:04:55. > :04:59.but we checked several times, and it is not here. There should also be
:04:59. > :05:04.one at this location in south-east London, but we could only find units
:05:04. > :05:08.on an industrial estate. And there is no sign of any fried chicken
:05:08. > :05:16.place at this Manchester address. Because it is a field! It is all
:05:16. > :05:21.very old. It begs a couple of obvious questions. Firstly, if these
:05:21. > :05:28.phantom restaurants are not at the addresses which are listed, , can we
:05:28. > :05:32.still order food from them? We went through the seven phantom
:05:32. > :05:36.restaurants, made our choices and put in our orders on Just Eat, then
:05:36. > :05:42.waited for delivery. Sure enough, after a short while, the food
:05:42. > :05:49.arrives, bringing the curries from the largely residential street in
:05:49. > :05:53.Glasgow, another curry from the London industrial estate, and a
:05:53. > :05:59.fried chicken family meal apparently from that field in Manchester. In
:05:59. > :06:05.fact, all seven phantom restaurants deliver meals exactly as ordered
:06:05. > :06:09.through Just Eat. So, we can get food courtesy of the restaurants
:06:09. > :06:17.which are not at the addresses listed on the website, which begs a
:06:17. > :06:20.second obvious question. Where exactly is this food coming from? As
:06:20. > :06:24.all of our takeaway receipts came with phone numbers, we decided to
:06:24. > :06:28.call them up, posing as local customers. But guess what, they are
:06:28. > :06:34.not too keen to discuss their location. I wonder if it is possible
:06:34. > :06:44.to come by in the car and pick up food from you guys? You could not
:06:44. > :06:49.
:06:49. > :06:51.give me an address or anything? of the restaurants fails to pick up
:06:51. > :06:55.the telephone at all. Another one tells us they are based at a
:06:55. > :07:00.completely different restaurant, also serving Indian food. But in
:07:00. > :07:04.each of the other five cases, the people we spoke to refused to tell
:07:04. > :07:08.us where our food came from. As it turns out, they might have a very
:07:08. > :07:13.good reason for not wanting to tell us, because we have since discovered
:07:13. > :07:18.that not one of them is registered with the local environmental health
:07:18. > :07:22.office. No member of the public should be buying food from premises
:07:22. > :07:26.which are not registered with the local council, or premises which do
:07:26. > :07:31.not meet health and hygiene standards. It is a very, very
:07:31. > :07:39.serious risk to public health. not only a risk to public health,
:07:39. > :07:43.but also, and it does not end with those seven restaurants with false
:07:43. > :07:45.addresses, because we have since discovered that eight of the
:07:45. > :07:50.restaurants we did manage to find have also failed to register with
:07:50. > :07:58.their local authorities. Unregistered and Mrs could be
:07:58. > :08:03.prosecuted and closed down. Just Eat are responsible for those businesses
:08:03. > :08:13.they are advertising online. They should make sure that all businesses
:08:13. > :08:14.
:08:14. > :08:16.are registered with their local what they've DONE. They say that as
:08:16. > :08:19.a result of Watchdog's investigation, they have suspended
:08:19. > :08:21.all the restaurants with fake addresses. And they say that they
:08:21. > :08:22.have tightened their registration processes to prevent other
:08:22. > :08:25.restaurants using false addresses in future. They have told us they
:08:25. > :08:28.welcome a wider debate with the relevant bodies on tackling the
:08:28. > :08:32.industry-wide issue of unlicensed trading. All very well. We'd welcome
:08:32. > :08:36.an explanation. If some of the restaurant addresses are fake,
:08:36. > :08:39.where's the food coming from? can't answer in every instance -
:08:39. > :08:41.again, they say they're carrying out a complete audit. But they say that
:08:41. > :08:44.in many cases, the restaurant businesses involved have simply
:08:44. > :08:51.duplicated their menus from other branches - and they've done that in
:08:51. > :08:54.order to appear more local to a particular catchment area. But the
:08:54. > :08:58.bottom line is - if you order a meal from somewhere with a ficticious
:08:58. > :09:01.address, you really have no idea where it was made, or in what
:09:01. > :09:04.conditions. No, you don't. And what's just as worrying is that even
:09:04. > :09:14.when a restaurant on the Just Eat website DOES give a real address,
:09:14. > :09:17.
:09:17. > :09:21.that doesn't guarantee it meets the proper standards. And here is why we
:09:21. > :09:25.are able to say that. Since we went on our road trip, we have checked
:09:25. > :09:30.the official food hygiene ratings of all of the restaurants we managed to
:09:30. > :09:34.locate, and here are the results. Of the rated restaurants in Scotland,
:09:34. > :09:40.80% have been judged as requiring improvement. And in England and
:09:40. > :09:47.Wales, out of a possible rating of five, 40% of the rated restaurants
:09:47. > :09:51.listed on the site scored just two, one, or even zero. A no hygiene
:09:51. > :09:55.rating would normally indicate that poor standards were found at the
:09:55. > :10:00.last routine inspection, perhaps things like penniless cleaning,
:10:00. > :10:05.perhaps a mouse infestation, it could be things like raw meat juices
:10:05. > :10:12.cooking on -- dripping onto cooked food. Hygiene ratings are available
:10:12. > :10:16.to everyone on the food but Just Eat, like other online takeaway
:10:16. > :10:21.businesses, chooses not to publish this information. So, if you are
:10:21. > :10:25.ordering food from this website, it is not immediately via SWAT standard
:10:25. > :10:30.each kitchen been rated at, another reason why you might want to do some
:10:30. > :10:35.research beforehand. So, what can we conclude from our takeaway tracked
:10:35. > :10:41.down trip? That some of the restaurants listed on Just Eat do
:10:41. > :10:45.not exist, some had poor hygiene, and some are operating illegally. As
:10:45. > :10:49.for the Just Eat advertisements... Maybe they are not so persuasive
:10:49. > :10:52.after all. Just Eat has since told us that hygiene ratings are governed
:10:52. > :10:55.by the Food Standards Agency and local councils - and if they've
:10:55. > :10:58.allowed a restaurant to trade, it seems fair that it should be allowed
:10:58. > :11:03.to do so on the website. However, it has been engaging with the
:11:03. > :11:06.authorities to drive up standards. It says it gives customers MORE
:11:07. > :11:09.information about the restaurants on its site than they would get over
:11:09. > :11:12.the phone, from directories or leaflets through the door. It also
:11:12. > :11:15.has nearly two million customer reviews on everything from food
:11:15. > :11:19.quality to speed of delivery, which it says helps people make informed
:11:19. > :11:22.choices about where to order their takeaway. And if you'd like to
:11:22. > :11:26.comment on that or any of tonight's stories, here's a reminder of how to
:11:26. > :11:30.do so... For e-mails, watchdog@bbc.co.uk is the address.
:11:30. > :11:33.For texts, dial 88822 and start your message with the letters WD. And if
:11:33. > :11:38.you want to get involved in the Twitter discussion, our address and
:11:39. > :11:48.hashtag are on your screens now. Coming up... Kellogg's. - the new
:11:49. > :11:53.
:11:53. > :11:58.Special K recipe, that's not to had a car showroom, a horse dealer,
:11:58. > :12:01.a bridal wear store, a company flogging mobility products AND a
:12:01. > :12:04.string of TV repair businesses. We've had a few laughs at their
:12:04. > :12:14.expense. And as for their names? They've also given us a bit of a
:12:14. > :12:32.
:12:33. > :12:39.fun with names. Keeps me happy, anyway. And it gives me an excuse to
:12:39. > :12:43.muck about sometimes, like with Jazz, the plumber. Nice! And,
:12:43. > :12:51.looking back, there have been times when I have had a bit of fun with
:12:51. > :12:55.the music, like with Mike the mechanic. That worked, sort of!
:12:55. > :12:57.Tonight 's company also fixes cars, but their name presents more of a
:12:57. > :13:07.challenge on the humour front. Step forward Cleckheaton Gearbox and
:13:07. > :13:08.
:13:08. > :13:15.Clutch Centre. There is absolutely nothing funny about Cleckheaton
:13:15. > :13:25.Gearbox and Clutch Centre. Where are the laughs going to come from? There
:13:25. > :13:31.
:13:31. > :13:35.is only one thing for it. Hello, Cheggers here. As you know, things
:13:35. > :13:40.have been so busy since my appearance on your programme. I have
:13:40. > :13:50.been everywhere. Please feel free to leave a message after the town.
:13:50. > :13:50.
:13:50. > :13:56.However, if you like, don't bother. Rejected, by Cheggers! No, not
:13:56. > :13:58.amusing at all, and neither are the stories about the aforesaid
:13:58. > :14:03.Cleckheaton Gearbox and Clutch Centre, or its boss, Paul Frost.
:14:03. > :14:13.Hold on, maybe it would be funny if we drew a comedy moustache and then
:14:13. > :14:20.
:14:20. > :14:24.put a hat on him! No, that is not what we are here to do.
:14:24. > :14:28.The company quoted Mark �18 hundred and said the car would be ready in
:14:28. > :14:33.two weeks, but it wasn't. It was horrendous, they never once called
:14:33. > :14:36.me, I was calling them. Chasing them up, finding out what was going on,
:14:36. > :14:41.and to get hold of Paul was impossible, I was speaking to other
:14:41. > :14:45.people all the time. And they were fobbing me off. At four weeks of on
:14:45. > :14:51.stand chasing, Mark was told his car was finally ready. Take it he was
:14:51. > :14:55.total. It drives like a dream. Did it drive like a dream? I put my foot
:14:56. > :14:59.down on the clutch, it was heavy and I could hear it squeaking, which is
:14:59. > :15:04.what it did beforehand. I put a phone call in and said are you sure
:15:04. > :15:08.everything is all right with the clutch. It is still squeaking, they
:15:08. > :15:13.said it was because it was a brand-new clutch. But it was still
:15:13. > :15:18.squeaking a few hundred miles later. He found out why later, the clutch
:15:18. > :15:23.hadn't been replaced. The fly wheel, it was the same original part that
:15:23. > :15:28.was in the car when I dropped it off and the gearbox was a second-hand
:15:28. > :15:33.gearbox, it wasn't a reconditioned one. So it wasn't what you paid for
:15:33. > :15:38.No. Mark did get his car fixed and some of his �1800 back. But the
:15:39. > :15:43.company's got a lot of form for this kind of behaviour. Cleckheaton
:15:43. > :15:48.Gearbox and Clutch Centre have 19 County Court judgments against them,
:15:48. > :15:56.totalling �50,000. Of which, 15 are still unsatisfied. They haven't paid
:15:56. > :16:01.a penny toward them. We asked an expert. Transmission tech nicks
:16:01. > :16:08.Chris. He can drive a car using all the gear, and we are splashing out
:16:08. > :16:12.on a car too. Not any old Porsche, no, we have a genuine 2002 Ford
:16:12. > :16:15.Focus. The clutch in this vehicle is
:16:15. > :16:20.serviceable, it is in a good condition, it gives smooth
:16:20. > :16:26.operation, there is no need to change it.
:16:26. > :16:30.We are going to introduce a fault. Steve will remove the hydraulic
:16:30. > :16:33.hose, and that will hopefully introduce a fluid leak which will
:16:33. > :16:38.result in the clutch pedal going to the floor and there will be no
:16:38. > :16:44.clutch operation. So we have not touched the clutch unit at all. We
:16:44. > :16:47.have caused the hydraulic fluid to drain out so the pedal doesn't work.
:16:47. > :16:53.In theory you could rectify the fault on this car just by replacing
:16:53. > :16:59.this seal. That is all it needs. little seal, done.
:16:59. > :17:05.I knew I would be able to squeeze some music in somewhere! Fixing the
:17:05. > :17:09.Ford Focus should cost �70 plus 40 in towing charges. That is what
:17:10. > :17:16.Cleckheaton Gearbox and Clutch Centre should charge. I think things
:17:16. > :17:20.could get crazy. Yes and that prediction is about to
:17:20. > :17:26.come true, because not only do they overcharge to fix a small fault,
:17:26. > :17:30.they hit us with a huge bill to repair a non-existent one. Our car
:17:30. > :17:36.is ready for collection, in about ten minutes.
:17:36. > :17:41.Thanks, getting an update on emails. Lots of you getting in touch about
:17:41. > :17:45.Just Eat. Will says he and his partner have been ordering from a
:17:45. > :17:49.local take away but they thought they would give it a visit. It
:17:49. > :17:53.wasn't there. Pauline said she wanted to gore a take away, waited
:17:53. > :17:58.for a grabg for 90 minute, not surprisingly if the food is coming
:17:58. > :18:02.from a restaurant that isn't local. Thank you. Nick Cleggs changing the
:18:02. > :18:06.recipe of Special K, for the first time in 30 year, they are adding
:18:06. > :18:09.barley to the list of ingredients and baking some of the sugar on the
:18:09. > :18:17.outside, to give the cereal extra crunch.
:18:17. > :18:22.Apparently. The result, outraged comments from customers. The cereal
:18:22. > :18:28.is too sweet. The flakes are too hard. So what is the verdict on the
:18:28. > :18:32.street? Time for a simple cereal survey here on wash dog. With have
:18:32. > :18:41.the old recipe in the green bowl. We have the new recipe in the blue
:18:41. > :18:44.bowl. I know that, you know that, but the public don't.
:18:44. > :18:52.-- Watchdog. I like how serious you are with
:18:52. > :18:58.this? Leave some in there. Are you hungry? Take it from me. That one.
:18:58. > :19:04.That is synthetic sweet in there. refer that one. You like the new
:19:04. > :19:11.recipe. I like that one better. is a bit less flavour. So we have a
:19:11. > :19:16.difference of opinion here. Why is that one? Not sure.You're
:19:16. > :19:21.not sure but you prefer that one. Thank you. That is the speed test.
:19:21. > :19:30.And a chef's opinion. That is number one. I bow down to your superior
:19:30. > :19:36.knowledge. Thank you. You prefer that one? Yes.Why is
:19:36. > :19:41.that? That is sickly sweet.So you like this one. This is the original
:19:41. > :19:47.recipe. This is the new one. A lot of people have been saying it is
:19:47. > :19:51.sweet. I like that one.That is the new recipe. I think your nationwide
:19:51. > :19:54.survey was inconclusive. Yes, and no, because although the
:19:54. > :19:59.verdict was split, there was an interesting break down, the majority
:19:59. > :20:04.of those who preferred the new recipe weren't regular Special K
:20:04. > :20:08.eater, most of those who disliked it were people who bought it regularly.
:20:08. > :20:13.So Kellogg?s might have found themselves new customers but they
:20:13. > :20:17.have annoyed existing ones. And they say what? When their made their last
:20:17. > :20:25.recipe change they received complaints but Special K went on to
:20:25. > :20:29.become their biggest eselling cereal in the UK. They say they didn't make
:20:29. > :20:35.the change lightly. Who writes or who gets in touch with a cereal
:20:36. > :20:41.company and say, I want it up-to-date and up-to-date cereal?
:20:41. > :20:46.They said bang up-to-date. And they expected that this is Kellogg, they
:20:46. > :20:50.expected this sort of food back but saw it is relatively low. They have
:20:50. > :20:53.said they have received many positive responses. Next insurance
:20:53. > :20:58.and problems getting pay outs. According to the Financial
:20:58. > :21:03.Ombudsman, there has been a big increase in the number of claims
:21:03. > :21:10.being rejected. And Watchdog can reveal the aggressive tactics that
:21:10. > :21:15.some companies use to avoid paying up. Riz Lateef reports.
:21:15. > :21:19.From taking a flight, to simply crossing the road. We are
:21:19. > :21:22.continually running risks. But by taking out insurance, we are at
:21:22. > :21:29.least protected if something goes wrong. That is the theory, at least,
:21:29. > :21:32.but what is the reality? Across the industry, be it travel, contents or
:21:32. > :21:41.life insurance, companies seem to be doing everything they can to ensure
:21:41. > :21:46.they don't pay out unless they really have to.
:21:46. > :21:50.Richard Moss and his girlfriend lost �4,000 worth of goods in a burglary
:21:50. > :21:55.at their Cheltenham home last year. Claiming on their Tesco contents
:21:55. > :21:58.insurance proved to be a lengthy obstacle course. We had to provide
:21:58. > :22:03.all sorts of thing, phone records, it was forensic what they were
:22:03. > :22:07.asking for. When the loss adjustors came round they were aggressive with
:22:07. > :22:11.my girlfriend and searching, and it was more of an interrogation than a
:22:11. > :22:16.fact-finding mission. But it was what happened nine months after the
:22:16. > :22:20.burglary that really made Richard question how Tesco operates. They
:22:20. > :22:25.sent us a letter asking why I treated about music playing on my
:22:25. > :22:30.iPod, when it was supposely stolen, and that was because I was listening
:22:30. > :22:33.to the iPod on my iPhone which hadn't been stolen and they had gone
:22:33. > :22:38.to the lengths of checking through everything on my Twitter feed to see
:22:38. > :22:42.if there was any evidence they could get against us. Tesco did actually
:22:42. > :22:47.agree to meet most of the claim, but still refused to pay out on a number
:22:47. > :22:51.of items, including the iPod. After a year of being
:22:51. > :22:55.cross-examined, Richard couldn't face taking his case any further.
:22:55. > :23:01.You assume that you know, you are innocent until proven guilty. In
:23:01. > :23:05.this case we were guilty until proven innocent. Richard's
:23:05. > :23:08.experience is increasingly common. Which? Says it has heard from
:23:08. > :23:14.hundreds of policy holders complaining of harassment. Insurance
:23:14. > :23:19.claims. And over the last 12 month, the Financial Ombudsman has seen a
:23:19. > :23:24.20% increase in. . Plaints about claims that have been rejected.
:23:24. > :23:26.an increasing number of case, we are seeing insurance companies not
:23:26. > :23:31.following the well established guidelines that we would have
:23:31. > :23:35.expected them to follow. And in the dispute we are up holding in favour
:23:35. > :23:40.of consumer, we are increasingly seeing insurance companies who have
:23:40. > :23:45.made decisions on claims, which were not only tough bun fair.
:23:45. > :23:53.Twins Jake and Summer know all about unfair. They lost their father last
:23:53. > :23:56.October. For much of his last year he was fighting cancer and his
:23:56. > :24:00.insurers Friend's Life. Even though he was dying they were refusing to
:24:00. > :24:04.pay out on his critical illness life insurance policy. When you are in
:24:04. > :24:09.the middle of the worst year of your life, and you know your husband is
:24:10. > :24:14.going to die soon, and Nick was in the middle of chemo, he was really
:24:14. > :24:18.ill, I was working in London, trying to hold everything together. It was
:24:18. > :24:22.absolutely, it was like a body blow. I remember opening the letter and
:24:22. > :24:27.feeling sick and not believing that this could be happening.
:24:27. > :24:30.Friend's Life rejected the claim, because Nick hadn't declared certain
:24:30. > :24:40.health information, in particular whether he had ever suffered from
:24:40. > :24:46.pins and needles. However he had declared ulcerative colitis, a bowel
:24:46. > :24:50.condition that includes those symptoms. So Nick, five months into
:24:50. > :24:55.diagnosis, probably not much life left, decided he was going to fight:
:24:55. > :25:00.He was determined. He said there was no way we are going to take this
:25:00. > :25:03.lying down. We pulled together all the information, a number of
:25:03. > :25:10.consultants said Nicks's colitis and the pins and needles were nothing do
:25:10. > :25:15.with why he had died. Gall bladder cancer is very rare. But Friend's
:25:15. > :25:20.Life still refused to budge. And time was running out. I thought you
:25:20. > :25:24.are totally destroying the last few months of my life with my husband,
:25:24. > :25:27.and, obviously I kept thinking, but I mustn't let that happen, because
:25:27. > :25:35.these last few months are so precious.
:25:35. > :25:39.He knew that he was going to die, and he fell not only with we were
:25:39. > :25:42.going to be losing him but we wouldn't have financial security.
:25:42. > :25:48.Following Nick's death his widow continued the battle, aware that
:25:48. > :25:55.without the pay out, they could be forced to leave the family home. She
:25:55. > :25:59.collected �64 -- 64,000 signatures for an on online petition. Friend's
:25:59. > :26:04.Life were unmoved. But Susie had one last place to
:26:05. > :26:09.turn. The Financial Ombudsman service. If it rules in your favour,
:26:09. > :26:14.an insurance company can be forced to pay out on any claim up to �100
:26:14. > :26:19.thousand. The family waited three months and the verdict arrived.
:26:19. > :26:27.was an amazing moment. I was checking my E mails, I had put the
:26:27. > :26:30.kids to bed. There was an email. It dawned on me they had were going to
:26:31. > :26:35.support, support me and the outcome was we should receive the money. I
:26:35. > :26:40.just couldn't believe it. The victory meant a pay out of
:26:40. > :26:45.�100,000, which means Summer and Jake can remain in the family home.
:26:45. > :26:48.But why did the family have to fight their insurers so hard, and for so
:26:48. > :26:55.long? I can see nothing there of compassion or humanity or anything,
:26:55. > :27:01.it was like a big faceless corporation who were determined just
:27:01. > :27:06.to trample us, but, I think what gives me, what makes me smile, we
:27:06. > :27:16.didn't let them. They were not going do that. We fought all the way, we
:27:16. > :27:19.
:27:19. > :27:22.got the outcome we deserved. OK. With me now Malcolm Tarring. He
:27:22. > :27:28.represents the association of Association of British Insurers.
:27:28. > :27:33.Thank you. I imagine you don't want to comment on the specific case, but
:27:33. > :27:38.as a human being, what is your reaction to that? I can't obviously
:27:38. > :27:42.comment on specific case, but it would be impossible not to sit here
:27:42. > :27:47.and empathise whether the stress that family has gone through.
:27:47. > :27:51.Insurers are aware, when people come to claim, they are doing so in a
:27:51. > :27:55.stressful and difficult time. That is why insurers are fully 100%
:27:55. > :27:59.committed to dealing with claims, all genuine claims as quickly and
:27:59. > :28:06.efficiently as possible. How can it sit happily on your shoulders, you
:28:06. > :28:14.know, a family, the last few weeks of the children's father's life, and
:28:14. > :28:20.their mother has to spend precious time begging, appealing and being
:28:20. > :28:27.bullied by an insurance company. I can't be right? No insurance wants
:28:27. > :28:32.to and no insurer will bully a customer. They are paying out �2
:28:33. > :28:36.million every week. That may be no consolation to the couple you
:28:36. > :28:39.featured but insurers do everything they can, at a stressful time for
:28:39. > :28:44.customers, to make sure they get the compensation ir, they get the money
:28:44. > :28:52.they believe they are entitled to. tell you what must be puzzling
:28:53. > :28:58.viewer, certainly puzzles me, that you can have the expert opinion of
:28:58. > :29:01.two specialist consultants, and the insurance company disagree. Well,
:29:01. > :29:05.the insurance company are going to look at all the medical evidence
:29:05. > :29:10.that is available. Don't youed think the consultant has? Some times the
:29:10. > :29:13.medical evidence is not necessarily clear. I am not medical expert,
:29:13. > :29:17.insurers will look at the available medical evidence and they will look
:29:17. > :29:23.to pay claim, that is the first priority, not looking at reasons for
:29:23. > :29:29.declining. Can you tell me, if, the companies you represent want
:29:29. > :29:35.insurers, how do they, how do they guard against the possibility of
:29:35. > :29:39.being in this dreadful situation, innocent, consultants agreeing, with
:29:40. > :29:44.the insurer, the person who is taken out the insurance, the insurance
:29:44. > :29:49.company disagree, and finally the ombudsman. No insurance company
:29:49. > :29:52.wants to see a disputed claim and they will move heaven an earth to
:29:52. > :29:56.make sure a genuine claim is paid as quickly as possible. They will look
:29:56. > :29:59.at the medical evidence, they will talk to the customer, we are in the
:29:59. > :30:03.business of paying claim, don't forget the claims process is the
:30:03. > :30:08.shop window on which insurance companies are judged, so if they get
:30:08. > :30:18.it wrong, then they have a lot of reputational damage to clear up.
:30:18. > :30:22.
:30:22. > :30:25.Thank you, I have to stop you there. We have also spoken to Friends Life
:30:25. > :30:30.who initially refused to pay out to the family. They say they continue
:30:30. > :30:33.to have concerns about some of the details of the case, relating to
:30:33. > :30:37.nondisclosure, that they say they are subverted to the family and
:30:37. > :30:41.believe it would be wrong to prolong it further. They have decided to
:30:41. > :30:44.meet the claim in full, plus interest, which was in addition to
:30:44. > :30:53.an earlier ex-gratia payment which they made to the family. They told
:30:53. > :30:58.us they paid out �122 million in critical illness lanes in 2012.
:30:58. > :31:04.Meanwhile, Tesco Bank say they pay out claims quickly and fairly. They
:31:04. > :31:11.had to wait for a report, they say, on Richard Moss 's burglary, after
:31:11. > :31:17.which, they agreed to pay him more than �3000, they say. Still to come
:31:17. > :31:22.- are these passengers entitled to compensation? Back to Cleckheaton
:31:22. > :31:29.Gearbox and Clutch Centre now. Not to be confused with other clutch and
:31:29. > :31:33.gearbox company is of a similar name. We have heard how they charged
:31:33. > :31:38.one driver 1800 pounds for repairing the clutch, when they did not
:31:38. > :31:44.actually replace it at all. Mind you, he did have a Porsche. They
:31:44. > :31:46.would not overcharge us on our little old Ford Focus, would they,
:31:46. > :31:54.especially when all that needed fixing was the little old
:31:54. > :31:57.hydraulics? In order to fix those hydraulics, all they needed to do
:31:57. > :32:02.was to replace this tiny rubber seal. Why? Well, here is a quick
:32:03. > :32:07.lesson. There maybe some of you out there that do not really understand
:32:07. > :32:14.how clutch works. It is very simple... This microphone is
:32:14. > :32:18.really... I will explain it, there are two plates, when pushed
:32:18. > :32:22.together, supplying power from the engine to the gearbox. However, when
:32:22. > :32:27.you push down the pedal, the plates, part and no longer supply
:32:27. > :32:30.power to the wheels. Now, there maybe some of you out there who do
:32:31. > :32:36.not really understand how a clutch works. Wright, the car has been in
:32:36. > :32:45.for five days, and we have been told it is fixed. Our stooge goes in to
:32:45. > :32:51.collect, and who do we find behind the counter? It is only the boss.
:32:51. > :33:01.Old on, �320? All it needed was a new seal. Did it need a new clutch,
:33:01. > :33:09.then? Golly gosh indeed, because there was nothing wrong with our
:33:09. > :33:19.clutch. Once outside, we asked Paul to go into more diagnostic detail.
:33:19. > :33:25.
:33:25. > :33:29.Yes, worn out, it is a technical leaves, but not before asking Paul
:33:29. > :33:35.to return the original clutch he has taken out. And you know what? He
:33:35. > :33:41.does. That was not a smart move, was it? Giving us back our perfectly
:33:41. > :33:46.healthy clutch to compare with the one they have just put in. OK, two
:33:46. > :33:52.blokes together. Who has got the best one? OK, Chris, so, I have got
:33:52. > :33:57.a clutch, you have got a clutch - what am I looking at? That is the
:33:58. > :34:02.original plate removed from the Ford focus. There are some signs of wear,
:34:02. > :34:06.but very minimal. There was no need to change that clutch. This is the
:34:06. > :34:11.replacement, which was fitted. It is of inferior quality. We describe
:34:11. > :34:15.them as chocolate clutches, and that is because they melt. They do not
:34:15. > :34:22.last five minutes. Uncle and this one, still good for a fuel miles
:34:22. > :34:28.yet? I would imagine for another 30,000-40,000 miles at least.
:34:28. > :34:32.the same clutch that Paul said was... But you know what? He is
:34:32. > :34:40.misdiagnosis could be a 1-off, so let's give him a second chance with
:34:40. > :34:42.a second car. You know, Ford Focus is fine, but it is a bit
:34:42. > :34:45.run-of-the-mill. Would we need is a status symbol car, the kind of motor
:34:45. > :34:53.which has been bought by someone who has written to leak into a bit of
:34:53. > :34:58.good fortune. Hello! Yes, no, I am in Los Angeles that weekend, but I
:34:58. > :35:02.am keeping it free for the Oscars. How about coming round on Sunday, a
:35:02. > :35:08.whole host of celebrities are coming? Ring the profiteroles! Yes,
:35:08. > :35:13.we have got a Porsche Boxster! It is silver, it has got a wheel on each
:35:13. > :35:19.corner! It is not supposed to do that, is it? Usually, at this
:35:19. > :35:23.stage, on Rogue Traders, I would be telling you about the fault that we
:35:23. > :35:27.have created with this car. But there is no fault with this car. In
:35:27. > :35:36.fact, the only problem with it is the person driving it. Yes, it is a
:35:36. > :35:39.woman. Now, come on now, I am only mucking about. Annabelle is an
:35:39. > :35:41.excellent driver, as well as the perfect stooge. She calls
:35:41. > :35:45.Cleckheaton Gearbox and Clutch Centre, claiming she is having
:35:45. > :35:49.trouble putting her car into gear. We'll Paul see that there is nothing
:35:49. > :35:59.wrong with it and she is simply not pressing down hard enough on the
:35:59. > :36:09.
:36:09. > :36:13.pedal? It is time for a test drive, and some heavy pedalling. OK, this
:36:13. > :36:17.car does have quite a heavy pedal, and a new clutch would make it
:36:17. > :36:27.lighter, but it certainly does not need one. What about her other, you
:36:27. > :36:30.
:36:30. > :36:35.know, problem? So, why can't she get it into gear, Paul? You cannot
:36:35. > :36:37.repeat the fault, can you, because there isn't one of in March! That is
:36:37. > :36:45.not revenge Paul from persuading us to leave the car with him for
:36:45. > :36:49.inspection. He says he will call back within 24 hours, but we do not
:36:49. > :36:52.hear anything. Instead, four days later, we have to call him up to
:36:52. > :37:02.arrange for and about to drop by and hear his diagnosis. Chris and I
:37:02. > :37:17.
:37:17. > :37:21.listen in. The extra gear linkage is absolutely spot on, perfect.
:37:21. > :37:25.certainly was, along with the clutch. But according to Paul, that
:37:25. > :37:28.is about to conquer out, too. You were probably a couple of miles from
:37:28. > :37:35.your clutch conking out anyway, so you would have lost your drive
:37:35. > :37:40.anyway. You would have lost your drive. This is a car which is not
:37:40. > :37:44.got long left in his world, the way he is describing it. There is no way
:37:44. > :37:54.you can say that clutch is going to fail in 2000 miles. Let's add it all
:37:54. > :38:03.
:38:03. > :38:06.unnecessary total of... Nearly �2000. There was nothing wrong with
:38:06. > :38:10.the gear cables, there is nothing wrong with the flywheel, and there
:38:10. > :38:15.is nothing wrong with the clutch. You could argue it might make the
:38:15. > :38:18.pedal a bit softer by replacing the clutch, but that is all you can say.
:38:18. > :38:28.After considering, Annabelle decides against housing the work done. That
:38:28. > :38:35.
:38:35. > :38:40.Paul still has a way of her. Yes, take her car apart, identify
:38:40. > :38:50.imaginary faults, but it together, and that will be 400 quid.
:38:50. > :39:09.
:39:09. > :39:18.quid, no car. We pay it, but then we pay back. And that payback will be
:39:18. > :39:20.coming up very shortly, when we will surprise the boss, and the people of
:39:20. > :39:26.Cleckheaton Gearbox and Clutch Centre. Now, how do you follow
:39:26. > :39:31.something as exciting as Daphne? I know, with a tiny little chopper. It
:39:31. > :39:39.is just an ordinary day in the Watchdog studio, a horse one week,
:39:39. > :39:48.and now, a helicopter! That is blowing on my hair! What is the
:39:49. > :39:54.point of this? I will come to that in a minute, but I just want you to
:39:54. > :39:58.enjoy it. Go a bit closer to any, come on. It is just a boys toy,
:39:58. > :40:02.getaway! 5-1 it is a remote control model, being operated by Perry
:40:02. > :40:10.Lambert over there, a display pilot from Essex. As you can see, it can
:40:10. > :40:14.do lots of great things. I could play this all day. It is very
:40:14. > :40:19.impressive, obviously, but only when it is working. You see, we have got
:40:19. > :40:27.another model enthusiast, called Edward Kerr, from Suffolk. He bought
:40:28. > :40:32.one very similar to this, from a private seller on eBay. There was no
:40:32. > :40:37.evidence of it being in anything other than perfect condition. But
:40:37. > :40:40.when it arrived, it was far from that. The helicopter in my view
:40:40. > :40:46.would have been dangerous to fly. Clearly if had been crashed, the
:40:46. > :40:49.tale was not as it should have been, I do not think the rotor blade
:40:49. > :40:53.had the correct control, so the helicopter had trouble attempting to
:40:53. > :40:58.fly. As a result of that, I decided that the safest thing to do was to
:40:58. > :41:01.put it back into the box. Edward contacted the seller and told him he
:41:01. > :41:09.would be returning the broken helicopter, and wanted a full
:41:09. > :41:12.refund. When the seller refused, Edwards took the dispute to e-bay,
:41:12. > :41:21.confident they would find in his favour. I have spent �100 on the
:41:21. > :41:25.postage. To me, it is absolutely crystal clear - the item is not as
:41:25. > :41:31.described, it is not fit for the purpose that I bought it for. And I
:41:31. > :41:37.should have had a full refund. But E-bay disagreed, and refused to
:41:37. > :41:41.sanction that refund. So I was left at with a helicopter which I did not
:41:41. > :41:50.think was safe to fly, which I did not think was fit for purpose, and a
:41:50. > :41:55.seller who would not accept refund. That's disappointing, a nonworking
:41:55. > :42:00.helicopter. Yes, very disappointing, and what's worse, there is very
:42:00. > :42:03.little Edward could do about it. Normally, if you buy goods over the
:42:03. > :42:07.Internet you can get a full refund if you return them within seven
:42:07. > :42:12.days, except if you bought them from a private seller, as opposed to a
:42:12. > :42:15.merchant, or if you bought them in an online auction. In those
:42:15. > :42:20.circumstances, the so-called distance selling regulations do not
:42:20. > :42:26.apply. So I am afraid that in this case, both the seller and E-bay are
:42:26. > :42:31.right. But you know exactly what I'm going to say to you next. Yes let's
:42:31. > :42:41.have a look at something which was caused covered by those regulations!
:42:41. > :42:46.
:42:46. > :42:50.Executive. -- exactly. And here is this week 's consumer champion,
:42:50. > :42:55.Internet shopper Nigel Cox, an architect from Milton Keynes. His
:42:55. > :43:00.complaint? An online purchase. His consumer weapon bash the distance
:43:00. > :43:04.selling regulations. Befall all of this happened, I was completely in
:43:04. > :43:11.the dark about the power and the size of the distance selling
:43:11. > :43:16.regulations. His opponent, Acer, who sold him a computer over the
:43:16. > :43:19.Internet. When it arrived, he was not -- it was not working properly.
:43:20. > :43:26.When he tried to send it back, they said there was nothing wrong with
:43:26. > :43:31.it. But they had picked the wrong employment opponent. I am solvent
:43:31. > :43:36.for it, I work from home, everything I do I produce on a computer. If I
:43:36. > :43:41.am not working, I am not earning. Nigel bought the new computer when
:43:41. > :43:46.his old one broke down. The good news was that it arrived within 24
:43:46. > :43:51.hours. The bad news was that it just did not work properly. Part of my
:43:51. > :43:54.difficulty was being able to access the Internet. I was getting
:43:54. > :44:02.frustrated. No matter how hard I tried, I just could not get the
:44:02. > :44:06.computer to spark up, come to life. When Nigel contacted Acer direct
:44:06. > :44:11.with a list of problems, they agreed to pick up the computer for testing,
:44:11. > :44:18.but then came their response. told me that they could not find any
:44:18. > :44:24.fault. It is like you are being told that you are lying, or you are an
:44:24. > :44:29.idiot, something like that. Acer did offer a refund under their local
:44:29. > :44:32.double return policy, but that would be minus a collection fee, and a 10%
:44:32. > :44:37.deduction for damage which they claimed was caused by Nigel.
:44:37. > :44:40.Alternatively, he could have the computer back, but Nigel refused.
:44:40. > :44:46.Instead he began researching his rights under the distance selling
:44:46. > :44:51.regulations. They were brought in in 2000 primarily because of a European
:44:51. > :44:54.law which was intended to strengthen consumer rights, because many more
:44:54. > :44:57.transactions were happening over the Internet. The laws are very
:44:57. > :45:00.powerful, and they give you two main rights, the first of which is the
:45:00. > :45:04.right to receive certain information about the seller and the goods. And
:45:05. > :45:14.then, you have the cancellation right itself. Within a certain time
:45:15. > :45:17.
:45:17. > :45:22.period, you can cancel your distance contract for no reason whatsoever.
:45:22. > :45:26.If you are using your rights you don't need any reason. You can
:45:26. > :45:31.change your mind, do it on a whim, decide the good are not for you. You
:45:31. > :45:36.don't have to have a reason. Nigel wrote to the company references the
:45:36. > :45:39.distance selling regulation, telling them that the computer was faulty.
:45:39. > :45:41.He copied in the Managing Director and after two weeks he finally got
:45:41. > :45:46.the response he had been waiting for.
:45:46. > :45:49.Acer said they would refund him in full. The reason, they checked the
:45:49. > :45:59.computer again, and found a fault. The very same fault he told them
:45:59. > :45:59.
:46:00. > :46:04.about in the first place. Full value of that refund? �688.92.
:46:04. > :46:09.Without the distance selling regulation, I could be stuck with a
:46:09. > :46:14.computer that doesn't work, and a situation which would have left a
:46:14. > :46:20.very bad taste in my mouth, with Acer Direct, but fortunately, the
:46:20. > :46:24.power of the regulations helped me power of the regulations helped me
:46:24. > :46:27.out. OK, we did ask Acer for a comment on
:46:27. > :46:31.that case but they haven't responded. We have put together a
:46:31. > :46:34.guide to the distance selling regulations 2000, which spells out
:46:34. > :46:40.your rights in detail. You can find it on the website. There is the
:46:40. > :46:47.address. Thank to everyone who has been in
:46:47. > :46:54.touch about thatted story. Here is a few more.
:46:54. > :46:59.Football, you know, isn't it? Football shirt sponsorship con tro
:46:59. > :47:09.controversial. Bolt has announced it is pulling out after deal with Quick
:47:09. > :47:11.
:47:11. > :47:13.Quid, the pay day lender that charges an APR of more than 17100%.
:47:13. > :47:18.It follows an online petition along with protest meetings. The
:47:18. > :47:21.Championship club says it underestimated the adverse reaction,
:47:21. > :47:31.after discussions with supporters and politicians, the deal is off.
:47:31. > :47:38.Instead the shirts will now be sponsored ambitious Tainable energy
:47:39. > :47:44.company Fibrelec. Cheap holiday. It Thomas Cook's post
:47:44. > :47:49.Christmas ad campaign in which it claimed to offer 10% off certain
:47:49. > :47:53.holidays misled certain customers. It investigated following complaints
:47:53. > :47:56.two holidays in Italy and Egypt didn't get cheaper and one of the
:47:56. > :48:00.sample holidays was more expensive than before the promotion. Thomas
:48:00. > :48:05.Cook said this was a result of so-called fluid pricing, the
:48:05. > :48:08.industry practise of adjusting costs to meet fluctuating levels of
:48:08. > :48:15.demand. That pricing would be explained to customers when they
:48:15. > :48:20.bought a holiday. The ASA said the pro-Megs was likely to confuse e
:48:20. > :48:23.customers and they said the discount hadn't been applied in line with
:48:23. > :48:26.their expectation, so we won't be seeing this ad again. British
:48:26. > :48:33.Airways, remember that emergency landing at Heathrow on bank holiday
:48:33. > :48:38.weekend? 190 flights can said -- cancelled. 22 planes diverted, an
:48:38. > :48:41.estimated 250,000 passengers grounded, more delayed and all
:48:41. > :48:45.because engine panels were not closed properly during maintenance.
:48:45. > :48:50.And remember EU rules entitle any passenger whose flight is delayed
:48:50. > :48:54.for more than three hours to compensation up to �5 hundred.
:48:54. > :48:59.Unless the airline can show it was the result of extraordinary
:48:59. > :49:04.circumstances, beyond its control, which you have guessed is what BA
:49:04. > :49:09.claimed was the case here, has there been a change of heart? When wash
:49:09. > :49:13.dog contacted BA yesterday, it withdrew the earlier statement about
:49:13. > :49:19.extraordinary circumstances, it said it provided a duty of care to
:49:19. > :49:25.passenger, including refreshments and hotel rooms while they waited,
:49:25. > :49:30.but -- added it will assess every claim o on its merits and meet its
:49:30. > :49:35.legal obligations. Watch this pace. -- space.
:49:35. > :49:39.OK. The slickly named Cleckheaton Gearbox and Clutch Centre have done
:49:39. > :49:44.us over. Twice. They have missed diagnosed fault, they invented
:49:44. > :49:49.fault, they have overcharged us and they have hit us with a �4 hundred
:49:49. > :49:54.bill for putting back together our car after inspecting it. You know
:49:54. > :49:58.what? They haven't even done that right.
:49:59. > :50:02.And how do we know? Well, because once we got it back, we gave it to a
:50:03. > :50:10.Porsche specialist for forensic testing. They sent their report to
:50:10. > :50:14.our expert, Chris. Not only have you been charged �400
:50:15. > :50:19.for unnecessary work. The drive shaft bolts have been incorrectly
:50:19. > :50:23.Torquayed up. Both could have caused a problem. The car has come back in
:50:23. > :50:28.a worse state than we gave it to them? That is right.What about that
:50:28. > :50:32.clutch, which boss Paul Frost told us could go in 2000 miles.
:50:32. > :50:37.report states they would expect the clutch to last 20,000 miles at
:50:37. > :50:41.least. 20,000 not 2 thousand. That is a Biggs difference This garage is
:50:41. > :50:46.exaggerating work that is required on cars. It has quoted for work
:50:46. > :50:50.which isn't necessary and in my opinion are taking advantage of
:50:50. > :50:57.motorists with minutical technical knowledge. So we are not looking at
:50:57. > :51:03.ineptitude, we are looking at also dishonesty? Yes, first class.
:51:03. > :51:10.That will do for me. I am back off to Yorkshire, no Porsches this time.
:51:10. > :51:16.I am going to pour myself into a vintage white van. I want to tell
:51:16. > :51:24.the locals about our investigation and a company in their very midst.
:51:24. > :51:31.Hello Cleckheaton. Let us play Car Park Clutch Phrase. Would you like
:51:31. > :51:38.to join me for a game? What is your name? Let us play Clutch Phrase. Say
:51:38. > :51:43.what you see? Lifting. Lifting prices. Lift Lifting or?Pushing.
:51:43. > :51:52.She has got it pushing up the price, give her a round of applause.
:51:52. > :51:57.What can you see here? What does that say? Yob. -- job.What is he
:51:58. > :52:07.doing? He is stretching the job.She has got it everyone.
:52:07. > :52:12.Come play Sir. Here we go. Hello. That is very good. That one was in
:52:13. > :52:20.fact talking cow mud. Right. Brian, you have been a faant stick
:52:20. > :52:24.contestant. You get the handshake any way. -- fantastic. The bells are
:52:24. > :52:33.tolls, which means it could be time to leave. Thank you Cleckheaton, and
:52:33. > :52:37.good night. So now for the encore. We are not
:52:37. > :52:42.leaving town without paying Paul Frost a visit. We turn up at the
:52:43. > :52:49.garage, but no-one seems to be round.
:52:49. > :52:53.Until we go inside, where the work force aren't too pleased to see us.
:52:53. > :52:58.(BLEEP) That is clutch phrase. OK, time to catch up with Paul in the
:52:58. > :53:04.next door office, warning it might get shouty.
:53:04. > :53:10.Hi, Paul. Matt Allwright. We just wanted to ask you first of all about
:53:10. > :53:19.the two cars that we brought to you, the Ford Focus which you fitted with
:53:19. > :53:24.a clutch which it didn't need put a new clutch on. We erect fibbed
:53:24. > :53:30.the leak. Read those jobs of satisfied customers. We have
:53:30. > :53:37.hundreds. The instances we have got... How many you got have you got
:53:37. > :53:45.final. We brought you two...You brought a Ford Focus in for a new
:53:45. > :53:51.clutch. It had a new clutch. .With when that... It had one millimetre
:53:51. > :53:55.wear. That is a matter of opinion. It did not need replacing, you
:53:55. > :54:04.didn't mention the original problem, that was the hydraulic leak. That
:54:04. > :54:10.was the problem, �75 instead of �300. We took the gearbox tout
:54:10. > :54:15.change it. You fitted a clutch which didn't need replacing, those are two
:54:15. > :54:19.vehicles. Yes, yes...Both of those needed almost nothing. One had a
:54:19. > :54:24.hydraulic leak, one needed nothing doing at all That is your opinion.
:54:24. > :54:28.You told us on the Porsche it had 2,000 miles left. It had 20,000
:54:28. > :54:31.miles. We took it to a Porsche specialist, we have people who
:54:31. > :54:36.understand what they are doing and the way they are looking at that car
:54:36. > :54:40.is scientific. What do we stand when we bring you a car, with which there
:54:40. > :54:48.is nothing wrong and you try and take it four two grand on that
:54:48. > :54:51.Everything that Porsche needed it did. It didn't. We paid...If you
:54:51. > :54:57.paid �2,000 the gears would have been perfect and the clutch would
:54:57. > :55:04.have been perfect. The work you do on the cars is poor. It isn't.When
:55:04. > :55:09.people find out about it. What about these customers here? You are not
:55:09. > :55:13.interested... In both cases you created work where that wasn't there
:55:13. > :55:19.With the greatest respect we are human, we make mistake, we are not
:55:19. > :55:25.computers. When people make mistakes they put it right I would like you
:55:25. > :55:32.the leave the premises. I suppose we are not getting anywhere so it is
:55:32. > :55:37.best we do leave. Thank you.Well, the shutters are down, here at
:55:38. > :55:44.Cleckheaton Gearbox and Clutch Centre. Paul made strong arguments,
:55:44. > :55:50.but it doesn't change the matter, that if it was my Porsche coming in,
:55:50. > :55:54.I would avoid their clutches. I haven't got a Porsche. We have had
:55:54. > :56:00.a written response from Paul Frost, in which he says his is a local
:56:00. > :56:06.company, with 20 years experience. He is proud of its reputation, its
:56:06. > :56:09.significant client base and its referrals from high quality garages
:56:09. > :56:14.across the UK. He says he is sorry if people are disappointed with the
:56:14. > :56:18.service. With regard of our filming he says he disagrees with the
:56:18. > :56:21.expert's opinion and claims we have presented an unrealistic image of
:56:21. > :56:27.his business. If you want a realistic image have a look at this
:56:27. > :56:32.one. It is Paul Frost. The latest face on our Rogue's Gallery. We are
:56:32. > :56:36.getting loads of emails tonight, about the Just Eat website. Ashley
:56:36. > :56:41.says some of the restaurants on the site have more than one menu,
:56:41. > :56:45.sometimes as many as five, but with all the food coming from the same
:56:45. > :56:48.place. Paul from London says he won't be using the service again, it
:56:48. > :56:57.is too worrying if some of the places haven't been properly
:56:57. > :57:02.inspected. I like this one. "I discovered a Chinese take away Reg
:57:02. > :57:05.esteres in the flats where I live." Trying to get on the Food Standards
:57:05. > :57:10.Agency website to check out restaurant, there is some trouble
:57:10. > :57:16.but it should be up soon. Keep sending the stories and tip-offs. Go
:57:16. > :57:20.to our website watchdog@bbc.co.uk. The address should be on the screens
:57:20. > :57:24.right now. Coming up next week. Changing your holiday money, how the
:57:24. > :57:30.Post Office decides what rate you will get, depending where you live.
:57:30. > :57:39.BMW, the engine fault they know about, pity they are not telling you