:03:26. > :03:31.the 20% discount they were offering was only 8% and it was clear that
:03:31. > :03:37.had gone up. B&Q had increased the price of some kitchen items at
:03:37. > :03:39.exactly the same time they started the sale. The 20% discount had
:03:39. > :03:46.applied to these new accounts and not the non-discounted prices that
:03:46. > :03:53.are unpaid just ten days earlier. They increased the priced just for
:03:53. > :03:57.the sale. That was not fair. isolated example? After Aaron got in
:03:57. > :04:04.touch with this we decided to take a detailed look at a few other B&Q
:04:04. > :04:11.deals. We obtained for data compiled by the independent price comparison
:04:11. > :04:14.company Kitchen Compared. We then worked out how it a standard galley
:04:14. > :04:22.kitchen would cost from B&Q at different times over 18 months. It
:04:22. > :04:28.was quite an eye-opener. According to guidance set out by the
:04:28. > :04:33.Department of Sisu Capital discounts should only be offered on the most
:04:33. > :04:39.recent offers and yet we found B&Q offering discounts based on older
:04:39. > :04:46.more expensive prices. Take this kitchen, throughout January it would
:04:46. > :04:56.have cost �938 but then at the start of February B&Q introduced a 20% off
:04:56. > :04:57.
:04:57. > :05:00.promotion. 20% off �938 as you would expect? No. 20% of �1080, a previous
:05:00. > :05:07.higher price, potentially misleading according to these top consumer
:05:07. > :05:10.lawyer. Under regulations and Government guidance, if you are not
:05:10. > :05:16.using the previous selling price as your base price, then you have two
:05:16. > :05:23.give clear indications of what price you are using. This is not going on
:05:23. > :05:28.here and it could lead to a misleading action offence arising.
:05:28. > :05:31.But B&Q alone in their confusing pricing practices? I am afraid not.
:05:31. > :05:40.Our research is also worked out the costs of a standard eight unit daily
:05:40. > :05:46.kitchen from Homebase's Milano range. But it was difficult because
:05:46. > :05:49.although this was the base price, B&Q changed the sale price and
:05:49. > :05:53.astonishing 20 times between December and June. It is an extreme
:05:53. > :05:58.case of what is known as yo-yo pricing and that is a baffling
:05:58. > :06:02.practice which need you little chance to decide when is the best
:06:02. > :06:07.moment to buy. Yo-yo pricing is allowed provided the list price has
:06:07. > :06:12.been in place for 28 consecutive days before an offer starts. But was
:06:12. > :06:17.that the case here? No. The list price of the range had only been in
:06:17. > :06:22.praise for 19 consecutive days. So all those 25 offers that Homebase
:06:22. > :06:27.made on this range work potentially in breach of Government guidelines.
:06:27. > :06:34.If you are a Homebase customer and fell for one of those offers too
:06:34. > :06:41.getting annoyed. Wait until you hear this. One of those sales offered the
:06:41. > :06:47.�4465 kitchen for just �2219, more than �2000. What a bargain. Until
:06:47. > :06:51.you go all the pricing details again and you realise that just a week
:06:51. > :06:56.before advertising that offer Homebase were selling the same
:06:56. > :07:02.kitchen for only �1949, �271 cheaper than it was in the first so-called
:07:02. > :07:09.sale. By using a list price that is very rarely the actual selling price
:07:09. > :07:13.of the goods, this enables the firm to claim large price reductions when
:07:13. > :07:19.in fact, if you look at a previous selling price, the price reductions
:07:19. > :07:25.are minimal and in some instances, the price actually goes up. That is
:07:25. > :07:31.during the sales promotion. Inflated prices, misleading sales, yo-yo
:07:31. > :07:35.pricing. How can customers really decide the best time to buy?
:07:35. > :07:39.B and Q have told us they take their price promise seriously. They say
:07:39. > :07:48.they do change prices to ensure they are consistently offering customers
:07:48. > :07:53.best value. They have apologised to Aaron and said they are committed to
:07:53. > :07:57.being clear. They say it is not acceptable to them to have an
:07:57. > :08:03.unsatisfied customer. Homebase said they work closely with Trading
:08:03. > :08:07.Standards to make sure they stick to the law. They refute any suggestion
:08:07. > :08:10.that the promotions are not legal. They dispute the way we have
:08:10. > :08:15.calculated prices, saying they update prices frequently to ensure
:08:15. > :08:19.the best deals in a complex and competitive trading environment. If
:08:19. > :08:29.you would like to comment on that or any of tonight's stories, here is
:08:29. > :08:42.
:08:42. > :08:46.that has left some sun lovers scratching.
:08:46. > :08:49.Rogues from another series. Their faces on show for the whole nation
:08:49. > :08:59.to see. When someone does make it onto our gallery, that is not always
:08:59. > :09:12.
:09:12. > :09:17.the end of the story. Sometimes a Yes, being the presenter of the
:09:17. > :09:22.country's leading motorcycle themed consumer show means I have had my
:09:22. > :09:26.fair share of rogue run-ins over the years and when I pop up for a quick
:09:26. > :09:36.how do you do, not all of them are best pleased. Here are a couple of
:09:36. > :09:42.
:09:42. > :09:45.are you doing? But the question I get asked many
:09:45. > :09:51.times is what happens to the rogues after we have named and shamed
:09:51. > :09:56.them? There are those who think they can just carry on and that we, being
:09:56. > :10:02.we end the authorities, are going to forget about it, but that is not the
:10:02. > :10:07.case. View the music I recorded myself!
:10:08. > :10:14.# Rogue traders, taking you back... Yes, back to 2009 and
:10:14. > :10:18.Leicestershire, the stomping ground of rogue aerial repair man Keith
:10:18. > :10:24.Matthews. He was trading at eight company called Arial Tech. Among his
:10:24. > :10:32.many disgruntled customers was grand. Matthews took his money and
:10:33. > :10:40.took off. We could not get BBC One, BBC Two or BBC Three. He said he
:10:41. > :10:50.needed another part. He did not say he was going to depart? And never
:10:51. > :10:51.
:10:51. > :12:05.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 74 seconds
:12:05. > :12:15.Keith Matthews himself. But did he agree with the false diagnosis of a
:12:15. > :12:21.
:12:21. > :12:27.broken TV and water-damaged Watch this next bit very carefully,
:12:27. > :12:34.you won't believe what he does: didn't catch it?, no, maybe not.
:12:34. > :12:38.didn't catch it?, no, maybe not. didn't catch it?, no, maybe not.
:12:38. > :12:44.Let's take another look. There you go, he really did pour a can of
:12:44. > :12:54.fizzy drink all over our carpet and socket of the. The cheeky devil, I
:12:54. > :12:55.
:12:55. > :13:05.have seen things in this game but That wall socket and that cavity
:13:05. > :13:08.
:13:08. > :13:13.Utter rubbish. Now the more observant of you will
:13:13. > :13:20.have spotted that he still has a halfful can in his pocket. How does
:13:20. > :13:26.he get rid of it. Can, meet confer. I mean who hasn't done that. With
:13:26. > :13:29.the evidence safely disposed of, he's free to use a bit of quality
:13:29. > :13:36.scaremongering. What we have got safety wise we have water near
:13:36. > :13:40.electricity. You saw the water in there, we need to eliminate that.
:13:40. > :13:47.That is by changing the aerial completely. A new aerial. You will
:13:47. > :13:52.have to do it. This has been a total 100% scam by use of fear on
:13:52. > :13:57.an old person, it is despicable. The upshot of this despicable scam,
:13:57. > :14:02.Matthew sold us a replacement TV and brand-new aerial, neither of
:14:02. > :14:11.which we needed. He charged us for roof repairs that he never carried
:14:12. > :14:17.out. Total damage. �645.I make out to be �600 more than the job was
:14:17. > :14:20.worth. I caught up with Matthew shortly afterwards. Wow, I'm
:14:20. > :14:30.actually inside the TV. Broadcasting live from the shed,
:14:30. > :15:01.
:15:01. > :15:11.armed with a can of Keith's Hello Keith, Matt BBC rogue traders.
:15:11. > :15:12.
:15:12. > :15:17.Come on guys. Hello Keith how are you doing, BBC rogue traders?
:15:17. > :15:23.Matt Allwright, BBC rogue traders. How can you take �645 off an old
:15:23. > :15:28.lady for a job that didn't need doing. A job that should have cost
:15:28. > :15:34.�40 quid, a TV secondhand at best was about �50. Out of my way.
:15:34. > :15:40.Secondhand, �50 TV, a �50TV. out of my way. How can you do that,
:15:40. > :15:50.the economy the way it is, how can you do that in full conscience,
:15:50. > :16:06.
:16:06. > :16:14.knowing what you know? Seems like it gave him wings! It's rogue
:16:14. > :16:18.traders taking you back. But the story doesn't end there. Look! So
:16:18. > :16:23.how did Keith Matthews go from running away from me to running
:16:23. > :16:26.away from the police. I think it is time I went to Leicester.
:16:26. > :16:29.Well it was a long journey, but it was worth it. Because when I got
:16:29. > :16:34.there I found out how the authorities used our investigation
:16:34. > :16:39.as the starting point for their's, and employed a few tactics with
:16:40. > :16:45.which you may be familiar. Find out what they were a bit later.
:16:45. > :16:51.I have got two questions Annie that only you can answer. Right. Two
:16:51. > :16:56.parcels, which is the bigger one? That one. OK so which one would be
:16:56. > :17:00.cheaper to post? That one?Mmmm, you would have thought it would be
:17:00. > :17:05.this one. You got one right. According to that. According to
:17:05. > :17:11.Royal Mail, believe it or not. This is the bigger parcel and this one
:17:11. > :17:14.would be the cheaper to post. Why? Earlier this year Royal Mail
:17:14. > :17:21.changed their guidelines for parcel sizes, by their rules this one here
:17:21. > :17:26.is the medium one costing �8.90 to send first class if it weighs up to
:17:26. > :17:32.two kilograms. This one is classed as small, if you want to send it
:17:32. > :17:37.first class containing the same weight it will cost �6.85, more
:17:37. > :17:41.than �2 less. No idea how they work that out. According to Royal Mail
:17:41. > :17:45.it is about the length of the sides of the parcels. It maintains this
:17:45. > :17:52.is the medium because all four sides measure more than 8cms. Where
:17:52. > :17:57.as this one can still be classified as small because one of its sides
:17:57. > :18:00.is under 8cms. It doesn't matter that it is still bigger than the
:18:00. > :18:10.other one. Not only bigger but significantly bigger, as our maths
:18:10. > :18:10.
:18:10. > :18:20.boffin with tell you. This is what Royal Mail would call
:18:20. > :18:25.
:18:25. > :18:29.a small box, 45cms, by 35cms by 8cms. So its volume, 12,600 cubic
:18:29. > :18:39.centimeters, this is what Royal Mail would call a medium box, 17cms
:18:39. > :18:39.
:18:39. > :18:47.by 9cms by 9cms. But its volume, 1377 cubic centimeters. If you do
:18:47. > :18:51.the arithmetic, 12,600 divided by 1,377, it is a little bit bigger
:18:51. > :18:58.than 9. Provided the weight limits are OK, the small box will contain
:18:58. > :19:04.over nine-times as much material as this medium box. That's completely
:19:04. > :19:07.nuts. That is one way of putting it, wait until you see the next example
:19:07. > :19:14.of confusing Royal Mail rules. It is coming up with a whole set of
:19:14. > :19:20.guidelines for posting tubes. The result, it classes this flat-sided
:19:20. > :19:27.parcel as large and this tube down by my feet as medium. But look, I
:19:27. > :19:32.can fit the large into the medium. Do some rabbits come out? If you
:19:32. > :19:38.wanted to as well. What does our maths genius say about that. Let's
:19:38. > :19:41.ask him. Provided we can fit this cross section inside the circle we
:19:41. > :19:49.could insert this large parcel inside this medium tube. Let's
:19:49. > :19:57.suppose this is a square, so we draw it in here and then we use
:19:57. > :20:03.pieing that rus to say that if that is - pythagerous's theorem to say
:20:03. > :20:10.if this is 20cms and this is over 14cms, provided this large parcel
:20:10. > :20:16.is no bigger than 62x14x14, although it is a large parcel it
:20:16. > :20:23.fits inside a medium tube, so can be sent as a medium parcel.
:20:23. > :20:30.Fabulous, to be going to the Post Office we have to use pythagerous's
:20:30. > :20:34.theorem to send a parcel. We have a fabulous response from the Post
:20:34. > :20:38.Office who say they have been brought into line with European
:20:38. > :20:44.directives. They have to take in to account size which has a bearing on
:20:45. > :20:51.collection and delivery costs. They say when looking at the sizes they
:20:51. > :20:55.looked at customers and delivery items. That items classed as small
:20:55. > :21:02.fitted into the trolleys carrying on foot while bigger parcels needed
:21:02. > :21:05.a van delivery. I still don't know how a small parcel can cost more
:21:05. > :21:09.than a big one. Banks, we trust them to look after
:21:09. > :21:19.our money, but a report now on how easy that money is to go missing,
:21:19. > :21:20.
:21:20. > :21:26.and how hard it is to get it back. Life moves fast, but however much
:21:26. > :21:30.we hurry it is hard to keep up with technological change. Take banking,
:21:30. > :21:34.a transaction that used to take hours or even days can now be
:21:34. > :21:38.completed in seconds. Just key in a few numbers and your money is on
:21:38. > :21:43.the move. Personal banking they call it and
:21:43. > :21:48.not only is it quick and convenient for us, it is a cheaper way for the
:21:48. > :21:58.banks themselves to do business. But beware, make a mistake and you
:21:58. > :21:59.
:21:59. > :22:06.are very much on your own. And making a mistake is all too
:22:06. > :22:10.easy, as Amanda Miller discovered. She went on-line to transfer �533
:22:11. > :22:14.from her Nationwide account to her builder's Barclays account, six
:22:14. > :22:21.weeks later he called to say the money still hadn't arrived. That is
:22:21. > :22:24.when I discovered the sort code was incorrect by two digits, the last
:22:25. > :22:27.two digits were 00 when they should have been 42. I thought I will call
:22:27. > :22:31.the bank and explain what happened and they will pull the money back
:22:31. > :22:37.and then I will be able to pay the builder and of course it wasn't so
:22:37. > :22:41.straight forward. The transfer system relies on two things, the
:22:41. > :22:45.sort code and the account number. The sort code is the address of
:22:45. > :22:51.your bank, the first two digits represent the bank firm, such as
:22:51. > :22:55.Barclays, while the last four are the route to the actual branch.
:22:55. > :22:59.Amanda got two of the last set of numbers wrong meaning the money was
:22:59. > :23:04.sent to the different branch to that of her builder and to another
:23:04. > :23:08.account holder. An easy problem for Barclays to resolve? Apparently not.
:23:08. > :23:12.The bank repeatedly failed to respond to Amanda's letters asking
:23:12. > :23:16.for help and it was only when Sheehy vently phoned head office
:23:16. > :23:18.she was told they would look into it. But Barclays attempts to
:23:18. > :23:23.contact the customer who had the money all failed. But they agreed
:23:23. > :23:27.to pass on a letter from Amanda asking for the money back.
:23:27. > :23:31.received no reply and no reply to the second attempt to write to that
:23:31. > :23:34.customer appealing to them as an ordinary person, as a genuine human
:23:35. > :23:39.being to have my money returned to me. I have never heard anything
:23:39. > :23:44.from the customer or Barclays since. I have never had my money back.
:23:44. > :23:48.under current regulations that's where Barclays responsibility ends.
:23:48. > :23:52.They simply have to be seen to have done their best to retrieve the
:23:52. > :23:55.money so people like Amanda are left on their own. Why couldn't
:23:55. > :24:00.Barclays simply retrieve the money themselves? Answer, the law doesn't
:24:00. > :24:03.allow them to. Under current regulations banks have no legal
:24:03. > :24:09.right to take money out of someone's account without their
:24:09. > :24:14.permission. If someone's received your money by mistake and decides
:24:14. > :24:18.to keep it, your only real option is to go to the police. If you make
:24:18. > :24:23.a simple mistake when transfering money and your cash ends up in the
:24:23. > :24:27.wrong account it is up to you to get it back. Think you will never
:24:27. > :24:31.make such a mistake, think again. Because we're humans and not
:24:31. > :24:35.computers it really does happen quite a lot. Where as computer can
:24:35. > :24:40.be very consistent and always do the same thing over and again, as a
:24:40. > :24:47.human if we are likely to do things over again we are likely to make an
:24:47. > :24:51.error. Why do we make more mistakes with numbers rather than words?
:24:51. > :24:56.With letters you know the letter Q has to be followed by U, with
:24:56. > :25:01.numbers there is no rules, any digit can go after another one,
:25:01. > :25:05.there are infinite numbers of numbers. We can be fatigued,
:25:05. > :25:10.distracted and if we rush we will more likely to make an error.
:25:10. > :25:13.entire system is based on a system vulnerable to human error. Errors
:25:13. > :25:19.banks can make just as easily as their customers. Ask Ann Mitchell,
:25:19. > :25:23.she wanted to move the funds from her ISA, between Santander and Bank
:25:23. > :25:31.of Scotland. The two banks agreed to process the transaction for her.
:25:31. > :25:36.But during that process her money disappeared. All �5,398 of it. Why?
:25:36. > :25:39.Because someone at Santander typed in the wrong number. I phoned
:25:39. > :25:43.Santander, the person there, when I explained everything that had
:25:43. > :25:48.happened, he said it could be that someone has hit a wrong number. It
:25:48. > :25:52.has gone to a wrong account. And I will put a trace on it to see where
:25:52. > :25:57.the funds have gone. But the trace and Santander's customer service
:25:57. > :26:01.proved to be useless. Every time I phoned I was put on to different
:26:01. > :26:05.people. Nobody got back. Even when I did get a name sometimes I phoned
:26:05. > :26:10.and asked for that person and they weren't available. Or if I did
:26:10. > :26:14.speak to them they were still looking into the matter. After
:26:14. > :26:19.eight months Santander still had no idea where Ann's money had gone and
:26:19. > :26:23.finally refunded her, offering �305 compensation for the inconvenience.
:26:23. > :26:27.But it did little for her faith in the system. I just thought it was
:26:27. > :26:30.appalling. You know that Left Bank of time, if it has happened to me,
:26:30. > :26:37.goodness knows, if it has happened to anybody else.
:26:37. > :26:43.It doesn't give you confidence really. What's the answer, a are
:26:44. > :26:47.banks too reliant on numbers, could the system be changed to
:26:47. > :26:51.incorporate names and letters in account numbers. Such a change
:26:51. > :26:55.would cost. But the banks could easily and cheaply make it clearer
:26:55. > :26:59.to customers the need to get it right. Being a bit more sympathetic
:26:59. > :27:09.when things go wrong would be welcome too. Whether the mistake
:27:09. > :27:09.
:27:09. > :27:14.has been made by the customer or the bank itself.
:27:14. > :27:18.We have since spoke to Barclays about Amanda's case, they said she
:27:18. > :27:22.made three requests to transfer fufrpbds to them but an incorrect
:27:22. > :27:26.sort code was given in each case. They wrote a letter to the person
:27:26. > :27:30.given the funds but they were unresponsive. Santander say they
:27:30. > :27:36.are sorry about the handling of Ann Mitchell's transaction, they played
:27:36. > :27:41.an error and should have reimbursed her immediately and found out what
:27:42. > :27:50.happened, they agreed �300 compensation and gave her back the
:27:50. > :27:55.funds plus interest. Piz Buin, a suncream brand owned by
:27:55. > :27:59.Johnson & Johnson. It promised six hours protection. But you may need
:27:59. > :28:03.protection from the lotion itself. The exodus is about to start,
:28:03. > :28:08.millions of us will head for the sun and the beaches. Warnings about
:28:08. > :28:11.skin damage have made us more cautious about sitting in the
:28:11. > :28:15.baking heat for hours on end, as well as choosey about the
:28:15. > :28:18.protection we use. Especially if like me your skin is sensitive and
:28:18. > :28:23.you tend to go red rather than brown. For us, having faith in a
:28:23. > :28:26.brand is particularly important. But we have been receiving some
:28:26. > :28:31.worrying reports from people who have used a product from one of the
:28:31. > :28:39.best known brands on the market. According to them Piz Buin's one-
:28:39. > :28:43.day long suncream gave them serious skin problems. Ginine used it for
:28:43. > :28:47.the first time in 2011, the result an allergic reaction that took two
:28:48. > :28:53.months to calm down. It was a hot day, obviously I put the suncream
:28:53. > :28:58.on. I went to bed that night and woke up covered in a rash.
:28:58. > :29:03.Basically it was like really bad sunburn, so, so hot and itchy, it
:29:03. > :29:09.was like spiders crawling over you constantly. It was just bright red.
:29:09. > :29:15.Tiny lumps, nearly like fluid- filled lumps. Really horrible to
:29:15. > :29:21.look at. You can see that it is actually like boils, it is burning.
:29:21. > :29:27.It is like flueld-filled. Jeanine's doctor was unable to diagnose the
:29:27. > :29:30.cause of the rash and prescribeed a steroid cream. As no connection was
:29:30. > :29:35.made with the lotion she went on to use it again. I put it on my arms
:29:35. > :29:39.and chest, went to bed that night and woke up once again with a rash.
:29:39. > :29:45.But this time it was only on my arms and chest, I knew immediately
:29:45. > :29:50.it was the suncream. The rash was just agony, it was. At night I had
:29:50. > :29:56.to put ice packs on my skin and I had a fan constantly going as well.
:29:56. > :30:02.Just to keep cool. Her rash was so severe she had to have time off
:30:02. > :30:06.work to recover. Meanwhile others claim to have had similar reactions.
:30:06. > :30:12.Blotches, rashes and blisters, that all formed after applying Piz
:30:12. > :30:17.Buin's one-day long cream. But this is made by one of the country's
:30:17. > :30:23.biggest manufacturers of suncream. And this bottle cost us �9.99.
:30:23. > :30:29.Could it really be the problem? I came to you with a reaction like
:30:29. > :30:32.this and told you that I just applied a new lotion, what would
:30:32. > :30:38.you diagnose? I would be suspicious of an allergic contact determine
:30:38. > :30:44.tight tis with the clear history of exposure and -- determine Titus,
:30:44. > :30:49.and a clear history and reaction of that. It is when our skin comes
:30:49. > :30:52.into contact with an allergen. kind of things cause reactions like
:30:52. > :30:57.this? When you think of the number of things we apply to our skin and
:30:57. > :31:01.think of all the different things in those creams, be those
:31:01. > :31:04.moisturisers or preservatives, any of those can actually cause an
:31:04. > :31:09.allergic reaction. So if these problems are being caused by this
:31:09. > :31:13.Piz Buin product, it must be because of one or more of the
:31:13. > :31:18.ingredients listed here on the side of the packet. But which ones,
:31:18. > :31:24.after a series of clinical tests, one team of researchers think they
:31:24. > :31:30.may have identified a cause. We saw a series of patients who developed
:31:30. > :31:34.quite widespread allergic reactions, red, itchy rashes, over the exposed
:31:34. > :31:38.areas where they had used sunscreens and obviously normally
:31:38. > :31:48.when they were away on holiday. And we found that it was caused by a
:31:48. > :31:49.
:31:49. > :31:54.particular chemical with a rather long time called C30-
:31:54. > :31:56.38olefin/IsopropelM8. Over the last few years we published a series of
:31:56. > :32:01.reports over contact of this chemical and said urgent
:32:01. > :32:04.investigation should be taken to investigate the safety of this
:32:04. > :32:08.chemical. Other sun screams use this chemical, and the parent
:32:08. > :32:12.company put it in other products as well. Although the results were
:32:12. > :32:17.published more than two years ago they don't apeefr to have taken any
:32:18. > :32:23.action. Despite the reports of extreme reactions, the product's
:32:23. > :32:27.formula is the same since 2010. Since then another ingredient, MI,
:32:27. > :32:33.has also been identified as a possible cause of the reactions.
:32:33. > :32:39.many people are now allergic to MI in Europe that action now, today,
:32:39. > :32:44.is required to reduce the burden of that allergy to this particular
:32:44. > :32:48.preservative is causing. MI is widely used in the cosmetics
:32:49. > :32:52.industry, it is easy to see why experts are calling for its use to
:32:52. > :32:58.be reassessed. One in ten of the patients he tests are alrpblgic to
:32:58. > :33:07.it. When they display reactions as extreme this, shouldn't the
:33:07. > :33:12.manufacturers take such calls seriously? Johnson & Johnson say
:33:12. > :33:15.the lotion is safe and effective, containing only permitted
:33:15. > :33:19.ingredients according to legal requirements. They say the majority
:33:19. > :33:23.of people using it are satisfied with their experience. But they
:33:23. > :33:30.have received a small number of complaints about skin irritation
:33:30. > :33:35.and rashes. They say this equates to 0.1 of sales. But they
:33:35. > :33:38.sympathise with those experiencing skin reactions and say customers
:33:38. > :33:41.with complaints should contact the company directly, and all
:33:41. > :33:46.complaints will be followed up and investigated. Just to clarify
:33:46. > :33:51.something about the film on DIY stores, the Milano range of
:33:51. > :33:55.kitchens is sold by HomeBase not B & Q as we wrongly said in one line
:33:55. > :34:00.of the film. Good to yourself but not so good
:34:00. > :34:04.for your waistline, the healthy chicken from Sainsbury's with the
:34:04. > :34:09.more calories than normal versions. We have given awe potted reminder
:34:09. > :34:13.of how we exposed Keith Matthews the TV repair man who invented jobs
:34:13. > :34:16.and ripped off the elderly. So far, so rogue traders. But despite being
:34:16. > :34:20.named and shamed on national TV Matthews continued to operate in
:34:20. > :34:26.the way he always had. And as career moves go, that turned out to
:34:26. > :34:30.be a pretty bad one. Guess where these pigeons are from?
:34:30. > :34:37.Leicester, that's right, birth place of David Attenborough, Gary
:34:37. > :34:42.Lineker and David Ike, none of whom who could be described as rogueish.
:34:42. > :34:45.Unlike Keith Matthews, when he fled our stoodge house we hoped he
:34:45. > :34:49.learned his lesson. But the complaints about him have just kept
:34:49. > :34:53.coming, not just to us but also the authorities.
:34:53. > :34:56.Faceded with a growing list of accusations, the people at
:34:56. > :34:59.Leicestershire Trading Standards realised they would have to take
:34:59. > :35:06.action and fast. But if they were going to prosecute they would need
:35:06. > :35:09.to catch Keith Matthews in the act like we did back in 2009. Did they
:35:09. > :35:14.do it. I'm going to stride purposefully in this building and
:35:14. > :35:18.meet someone who will tell me. That someone is this lady, Caroline
:35:18. > :35:23.North, senior Trading Standards officer at Leicestershire council.
:35:23. > :35:27.What happened as a consequence of your programme was Keith carried on
:35:27. > :35:30.trading but he was using a range of company names and was harder to
:35:30. > :35:33.track down. Where we were getting complaints we couldn't prove for
:35:33. > :35:38.certain it was Keith Matthews behind the job. We knew it, we just
:35:38. > :35:41.couldn't prove it. The best way to get the proof is secret cameras.
:35:41. > :35:45.knew there was only one way to catch him and that was to catch him
:35:45. > :35:49.in the act in a property we set up ourselves. Here is the result. They
:35:49. > :35:53.hired an actress who called Matthews out to fix an aerial with
:35:53. > :35:57.a simple fault, here he is. What's interesting is he has the
:35:57. > :36:01.glasses on, all the time he's keeping his back to her. Keith
:36:01. > :36:10.really doesn't want to be seen. you think he was conscious of being
:36:10. > :36:13.the man off the tele? Possibly. -- telly. Possibly, he was using false
:36:13. > :36:18.addresses and false names, and going into the property minimally.
:36:18. > :36:22.I think that had an impact. Keith was evasive until it came to the
:36:22. > :36:25.cash. He charged Trading Standards �115 for entirely unnecessary work.
:36:26. > :36:28.Whilst this would be bad news for usual customer, it was great news
:36:28. > :36:33.for Caroline t gave her enough evidence for a search warrant on
:36:33. > :36:37.his property. We did manage to recover from under the fridge his
:36:37. > :36:47.bank books, through that we were able to then trace further victims
:36:47. > :36:47.
:36:47. > :36:51.of his crimes. One of those victims was Glenn Spinks 89-year-old father.
:36:52. > :36:57.My father paid Keith Matthews around about �5,000, around about
:36:57. > :37:01.20 cheques in a seven-week period from July 2011. The cheques were
:37:01. > :37:06.mainly for a digital aerial, a TV, some apparent work on the roof that
:37:06. > :37:11.didn't get done and some odd jobs around the house. That is nearly
:37:11. > :37:15.�5,000 for work Trading Standards confirmed was shoddy and worth just
:37:15. > :37:20.�490. I feel conned myself, I feel very angry about what's happened,
:37:20. > :37:25.the fact that he's been doing it for a number of years and continues
:37:25. > :37:31.to do it, or has continued to do. The fact that he preys on elderly
:37:31. > :37:34.people and vulnerable people is pretty despicable. Trading
:37:34. > :37:42.Standards investigations also revealed that Keith Matthews was
:37:42. > :37:46.passing himself off as a reputable local aerial installer called Barry
:37:46. > :37:51.Bainbridge. I had a call from a company saying they had come across
:37:51. > :37:56.a receipt with my name on it, when they looked into it, it was Keith
:37:56. > :38:00.Matthews who had done the job. was usinging Barry's details on his
:38:00. > :38:04.fake invoices. When I realised he was using my name on the paperwork,
:38:04. > :38:06.my heart sank. Bad recommendations gets about. It seems to go very
:38:06. > :38:10.fast. I could have lost the business, lost the house. Did you
:38:10. > :38:13.get a sense of the scale of what he was doing in Leicestershire?
:38:13. > :38:17.think so. I think we have been able to show quite a few victims that
:38:17. > :38:23.have been paying out for work for him. I'm sure there is more out
:38:23. > :38:28.there, and I'm sure there is a lot we don't know about b but I am tern
:38:28. > :38:32.there will be more victims inless - - I am certain there will be more
:38:32. > :38:37.victims who have paid money they didn't have to. Trading Standards
:38:37. > :38:40.launched a case against Keith Matthews and he was guilty of 20
:38:40. > :38:44.offences, he's due to be sentenced on Friday.
:38:44. > :38:49.But the story doesn't end there, because Keith Matthews failed to
:38:49. > :38:54.attend his own trial, he jumped bail and apparently his clothes and
:38:54. > :39:03.his passport have now gone. So he could be anywhere? Message for you
:39:04. > :39:08.Keith, if you are out there, stop it! It is getting really dull! But
:39:08. > :39:13.life is about to become much more interesting for another rogue
:39:13. > :39:19.revisited. The man who made me wet and smelly makes his return to your
:39:19. > :39:24.telly in about ten minutes. Can't wait. Next council parking fines,
:39:24. > :39:27.in May we reported how one driver had his fine quashed by an
:39:27. > :39:33.independent adjudicator, after he received a ticket for parking on
:39:34. > :39:38.this street in Aylesbury. The reason? Inadequate signing.
:39:38. > :39:42.Buckinghamshire County Council, which initially rejected his appeal,
:39:42. > :39:45.later admitted a sign was missing and would be soon replaced. While
:39:45. > :39:50.it remained missing the council was still ticketing drivers for parking
:39:50. > :39:53.in the same place. As we found out when one of our researchers left
:39:53. > :39:56.her car there. It took 11 minutes to get a ticket. We assumed in the
:39:56. > :40:01.light of the independent adjudication the council wouldn't
:40:01. > :40:04.pursue her for payment. But it did. It later demanded �70 then rejected
:40:04. > :40:10.her appeal. Last week when we told the council she was working for us,
:40:10. > :40:13.it still insisted it was in the right. How can it be, the
:40:13. > :40:17.independent adjudicator said the road was inadequately signed?
:40:17. > :40:20.did and it still is. But the council says his ruling has no
:40:20. > :40:25.bearing on subsequent cases and adds that regardless of the missing
:40:25. > :40:31.sign, we were fined for parking on double yellow lines. Those ones,
:40:31. > :40:34.right there. Those ones that are so faded you can hardly see them?
:40:34. > :40:37.that's right. But Buckinghamshire County Council says the law doesn't
:40:37. > :40:44.require lines to be in perfect condition all the time and it can't
:40:45. > :40:50.be expected to repaint them at regular intervals. Unbelievable.
:40:50. > :40:54.You may think that, you may think that, but does a lawyer think that.
:40:54. > :40:57.The faded nature of yellow lines would be one I would recommend
:40:57. > :41:02.appealing. The local authority have got a questionable case because the
:41:02. > :41:05.lines are not clear. What is surprising is, it is not surprising,
:41:05. > :41:09.they haven't gone back after hearing the criticism of the appeal
:41:09. > :41:13.adjudicator, and done anything to improve the signage, to improve the
:41:13. > :41:17.double yellow lines. It does looks a though the other side of the road
:41:17. > :41:22.has recently been painted, where is the sense in not ensuring faded
:41:22. > :41:25.lines are improved. It doesn't make sense to me. Transport for