Nobody sees it
:26:25. > :26:30.because there is a paddle over the top of it. When it splits it goes
:26:30. > :26:36.out on the left-hand side, breaks here and start carrying on. The
:26:36. > :26:41.speed it is going, it is probably on its full spin cycle which is 1600
:26:41. > :26:46.revs. That is why it causes so much damage. I don't believe they are
:26:46. > :26:51.constructed so they can do 1600 revs. I think they are going far too
:26:51. > :26:57.fast for the construction of the machine. Drums ripped, tops blown
:26:57. > :27:01.off, parts thrown through the front. You may be shocked by some of these
:27:01. > :27:07.photos but Indesit will not be because we have obtained a document
:27:07. > :27:12.which shows they have known about this document since at least 2010.
:27:12. > :27:17.In February this year, they issued this bulletin coded red for a major
:27:17. > :27:23.safety issue. It is aimed at engineers who respond to callouts
:27:23. > :27:33.from customers. It instructs them to look out for signs of splitting or
:27:33. > :27:37.cracking. The bulletin names five Indesit models and two hot points.
:27:37. > :27:41.The engineers are instructed to sit a bracket over the top of the
:27:42. > :27:47.washing machine. This is supposed to stop any daily being thrown out of
:27:47. > :27:51.the top of the machine. But even if the bracket does its job it will not
:27:51. > :27:56.stop parts like the soap dish being thrown from the front -- front of
:27:56. > :28:02.the machine and it will not stop it happening in the first place.
:28:02. > :28:07.been in the industry for 30 years and I have never seen so much damage
:28:07. > :28:12.before, damage which could be done to someone. Not just damage in
:28:12. > :28:19.theory, damage in reality. T rolled Harry from Leicester was hit in the
:28:19. > :28:25.face by a piece of exploding plastic. Or ask Lee still recovering
:28:25. > :28:29.from her injuries two months on. cannot lift anything properly or run
:28:29. > :28:38.around with my children due to it. I am on strong painkillers in the
:28:39. > :28:43.evening. That could really injure somebody. They need to sort it out.
:28:43. > :28:49.Despite all that is, there are no plans for a recall. Indesit
:28:50. > :28:54.maintains only a small percentage of machines made between 2007 and 2009
:28:54. > :28:58.could be affected. Once the company became aware of the issue it was
:28:58. > :29:02.assessed under General product regulations and classified as very
:29:02. > :29:08.low risk. It said owners do not need to be notified. It says it treats
:29:08. > :29:13.any safety shoes with the utmost seriousness. It says the issue does
:29:13. > :29:17.not face -- affect any new machines. It says any customers with
:29:17. > :29:22.concerns should go to the Indesit or Hotpoint websites. If you want a
:29:22. > :29:29.full list of the models we have identified as having a problem, you
:29:29. > :29:34.can go to our website. Next, hayfever already on the rise.
:29:34. > :29:37.Remedies are flying off the shelves. Before you buy one you need to watch
:29:37. > :29:47.this. Remember this? You should do because
:29:47. > :29:50.
:29:50. > :29:53.it seemed to last forever. Now the weather is finally moving up and the
:29:53. > :29:56.good news is we can say goodbye to the winter colds. The bad news is
:29:56. > :29:59.hayfever is back and this is likely to be one of the worst years ever.
:29:59. > :30:04.The winter dragged on and on and on. It was the coldest March for 50
:30:04. > :30:09.years. Now it has turned warm and pollen is being released. There is
:30:09. > :30:14.birch pollen in abundance. Looking ahead to May we can turn our
:30:14. > :30:20.attention to grass pollen. 95% of hayfever sufferers are allergic to
:30:20. > :30:26.grass pollen. Lots of us will be turning to over the counter remedies
:30:26. > :30:31.to ease symptoms such as runny nose, itchy throat, watery eyes and
:30:31. > :30:36.sneezing. Now there is a big choice of products to relieve hayfever. It
:30:36. > :30:40.seems like there is something to relieve every symptom but while
:30:41. > :30:47.product can have different names and prices they can be exactly the same.
:30:47. > :30:51.Take Sudafed. It has a nasal spray to deal with it and if you need
:30:51. > :30:56.mucus relief there is a new Sudafed product to deal with that as well.
:30:56. > :30:59.But is there actually any difference? A close inspection of
:30:59. > :31:09.the package reveals they have the same product licence number from the
:31:09. > :31:13.manufacturer which means they are identical. So why would Sudafed
:31:13. > :31:20.market the spray is new? The cancer may be found in the cost. In two
:31:20. > :31:24.major chains, we found it selling for 60p more than the spray. The
:31:24. > :31:29.packet may save a suitable for hay fever sufferers but the really
:31:29. > :31:33.important information is here, so when comparing products, make sure
:31:33. > :31:36.you also study the numbers. OK, we have seen one example from
:31:36. > :31:42.Sudafed there, now look at these three. Morrisons' Allergy Relief
:31:42. > :31:48.tablets. �1.99. Tesco Hayfever and Allergy Relief. �2.30. And Boots'
:31:48. > :31:54.Hayfever and Allergy Relief. �8.99. That's more than four times as
:31:54. > :32:02.expensive as the one from Morrisons. Dr Martin Lobley, you're a GP.
:32:02. > :32:08.What's the difference between those three products? The quick answer
:32:08. > :32:14.is, nothing at all. The active ingredients or identical and even
:32:14. > :32:18.the inactivity ingredients are the same. Had a Boots get away with
:32:18. > :32:23.charging four times more than Morrisons? This is marketing and not
:32:23. > :32:32.medicine, people will pay for the package. It is more luxury is
:32:32. > :32:36.looking, they think it is worth the extra 50p, it rarely is. These
:32:36. > :32:43.remedies claim to believe different symptoms. Different prices, can you
:32:43. > :32:47.target separate symptoms? Not in that sense. Hayfever is an allergic
:32:47. > :32:51.condition and there are other causes of allergy. An antihistamine tablet
:32:51. > :33:00.will target all the allergic reactions, you cannot pick and
:33:00. > :33:07.choose. The white packet, that costs 99p. Should we bother to pay more
:33:07. > :33:14.than that? No, you should go for that, simple as that. Do you
:33:14. > :33:16.constantly have to read -- have to recommend that? I do similar
:33:16. > :33:21.products and/or the NHS prescriptions we write hard
:33:21. > :33:25.generically made, nonbranded description items. Thank you very
:33:25. > :33:28.much. Thanks, Annie. We have since spoken
:33:28. > :33:31.to Johnson & Johnson, the makers of Sudafed. They have confirmed that
:33:31. > :33:34.Sudafed Mucas Relief and Sudafed Blocked Nose Spray have identical
:33:34. > :33:36.formulas, but say each product has been developed to enable consumers
:33:36. > :33:39.to correctly self-select the products they need by symptom.
:33:39. > :33:41.Both names have been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare Products
:33:41. > :33:44.Regulation Agency and reflect this targeting of the consumers'
:33:44. > :33:47.symptoms. They say the recommended retail price for both products is
:33:47. > :33:57.exactly the same for both. And they have no control over what retailers
:33:57. > :33:59.
:33:59. > :34:03.ultimately charge for them. Boots say they offer the widest range of
:34:03. > :34:09.hayfever and allergy treatments on the market, starting from 99p, to
:34:09. > :34:12.provide a range of solutions to suit every customer need and price
:34:12. > :34:15.points. Still to come. The Watchdog Guide to
:34:15. > :34:21.getting your money back. The driver who took on the Citroen
:34:21. > :34:24.dealer, and won. OK, back to horse dealers, Kelly's
:34:24. > :34:27.Cobs, of Scunthorpe, now. Or, more particularly, David Thomas, who is
:34:27. > :34:33.banned from being involved in running a company, but seems to be
:34:33. > :34:37.very involved in this one. He has tried to sell us a horse called
:34:37. > :34:46.Loppy, who we think might have an injury. But we won't know until we
:34:46. > :34:52.buy her. , back to the yard, and we are taken
:34:52. > :34:59.to see David Thomas, looking at home in the company office. Earlier, he
:34:59. > :35:08.told us the horse was 12, and now we find there is no way, according to
:35:08. > :35:18.her horse passport. David checks with the Kelly's Cobs
:35:18. > :35:54.
:35:54. > :35:59.from the vet! What if there is a day trial but you can only get your
:35:59. > :36:05.money back if you have been mis-sold the horse in the first place. It is
:36:05. > :36:14.not really a trial, then. Despite misgivings, we go ahead and I Loppy
:36:14. > :36:24.for �1250. First stop, this horse rescue charity. And we reckon she
:36:24. > :36:32.
:36:32. > :36:36.likes it here. What a mess! Loppy, horse world, head of the horse
:36:36. > :36:41.equine welfare Council. He has agreed to give Loppy a thorough
:36:41. > :36:46.examination, and when I say thorough... But is not going back in
:36:46. > :36:52.the bathroom cabinet! Preferably not!
:36:52. > :36:58.Nick spots the swollen like our expert picked up on earlier.
:36:58. > :37:02.That is a very significant scar. It extends a long way round so this was
:37:03. > :37:07.probably a big open wound that took some time to heal.
:37:07. > :37:13.Still, it has healed and does not seem to be causing pain so it should
:37:13. > :37:18.not affect her ability to be ridden. But Loppy has other problems.
:37:18. > :37:20.Her teeth are pretty symmetrical apart from this one which is
:37:20. > :37:26.sticking out at completely the wrong angle. It has been quite badly
:37:26. > :37:33.injured. It paints the picture of a horse that has been through the
:37:33. > :37:41.walls. Absolutely, she has served her time. How old do you think she
:37:41. > :37:45.is? Looking at her teeth, I would think a 25-year-old horse. She was
:37:45. > :37:51.sold to us is 16, no way that could be the case?
:37:51. > :37:58.No, every day is precious rather than expecting to have ten, five
:37:58. > :38:01.years of fun. Loppy would be a pensioner if she was human and ready
:38:01. > :38:11.for retirement so she should not be ridden regularly. The best place is
:38:11. > :38:16.
:38:16. > :38:22.here, relaxing for the rest of her So we now can be sure that David
:38:22. > :38:24.Thomas has mis-sold as a horse, but is this typical behavioural or is he
:38:24. > :38:34.acting out of character? I need some advice.
:38:34. > :38:37.Ed, Loppy is a horse, but one horse is only one horse. And she is mighty
:38:37. > :38:45.fine looking, but you need more proof, you need to get yourself
:38:45. > :38:51.another horse! That is what I was going to say. Always trying to make
:38:52. > :38:57.jokes, that guy, I wish he would get on with the story!
:38:57. > :39:07.Our resort has �1000 and once a horse suitable for a novice so she
:39:07. > :39:23.
:39:23. > :39:33.calls Kelly's Cobs and speaks to... time to meet Queenie in person. She
:39:33. > :39:57.
:39:57. > :40:02.As you will see, our researcher is no expert.
:40:02. > :40:12.It is a horse! How much are we paying you? ! This is David Thomas
:40:12. > :40:19.
:40:19. > :40:24.to close the deal, what is his After buying Queenie, we deliver her
:40:24. > :40:32.to the charity, whether that can check her out. It is obvious she is
:40:32. > :40:36.not a horse we were promised, she is hard to handle and seriously lame.
:40:37. > :40:40.Things are not good for her. She has got broken bones on the back of her
:40:40. > :40:46.legs which are crucial to her being able to move around freely. This is
:40:46. > :40:53.a horse we have bought as a riding horse. And we were told she would be
:40:53. > :40:56.perfect for a novice to write. What is the reality? She is not only not
:40:56. > :41:02.a riding horse but she is definitely not a novice horse, a temperament
:41:02. > :41:06.mean she could be dangerous for a novice rider. For any rider she is
:41:06. > :41:11.potentially dangerous because if that leg gets under stress, it could
:41:11. > :41:15.go and she could crash and the rider will crash with her. And for her,
:41:15. > :41:21.she will be in pain so she will be suffering. It is starting to sound
:41:21. > :41:25.as if the itch for her is bleak. The things inside that joint will
:41:25. > :41:29.deteriorate and it could eat a matter of a year or a couple of
:41:29. > :41:36.years but she will have to be put down -- it could be a matter of.
:41:36. > :41:41.is going to be very bleak. Queenie will now get much-needed pain
:41:41. > :41:46.relief. Her remaining days may not be great
:41:46. > :41:49.in number but at least we know she will spend the rest of them here
:41:49. > :41:59.where she will be in as much comfort as she can be. The question still
:41:59. > :42:02.remains, how was she ever for sale Well, there is only one man who can
:42:02. > :42:06.answer that, and that's David Thomas himself. Now, he is a difficult man
:42:06. > :42:16.to bring out in the open, but we have come up with an idea. It might
:42:16. > :42:16.
:42:16. > :42:20.not work, but it's definitely worth washing machines. One white goods
:42:20. > :42:26.engineer says he has had to repair two Hotpoint machines this week,
:42:26. > :42:29.both with that exploding drum. And some are asking how to get in touch
:42:29. > :42:39.with the Civil Aviation Authority about compensation for delayed
:42:39. > :42:47.
:42:47. > :42:50.flights, the website address is on Voice and Tonia Cowen. They saw it
:42:50. > :42:58.in the Harveys store in Chichester in October, placed their order, and
:42:59. > :43:03.this is what turned up a few weeks later. Looks fine, doesn't it?Can I
:43:03. > :43:07.do that? Until you compare it with the one they actually ordered. Here
:43:07. > :43:15.is the photo. As you can see, beige seats and a beige-coloured back. As
:43:15. > :43:18.opposed to this one here, which has beige seats and a dark back.
:43:18. > :43:24.So, goods not as described. Harveys agree to send a replacement. Problem
:43:24. > :43:28.solved? Er, not quite as simple as that.
:43:28. > :43:33.We have been waiting for seven months, we ordered it in October and
:43:33. > :43:37.it is now may. The service has been shocking, they have not acknowledged
:43:37. > :43:44.anything we have sent. Pictures, e-mails, never returned calls, we
:43:45. > :43:48.have not received a new couch, we have had no correspondence. I have
:43:48. > :43:53.lost faith in them. If I ordered another couch, I would not go to
:43:53. > :43:57.Harveys. I would like to do the whole show
:43:57. > :44:00.like this! Where are we now? Harveys have assured us that a new
:44:00. > :44:02.sofa is on its way, and will be with the couple tomorrow. They have
:44:02. > :44:04.blamed a communication breakdown between themselves and the
:44:04. > :44:08.manufacturer, and they are currently reviewing their procedures. They
:44:08. > :44:11.have also offered the couple �200 as a gesture of goodwill. Of course, it
:44:11. > :44:14.shouldn't have taken this long because under the Sale of Goods Act,
:44:14. > :44:16.a product you sell must be in the condition as described before
:44:16. > :44:21.purchase. And this one clearly wasn't.
:44:21. > :44:24.Now, we get a lot of complaints like this, as you are aware. But we also
:44:24. > :44:30.hear from viewers who know how to take advantage of the various
:44:30. > :44:34.consumer laws, like the Sale of Goods Act.
:44:34. > :44:37.Savvy viewers. Assertive viewers, Annie. The sort
:44:37. > :44:39.of viewers who don't sit back and play the victim, but who stand up
:44:39. > :44:42.for their rights. There are lots of them.
:44:42. > :44:45.There are. Why, we could almost launch a new feature on the
:44:45. > :44:55.programme, Chris. One that celebrates their success and acts as
:44:55. > :44:58.
:44:58. > :45:01.an inspiration to others. feature...
:45:01. > :45:09.And we could launch it with a man who looked heavenward for
:45:09. > :45:14.inspiration. His name, the reference cold chambers. His complaint, faulty
:45:14. > :45:20.goods. His consumer weapon of goods dashes consumer weapon of choice,
:45:20. > :45:25.the Sale of Goods Act. It gives great Howard to consumers who do not
:45:25. > :45:30.know how powerful it is -- great power.
:45:30. > :45:37.His opponent was a Citroen dealership in Southhampton who sold
:45:37. > :45:42.him an ex-demonstrator Citroen Picassos. 16 months later, it broke
:45:42. > :45:52.down and when he tried to claim a refund, they refused, citing
:45:52. > :45:58.
:45:58. > :46:05.insufficient warranty covers. A person but I do believe in justice.
:46:05. > :46:15.This story begins with our mild-mannered clergymen on a family
:46:15. > :46:35.
:46:35. > :46:41.holiday in France. The car broke down. -- we asked for a hire car. I
:46:41. > :46:47.spent around �6,000 a hire car. By the time you have added flights to
:46:47. > :46:52.get back it was �1000 an something. Although Citroen agreed to pay for
:46:52. > :46:57.the repairs they refused to pay for the other costs. They argued they
:46:57. > :47:07.were not liable because he did not have extended warranty and breakdown
:47:07. > :47:11.and insurance. He said he knew his rights under the sale of goods act.
:47:11. > :47:15.There are two basic rights which consumers will rely on. If you buy
:47:15. > :47:19.goods they must be of satisfactory quality and they must also be
:47:19. > :47:24.reasonably fit for purpose. It applies to contract did goods
:47:24. > :47:27.between the seller and buyer. It is not to do with the manufacturer. If
:47:27. > :47:32.you buy a car from a garage it is the barrage you are responsible if
:47:32. > :47:36.it goes wrong because they sold it to you. Crucially, the act states
:47:36. > :47:45.the product should remain of satisfactory quality for a
:47:45. > :47:48.reasonable length of time. If you are buying a new car or an
:47:48. > :47:55.ex-demonstrator model anything below two years has to be of satisfactory
:47:55. > :48:05.quality. Once the act has been breached,
:48:05. > :48:11.
:48:11. > :48:15.other laws come into play to decide the compensation. Reverend Chambers
:48:15. > :48:19.claimed for the flights. I thought I was doing the right things I had to
:48:19. > :48:24.persist. I am like a dog with a bone. If I know what is right I will
:48:24. > :48:28.keep doing it. So, the reverend made his
:48:28. > :48:38.submission, sent it to the county court, said a prayer for a positive
:48:38. > :48:41.
:48:41. > :48:45.outcome which a feud weeks later was answered. He was awarded �1345.16.
:48:45. > :48:51.had no idea how powerful the sale of goods act was and I think a lot more
:48:51. > :48:56.people should know about it. We have since spoken to the Freeborn
:48:56. > :49:01.Citroen garage which says as a responsible dealer it would always
:49:01. > :49:05.comply with all current UK legislation. If you want to know
:49:05. > :49:10.more about your rights under the sale of goods act we have put
:49:10. > :49:15.together a guide on our website. If you have taken on a company and one
:49:15. > :49:20.using this or other consumer protection laws, we would like to
:49:21. > :49:25.hear from you. Click on the your story section and give us the
:49:25. > :49:30.details. Here are a few more of your stories.
:49:30. > :49:35.Skimpy blouse is which allow others to see your underwear. I must stop
:49:35. > :49:39.wearing them. As for women who work for Virgin Trains, they do not want
:49:39. > :49:45.to start. The company has been forced to delay the introduction of
:49:45. > :49:49.new uniforms after female staff said they were too revealing. Some said
:49:49. > :49:52.the material was too flimsy but others said that dark bras would be
:49:52. > :49:58.clearly visible. Virgin have acknowledge there would be problems
:49:58. > :50:08.with the designs which it has now tweaked. It is also offering female
:50:08. > :50:08.
:50:08. > :50:11.workers �20 vouchers so they can buy suitable undergarments. They do not
:50:11. > :50:14.know how much it will cost but it could run into thousands. A bit of a
:50:14. > :50:24.financial boob. Trekkies are not happy. Thousands
:50:24. > :50:26.
:50:26. > :50:32.bought the Sunday Express in order to claim a free T-shirt. But they
:50:32. > :50:39.found most WHSmith stores were out of stock. Fans claim some stores
:50:39. > :50:44.only received five T-shirts. The store blamed distribution problems.
:50:44. > :50:50.If you have still got a copy of the paper you can still make a claim.
:50:50. > :50:58.Until then it is a case of Star Trek Into Darkness, been there, done
:50:58. > :51:01.there, haven't got the T-shirt. Ryanair are charging British
:51:01. > :51:06.passengers more than those who booked their flight in other
:51:06. > :51:12.countries. A musician threatened to bring a claim of indirect race
:51:12. > :51:16.discrimination. Simon Cozens paid nearly �2400 for seven return
:51:16. > :51:20.tickets from Stansted to Croatia. He then discovered it would be �400
:51:20. > :51:27.cheaper to book the same flight at the other end. Ryanair agreed to pay
:51:27. > :51:31.the difference provided he did not disclose details of the deal. It now
:51:31. > :51:35.says the payout is a mistake and insists it has not settled. However,
:51:35. > :51:40.Simon has the money and still has the right to say whatever he wants.
:51:40. > :51:49.His message, if you have been overcharged by Ryanair, be sure to
:51:49. > :51:54.claim. Look at that. Our investigation into
:51:54. > :51:59.horse dealer David Thomas is moving into the final straight. He has
:52:00. > :52:04.missed sold us two horses. One which was supposed to be 16 turned out to
:52:04. > :52:10.be nearer 25. Another described as a good jumper is so severely injured
:52:10. > :52:16.she will have to be put down. David spends most of his time at Kelly's
:52:16. > :52:21.Cobs in Scunthorpe. How will we tempt him out? Easy. We call them up
:52:21. > :52:31.and say we are interested in buying not just one but two horses. Will he
:52:31. > :52:36.
:52:36. > :52:42.take the bait? Of course he does. What we'll do not know is which
:52:42. > :52:47.horses he will try to sell us this time. And he does not know what he
:52:47. > :52:52.will get out of the deal. We have not just tempted him with money but
:52:52. > :52:58.with a Partick strange as well. The horse we are planning to Partick
:52:58. > :53:08.strange with David Thomas is no ordinary beast. -- part exchange. It
:53:08. > :53:10.
:53:10. > :53:15.is rare. He is a thoroughbred and his name is Sampson. Yes, a horse
:53:15. > :53:20.not quite as described. Sound familiar? While our undercover team
:53:20. > :53:25.does the deal, I will be hiding in the van with the crew. There seems
:53:25. > :53:34.to be more and more of them these days. Two of them are wearing the
:53:34. > :53:42.same skirt. Everyone in? And we're off Kelly's Cobs. Our man is ready
:53:42. > :53:52.to meet us. While I wait in the van, David talks up the horses he
:53:52. > :53:53.
:53:53. > :54:03.wants to sell. Confident that his double sale is in the bag, David
:54:03. > :54:05.
:54:05. > :54:15.turns to the Partick strange of our thoroughbred Sampson. You have not
:54:15. > :54:22.
:54:22. > :54:32.seen Sampson. After all, he is a very special horse. Look at him.
:54:32. > :54:36.
:54:36. > :54:43.What do you think? Matt Allwright, BBC rogue traders. Good to see you.
:54:43. > :54:48.I thought I had got a sale with you. Not today. You will remember these
:54:48. > :54:55.two you sold us. Loppy described as 12 years old then you changed it to
:54:55. > :55:00.16. We have her aged between 20 to 25. That is Queenie. She is lame in
:55:00. > :55:06.her hind legs. She cannot really do anything. She will be lucky if she
:55:06. > :55:12.makes it through the next couple of years. Have these made complaints to
:55:12. > :55:17.ask? We do have a 14 day trial.The problem with that is you changed our
:55:17. > :55:22.mind -- you changed it and said if you can show us there is a problem.
:55:22. > :55:26.That is not the same. It is. I can show you refund after refund where
:55:26. > :55:32.people have brought horses back for genuine reasons. Wouldn't it be
:55:32. > :55:36.better to get a description right in the first place? Queenie has
:55:36. > :55:43.terrible behavioural problems. She is lame in her back legs. I do not
:55:43. > :55:48.remember her. That worries me. have people who sell horses on our
:55:48. > :55:52.behalf. I have been fair. I have not run off as other people do. This is
:55:52. > :56:02.your property. Any complaints you have got, let's address them
:56:02. > :56:05.
:56:05. > :56:13.properly, and we will address them. I have given refunds. Why does it
:56:13. > :56:17.get to that stage? You asked me that question. You -- if you make me
:56:17. > :56:24.aware of it we can address it. does the customer have to make you
:56:24. > :56:29.aware of it? If you did not know the horse was lame, surely you should
:56:29. > :56:32.have done. That is the vet 's job. Have you got everything you need
:56:32. > :56:40.now? What I really need is an assurance you are not going to carry
:56:40. > :56:46.on selling horses. We do not get it right all of the time. I disagree
:56:46. > :56:51.with you. We have many people who would disagree. David, thank you for
:56:51. > :56:56.speaking to us. You are welcome. Goodbye now. I do like the
:56:56. > :57:06.thoroughbred, by the way. It is not for sale.
:57:06. > :57:06.
:57:06. > :57:11.That was Kelly's Cobs. Here we are. And David Thomas's cobblers.
:57:11. > :57:15.David Thomas says he sells many horses each week and have many
:57:15. > :57:20.satisfied customers. He says 20% of the horses sold are returned and
:57:20. > :57:26.they always refund the customers. That includes us if we make a
:57:26. > :57:31.complaint. The warranty covers all cases featured. He said the company
:57:31. > :57:35.makes mistakes and he could not have known about Loppy's age or
:57:35. > :57:42.Queenie's state of health. Unfortunately, that points to the
:57:42. > :57:46.fact that you become the latest face on our Rogues' Gallery.
:57:46. > :57:51.Here is a list of some of the extraordinary circumstances
:57:51. > :58:00.according to airlines, faulty door, delayed to previous fight --
:58:00. > :58:08.flight, keep them coming in. Where is Kapadia? He has gone to
:58:08. > :58:13.Crimewatch to become a police horse. You can write to us and go to our
:58:13. > :58:20.website. Coming up next week, Paypal refusing
:58:20. > :58:26.you access to your money. Estate agent signing up tenants and tying