:00:00. > :00:07.Tonight - we've caught one of Britain's best known
:00:08. > :00:10.companies promising a service it can't deliver.
:00:11. > :00:14.Whether it's big names, false claims, or fraudsters
:00:15. > :00:16.after your money - this is Watchdog:
:00:17. > :00:44.Hello, welcome back to Watchdog - live from our studio in Salford.
:00:45. > :00:47.And what a stir we caused with the stories that kicked off
:00:48. > :00:54.Yeah, we went global with headlines hitting Malibu to Milton Keynes -
:00:55. > :00:57.and thousands of you have been in touch since.
:00:58. > :01:06.We'll have the latest on some of those stories.
:01:07. > :01:09.And we've plenty more to get you fired up about tonight.
:01:10. > :01:11.Apprentice legend, Nick Hewer has been asking if the big banks
:01:12. > :01:13.are there for you when you get scammed.
:01:14. > :01:16.As one couple did to the tune of ?8,000, and it's something
:01:17. > :01:21.we could all fall for, but it seems some banks
:01:22. > :01:28.The way Santander treated us was worse than the fall. I was in tears
:01:29. > :01:29.on the phone because I just wanted someone to help us.
:01:30. > :01:32.Plus I'll be chasing down more rogue traders -
:01:33. > :01:39.this week going after an emergency plumbing business who bring
:01:40. > :01:41.their own emergency, charging like a wounded rhino.
:01:42. > :01:50.And Nikki and our swab mob team have been at it again.
:01:51. > :01:55.No, really if you're in a hotel you really might not
:01:56. > :01:59.We found serious failings in the way some of our major hotel chains
:02:00. > :02:08.It's a bacteria we really don't want to be coming across. We certainly
:02:09. > :02:10.don't want to be finding it in bathrooms, where guests are staying.
:02:11. > :02:13.As usual, the team behind me would love to hear what you've got
:02:14. > :02:17.So you can email us - at watchdog@bbc.co.uk.
:02:18. > :02:25.But first tonight, a subject we know lots of you feel
:02:26. > :02:31.Broadband speeds that aren't what you were promised.
:02:32. > :02:33.We know there's millions of you out there frustrated
:02:34. > :02:45.Hello everyone. Hello! That was loud.
:02:46. > :02:48.And a good few of you are upset with one company in particular...
:02:49. > :02:52.Steph is going to be talking to the CEO here in a few minutes.
:02:53. > :02:55.But he'll need to explain why the speeds his company delivers can
:02:56. > :03:08.Superb speeds, ultrafast, speeds that start where rivals finish. It's
:03:09. > :03:14.the key message Virgin Media likes to ram home about its broadband.
:03:15. > :03:19.This is what it feels like to be the fastest.
:03:20. > :03:26.And it was the promise of high speeds that convinced Mike from
:03:27. > :03:33.Barnsley to sign up to Virgin's full house bundle, or which for ?55 a
:03:34. > :03:36.month combined cable TV, phone and broadband, but Mike says he rarely
:03:37. > :03:42.had the speed he was promised. The service was never what Virgin said
:03:43. > :03:47.it was going to be. And he was given a particular reason for why that
:03:48. > :03:51.might be. Virgin sent out an engineer who said we have high
:03:52. > :03:56.utilisation issues in this area. He said the speeds will pick up and the
:03:57. > :04:01.high utilisation problem will get sorted out, but to this day, it's
:04:02. > :04:05.never happened. Plenty of other Virgin customers who have contacted
:04:06. > :04:10.us have had their problems blamed on high utilisation as well. I was told
:04:11. > :04:18.utilisation was the issue. The term they used was utilisation structural
:04:19. > :04:23.utilisation. But what do all these excuses really mean? In effect,
:04:24. > :04:27.Virgin seems to be admitting it signed up to many customers in some
:04:28. > :04:30.areas. All of this putting pressure on the fibre network, slowing down
:04:31. > :04:34.speeds for those sharing that cable. I have come to Manchester to meet a
:04:35. > :04:41.family who are really having a nightmare with this.
:04:42. > :04:44.Win and rocky signed up to a 200 megabits a second package after
:04:45. > :04:48.being assured they received the top speeds advertised, but for months
:04:49. > :04:52.they have also been struggling with speeds that at times can be 90%
:04:53. > :04:56.slower, which is particularly annoying for the couple's son, who
:04:57. > :05:04.has Crohn's disease. What are we playing? Rocket league. You like to
:05:05. > :05:10.use the Internet quite a lot? Just. What you doing on it, apart playing
:05:11. > :05:16.games? I go on like social media apps and talk to my friends, yeah,
:05:17. > :05:19.stuff like that. That's really important to you? Yes. You don't get
:05:20. > :05:25.to go out that much because you don't feel well. Are you going to
:05:26. > :05:30.get it working? It's not connecting. It's not connecting, is that normal?
:05:31. > :05:34.Yes. That's annoying, I was well up for a game of that.
:05:35. > :05:38.However cheesed off he might be, it's nothing compare to his mum and
:05:39. > :05:44.dad, the ones footing the bill. What have you done about it?
:05:45. > :05:47.From about January onwards, since signing the contract, I've been
:05:48. > :05:51.nonstop on the phone. It's been horrendous. You were told the
:05:52. > :05:55.problem was over utilisation? Yes, I was told by one of the engineers
:05:56. > :06:00.when he came out to change the box. Have you been offered a fixed date?
:06:01. > :06:05.We have, first it was the 31st of August, then they changed it to
:06:06. > :06:10.November the 22nd. What ideally, for you, would you want to see happen? I
:06:11. > :06:14.just want it to be better. I want the kids to be happy, that they can
:06:15. > :06:16.go on their gadgets whenever they want.
:06:17. > :06:21.Five minutes up the road, it's a similar story at the home of Steven
:06:22. > :06:27.Sofia, where slower than expected broadband has been a real problem,
:06:28. > :06:31.because both Steven and teenage son Adam are avid gamers, and Sofia is
:06:32. > :06:35.currently studying for a university degree.
:06:36. > :06:39.We use to get a really reliable service, but about a year ago it
:06:40. > :06:44.started to fall apart. We started to get really significant slowdown
:06:45. > :06:48.after 6pm. I'm studying, so I need to be online, and I needed be
:06:49. > :06:52.uninterrupted. After getting speeds of just 5
:06:53. > :06:56.megabits per second at times, they decided to end their Virgin Media
:06:57. > :07:01.contract, but not before curiosity got the better of them, and Steven
:07:02. > :07:06.hatched a plan to see if the company might still be making promises he
:07:07. > :07:09.knew it couldn't keep. I took it myself to go into the
:07:10. > :07:14.store in Manchester and pretend to be moving into the area, pretended
:07:15. > :07:19.to be buying this house. Did you wear a hat a moustache? I wanted to!
:07:20. > :07:25.Did you? LAUGHTER You saw it might make you stand out.
:07:26. > :07:29.The trench coat was a bit too and believable. I went in pretending to
:07:30. > :07:33.be moving into the area, asked them what the maximum speed was but I
:07:34. > :07:37.could get in this area. They said they are now offering 300 megabytes
:07:38. > :07:40.to some customers. They said there might be some slowdown around
:07:41. > :07:43.tea-time but other than that, they said they don't have to offer a
:07:44. > :07:48.minimum speed guarantee because it doesn't slow down. You said that's
:07:49. > :07:53.brilliant, but inside what were you saying to yourself? You dirty liars!
:07:54. > :07:59.Basically. I knew that wasn't the case. So was this just a one-off
:08:00. > :08:03.mistake, or could Virgin Media be routinely promising new customers
:08:04. > :08:10.speeds it knows it can't deliver? To find out, we went undercover.
:08:11. > :08:14.First, we picked houses in areas where Virgin Media has admitted to
:08:15. > :08:18.customers that there is a problem with high utilisation. Over the
:08:19. > :08:23.course of the week we measured the exact speed each of those addresses
:08:24. > :08:29.was getting on one of the company's fastest packages. Then, posing as
:08:30. > :08:33.new customers, we meet ten visits and phone calls to Virgin, to see if
:08:34. > :08:39.the company's promises matched up to the actual speeds we'd So what speed
:08:40. > :08:43.would we get about property? Virgin Media is signed up to offer
:08:44. > :08:48.an's broadband code of practice, which means it agrees to provide
:08:49. > :08:53.customers with realistic speeds that are as accurate as possible for
:08:54. > :08:58.their address. But, that's not what we got.
:08:59. > :09:00.First, we gave an address in a high utilisation area in Stevenage, and
:09:01. > :09:20.here's the speed they said we could expect.
:09:21. > :09:27.Well, he couldn't have been clearer. No lower than 140 megabits per
:09:28. > :09:32.second, but our tests at that address showed speed as low as 5
:09:33. > :09:37.megabits a second at peak hours. Not a great start. And things were
:09:38. > :09:39.no better at the next store. We gave an address in Merseyside, where
:09:40. > :10:06.great things were promised. Really? We didn't even get close to
:10:07. > :10:11.that 150 he was promising, and we've been measuring speeds they're all
:10:12. > :10:15.week, which even went as low as 10 megabits per second. We went to
:10:16. > :10:20.three other stores, and none of them gave us realistic speeds either. And
:10:21. > :10:25.when we asked their call centres, we heard more of the same claims, even
:10:26. > :10:29.when Virgin's Brett said they couldn't provide exact data for our
:10:30. > :10:33.address, they were still happy to give estimates that were completely
:10:34. > :10:35.unrealistic. Take this call, where we posed as a customer in a
:10:36. > :10:49.high-capacity part of Luton. In reality, our tests found speeds
:10:50. > :10:54.as low as just 6 megabits per second that this house, not the 160
:10:55. > :10:59.claimed. So, in the ten visits and phone calls we made to Virgin, while
:11:00. > :11:04.we were usually told things might slowdown at peak times, not once
:11:05. > :11:09.were we given anything close to a realistic speed for the areas we
:11:10. > :11:14.were calling about. And that's especially surprising as Virgin
:11:15. > :11:18.Media's CEO Tom Mockridge very publicly stated the industry needs
:11:19. > :11:21.to clean up its act when it comes to advertising speeds, saying that
:11:22. > :11:26.consumers should know what they are paying for.
:11:27. > :11:27.So, Tom Mockridge, over to you, why is your company offering speeds it
:11:28. > :11:37.knows it can't deliver? Let's find out, with us is Virgin's
:11:38. > :11:39.chief executive, Tom Mockridge. Thank you for joining us. We saw
:11:40. > :11:43.more clearly transparency is something that is important to you,
:11:44. > :11:48.but your sales agents haven't been transparent. Why are they promising
:11:49. > :11:51.speeds you can't deliver? First of all, good evening staff, thank you
:11:52. > :11:56.for having me here. I think there were some very good points raised in
:11:57. > :12:02.that video, and I acknowledge the issues. Basically, we're suffering
:12:03. > :12:05.from growing pains. The network is growing exponentially with more and
:12:06. > :12:09.more people using Internet. We are growing number of customers we have
:12:10. > :12:15.and investing 3 billion to expand the network, to compete with BT. In
:12:16. > :12:18.combination, means in some areas we have fallen short of what we should
:12:19. > :12:21.have done. I think you have drawn attention to that very well. We have
:12:22. > :12:25.gone back into those areas and each of the hub sites you brought
:12:26. > :12:28.particular attention to in that video, we have gone and made
:12:29. > :12:32.improvements so they do deliver the speed. You admit you have some
:12:33. > :12:35.problems in some areas. Why are you still signing up new customers in
:12:36. > :12:42.these areas and telling them, promising them, they will get speeds
:12:43. > :12:45.you can't deliver Marcelo that's a good point and frankly we shouldn't.
:12:46. > :12:48.We do have a process, that if the speed is and what it should be, we
:12:49. > :12:53.take those residences or geographies out of the sales process. It wasn't
:12:54. > :12:57.tight enough, it existed but it wasn't tight enough. We have
:12:58. > :13:02.tightened it up so that problem doesn't rear car. Equally, I have
:13:03. > :13:05.written to all of our salespeople to remind them of their obligation to
:13:06. > :13:09.make it clear to customers the points you made there, that peak
:13:10. > :13:14.time capacity might not always be exactly what was promised, and
:13:15. > :13:17.equally that we have tightened up to make sure we can't sell to those
:13:18. > :13:21.areas where we do need to invest more. You are clearly making
:13:22. > :13:25.changes, which I'm sure lots of customers will be relieved to hear
:13:26. > :13:28.about. Can you ever guarantee they will get the speeds? What we are
:13:29. > :13:35.hearing is very specific promises being made, and they are lying,
:13:36. > :13:39.aren't they, the sales agents? Some have been overly exuberant, that's
:13:40. > :13:45.why I have taken action to write to them all. But we can't guarantee.
:13:46. > :13:50.The network usage is growing... You can't guarantee that your promising
:13:51. > :13:54.people? We don't guarantee, we do stay up to, you pointed out yourself
:13:55. > :13:59.that we made clear that at peak time when everyone is on the Internet,
:14:00. > :14:02.people are downloading video, great programmes at this, this does put a
:14:03. > :14:07.lot of pressure on the network. We are investing more than any other
:14:08. > :14:11.company in the UK. We are investing without subsidy, 3 billion in our
:14:12. > :14:15.project, likely to extend the network. If you are investing, you
:14:16. > :14:19.are saying you can't guarantee, can't ever guarantee a speed, can
:14:20. > :14:22.people leave a contract without penalty if you cannot give them the
:14:23. > :14:33.speed they should be getting? What we do with our customers or the time
:14:34. > :14:35.in any given week we have 100,000 customers... Yes or no, can they
:14:36. > :14:38.leave their contract? We deal with each case on its own merit. On its
:14:39. > :14:43.own -- yes or no? Sometimes people leave the route on the side... Some
:14:44. > :14:47.will be able to leave? Sometimes people leave, of course they leave
:14:48. > :14:52.Virgin Media. Without penalty? We discuss it with each customer on its
:14:53. > :14:52.merits, but we treat people absolutely fairly. Tom Mockridge,
:14:53. > :15:01.thank you for your time. Well, Wayne and Rocky,
:15:02. > :15:04.who we saw in the film, is with us. You must be thrilled to be
:15:05. > :15:10.getting a better service? Well done for getting in touch! Glad
:15:11. > :15:11.we can help. One problem sorted. Still plenty contacting us with
:15:12. > :15:14.problems. So Andrew Ferguson from consumer
:15:15. > :15:16.website Think Broadband We'll start you off with one
:15:17. > :15:28.from Dispesh over here. Tell us about the problem. So I got
:15:29. > :15:31.promised between 100 and 150 meg. I got speeds of five and ten at most
:15:32. > :15:36.and it was difficult to load a Google page. Basic stuff, you are
:15:37. > :15:42.not able to do. Andrew, what can he do, is he legally entitled to leave
:15:43. > :15:45.his contract? Given the big gap in speed, speeds from 150 down to ten,
:15:46. > :15:50.it's a massive gap. Yeah, clearly, there is a good reason and it should
:15:51. > :15:54.be very much the case as the CEO said, we will deal with cases. It's
:15:55. > :15:56.all individual, until you chase up with the company, and tell them to
:15:57. > :16:00.escalate your complaint they won't do anything. Do the checks and the
:16:01. > :16:04.speed tests, get the information. We have a lot more questions coming in.
:16:05. > :16:11.You are here for us tonight on Facebook live. You go to our
:16:12. > :16:17.Facebook website to tackle your broadband queries. It's on Facebook
:16:18. > :16:21.now. Ready for Rouge Traders? Yes! Thank goodness we got the right
:16:22. > :16:25.answer there. A business claims to be there for you in an emergency,
:16:26. > :16:41.but it is waiting to turn your emergency into a financial crisis.
:16:42. > :16:46.Leicester has been home so some terrific success stories in recent
:16:47. > :16:52.times. Obviously, there is the football. Let's not forget they also
:16:53. > :16:57.found a King under a car park. In fact, it was in this very car park
:16:58. > :17:02.that King Richard III's body was discovered buried under the ground.
:17:03. > :17:06.It took some heavy digging by the team involved to establish, not only
:17:07. > :17:09.that he was who they thought he was, but, crucially, that he was the man
:17:10. > :17:13.in charge. Which brings me neatly to
:17:14. > :17:18.Leicester-based plumbing company Faster Response.
:17:19. > :17:22.Because they've been causing a few Winters of discontent of their own.
:17:23. > :17:25.And we have had to do serious digging as tracking down the men
:17:26. > :17:29.behind the operation has been no mean feat. Billing themselves as an
:17:30. > :17:33.emergency callout plumbing service, they've been laying waste to the
:17:34. > :17:45.bank accounts of elderly customers across the Midlands for a little
:17:46. > :17:48.while now. The company was originally called Crimson
:17:49. > :17:52.Maintenance. Then in 2016, the company changed its name to Faster
:17:53. > :17:56.Response. And we kept getting complaints about them. As did
:17:57. > :18:05.trading standards. So they told them to... Stop it! And in January,
:18:06. > :18:12.Russell and Liam signed an agreement promising to change their bad ways.
:18:13. > :18:18.Well done boys. Then, in what appears to be a coins dental turn of
:18:19. > :18:23.events they resigned as directors of Faster Response the next month,
:18:24. > :18:26.February. But here's the thing, the complaints about Faster Response
:18:27. > :18:32.kept coming and they followed a similar pattern. Overcharging for
:18:33. > :18:41.crazy simple stuff, and shoddy workmanship. When Russell and Liam
:18:42. > :18:48.resigned their directorships, they handed over to these guys.
:18:49. > :18:52.We don't have photos of these two because they're quite tricky to pin
:18:53. > :18:58.down. The company itself seems a bit shy, even in its adverts. In the
:18:59. > :19:01.Yellow Pages, for instance, the name is nowhere to be seen, almost as if
:19:02. > :19:05.they don't want people to know who they're calling out.
:19:06. > :19:10.Eleanor didn't know which plumber she had rung after discovering a
:19:11. > :19:13.serious leak in her water tank late one night in March. She had gone
:19:14. > :19:17.straight to the Yellow Pages and called the number on a prominent
:19:18. > :19:27.advert that seemed to be just what she needed. It hadn't got a name but
:19:28. > :19:31.it was marked as a 24-hour emergency callout. Without knowing it, Eleanor
:19:32. > :19:39.had called Faster Response. Two hours later a plumber arrived. He
:19:40. > :19:43.told me there was a part of the ballcock that had deteriorated and
:19:44. > :19:47.there was a leak in a pipe. The plumber told Eleanor he wouldn't be
:19:48. > :19:52.able to complete the job that night as he needed parts but before he
:19:53. > :19:59.left he called the office who demanded payment upfront. I couldn't
:20:00. > :20:06.believe it. ?512. That was if you paid in cash. The other option was
:20:07. > :20:12.to pay by card. If you did that, you had to pay VAT on top. So they gave
:20:13. > :20:19.you an option to pay effectively VAT-free for cash. Yes. But more
:20:20. > :20:25.expensive with a card? Yes. Wow. Eleanor paid by card, bringing the
:20:26. > :20:28.price up to ?614. The next evening the plumber returned and fitted the
:20:29. > :20:34.new parts, the whole job had taken less than two hours, but before he
:20:35. > :20:40.left he asked for a further payment to cover the return visit. For the
:20:41. > :20:45.second night I was charged another ?375 on top of the ?614 I had just
:20:46. > :20:51.paid. Hold on, that's nearly ?1,000. It is. Under two hours' work. And
:20:52. > :20:57.the only parts that had been fitted are minimal. Yes. That's ridiculous.
:20:58. > :21:02.I nearly dropped when they told me the price. The next day, worried
:21:03. > :21:06.about what she had been charged, Eleanor called another plumber to
:21:07. > :21:10.come and inspect the work. They said that Faster Response had replaced
:21:11. > :21:16.one part unnecessarily, the work had been done badly and should have cost
:21:17. > :21:21.no more than ?200. I regret that I called them. They're very dishonest
:21:22. > :21:25.in my opinion. It seems like this would be the right time to check out
:21:26. > :21:31.the company's work ourselves. We have a house, we have an actress.
:21:32. > :21:37.And we have got an expert. Mike Griffin. Our knight in steel toe
:21:38. > :21:40.caps who will damage our toilet handle. Most plumbers will charge a
:21:41. > :21:46.minimum charge plus the cost of materials. You can buy a handle and
:21:47. > :21:50.set for ?10 or less and fix it inside of 20, 30 minutes. This is
:21:51. > :21:55.the sort of basic job that someone who has come out of plumbing college
:21:56. > :22:01.will be able to tackle easily. We called the number for Faster
:22:02. > :22:08.Response to a job that should cost around ?60 to ?10000 to fix. Hello,
:22:09. > :22:11.the toilet -- ?100. Once again they seem to be avoiding using the name
:22:12. > :22:15.Faster Response and give no clue about what they might be charging
:22:16. > :22:19.but here we are, plumber Zach is in the house wearing a shirt that says
:22:20. > :22:24.Faster Response. He is part of the plumbing team that's brought misery
:22:25. > :22:31.to the Midlands. Will he be causing a headache in our home? We will be
:22:32. > :22:33.seeing Zach do his thing possibly illegally in a few minutes. And that
:22:34. > :22:38.price, not very nice. Let's catch up on a couple
:22:39. > :22:47.of our stories from last week. Loads of messages and people talking
:22:48. > :22:51.about smart metres and problems installed. So many messages, thank
:22:52. > :22:55.you so much. We heard of a similar experience to ones we saw in our
:22:56. > :22:58.report about smart metres. Matt Taylor says he had a smart
:22:59. > :23:01.meter installed and the electrics Karen Stott's 89-year-old mum
:23:02. > :23:05.in law had a gas leak And Darren Butland says his
:23:06. > :23:09.mum was left with gas Well, the Government department
:23:10. > :23:14.responsible has told us that: "Ensuring the safe roll out of smart
:23:15. > :23:17.meters is the number one priority of the programme and safety
:23:18. > :23:19.is continuously reviewed". But keep your comments
:23:20. > :23:21.on that story coming. Lots of you told us you're not
:23:22. > :23:37.convinced the company has changed the way it
:23:38. > :23:39.allocates its seats. Splitting people up unless they've
:23:40. > :23:41.paid for reserved seats. Martyn Jackson says his group of 12
:23:42. > :23:44.were all allocated a middle seat on a different row,
:23:45. > :23:46.despite there being plenty He calls it,
:23:47. > :23:49."Absolutely disgusting". On the show last week Ryanair's Head
:23:50. > :23:59.of Marketing insisted there's I would say it is random, that's
:24:00. > :24:04.what we call it, it's random allocated seating.
:24:05. > :24:05.People on social media weren't convinced.
:24:06. > :24:16.And Ryanair's been pretty active on Twitter about this too.
:24:17. > :24:21.It says when free seats open it keeps the window and aisle seats
:24:22. > :24:26.back for passengers who pay to reserve them. I called them to ask.
:24:27. > :24:30.You are saying that you hold the window and aisle seat and you are
:24:31. > :24:34.likely to end up in a middle seat. To be separated. It means it's not
:24:35. > :24:38.random, doesn't it? They wouldn't give me an answer on the phone. On
:24:39. > :24:42.e-mail Ryanair are still insisting it is random. But it also says if
:24:43. > :24:51.you haven't paid you should not expect to sit together.
:24:52. > :24:52.Doesn't sound random, does it? Keep your thoughts coming in on
:24:53. > :24:59.that. Watchdog - once we get our teeth
:25:00. > :25:02.in we don't let go! Next tonight, a horribly convincing
:25:03. > :25:04.scam you need to know Who else would we get
:25:05. > :25:21.to tell this story but Lord Most of us like to think we're
:25:22. > :25:24.pretty good at spotting a fake. But as scams become more sophisticated
:25:25. > :25:30.it can be much harder to distinguish what is real and what isn't.
:25:31. > :25:36.And I've nearly fallen prey a few times. I've had fraudsters call me
:25:37. > :25:41.with dodgy investments, I even had one call me posing as my bank.
:25:42. > :25:46.Luckily, I managed to spot those scams before they got hold of my
:25:47. > :25:54.money and now I campaign to raise awareness about fraud so that people
:25:55. > :25:57.don't get caught out. Paul and Helen contacted Watchdog after receiving a
:25:58. > :26:03.convincing text message that wasn't what it seemed. Tell me about this
:26:04. > :26:06.text message. What did it say? I received a text message from
:26:07. > :26:10.Santander saying money had been taken out of my account and to call
:26:11. > :26:14.a number to confirm whether it was a genuine transaction. Why did you
:26:15. > :26:18.think the text came from the bank? Because it had come from a text
:26:19. > :26:24.stream from Santander. It made me believe that it was a genuine text
:26:25. > :26:30.message. The fraudsters had found a way to disguise their number so that
:26:31. > :26:36.it showed up on Paul's phone as exactly the same as Santander, a
:26:37. > :26:40.method known as number spoofing. So their message appeared here, right
:26:41. > :26:45.in the middle of real messages from Santander here.
:26:46. > :26:49.You can understand why Paul believed it was real. So you called the
:26:50. > :26:55.number on the text. Got through, what made you think you were talking
:26:56. > :26:57.to the bank? He had already explained some previous
:26:58. > :27:01.transactions, asked me all the same security questions as when I
:27:02. > :27:07.previously phoned up. So I thought I was talking to the bank. Sadly, it
:27:08. > :27:10.wasn't. The fraudsters could use Paul's answers to access his
:27:11. > :27:15.account. Then, to get their hands on his money they made up a story of a
:27:16. > :27:21.failed mortgage payment he supposedly needed to reconfirm. That
:27:22. > :27:25.triggered a genuine text from Santander to Paul's phone containing
:27:26. > :27:29.the one-time pass code required for any such transaction. It's intended
:27:30. > :27:34.as a security check but with no reason to suspect he wasn't talking
:27:35. > :27:38.to his bank, Paul passed it on. People might wonder why you read
:27:39. > :27:43.that code out on the phone. It was explained as a code to confirm a
:27:44. > :27:47.previous transaction I made on my business account. When did you first
:27:48. > :27:54.think hello, I might not be talking to my bank? I didn't. It was only
:27:55. > :27:58.until I received a phone call from Santander later in the evening to
:27:59. > :28:05.explain that all my money had been transferred out of my account. I was
:28:06. > :28:11.shocked. I felt sick. ?8,000 had been cleared from his account. The
:28:12. > :28:16.financial conduct authority is clear that banks must refund money you
:28:17. > :28:21.have lost through fraud. But banks can refuse to pay if they can prove
:28:22. > :28:25.you have been grossly negligent. Santander refused to refund Paul
:28:26. > :28:29.because he had given out that one-time pass code. Even though he
:28:30. > :28:34.had been sure he was talking to his bank. They didn't seem to be that
:28:35. > :28:38.bothered that we had money taken out of our account. The way Santander
:28:39. > :28:41.treated us was worse than the fraud because it was frustrating, I was
:28:42. > :28:47.five months pregnant at the time. I was in tears on the phone. I just
:28:48. > :28:54.wanted someone to try to help us. Just how can fraudsters manage to
:28:55. > :28:59.hack into your text and make this So convincing? I have asked Tim, a text
:29:00. > :29:06.security expert to demonstrate how it might work. Tim, how do these
:29:07. > :29:11.fraudulent texts infiltrate text streams from that customer's bank?
:29:12. > :29:15.Let me show you. Our software here will launch a
:29:16. > :29:20.message as if it's coming from your bank. Hold on.
:29:21. > :29:24.Look at that. That's your bank sending a proper message. Now what I
:29:25. > :29:28.can do is I can use the same software the criminals will use in
:29:29. > :29:34.order to show you this one will look exactly the same.
:29:35. > :29:41.Here we go, look at that, you couldn't tell the difference, could
:29:42. > :29:46.you? Absolutely not, it looks the same. This kind of number spoofing
:29:47. > :29:51.scam has targeted customers of most of the big banks, but it does appear
:29:52. > :29:58.Santander customers are especially vulnerable. That's because while the
:29:59. > :30:02.majority of UK banks use text messages to communicate with their
:30:03. > :30:08.customers, Santander is the only bank to rely solely on text messages
:30:09. > :30:13.to verify transactions, and the same systems that fraudsters use to pose
:30:14. > :30:17.as your bank, can also be used to intercept genuine texts as well.
:30:18. > :30:23.Should banks be relying on text messages per verification? It's an
:30:24. > :30:26.old system, it was never designed for security. The one-time pass code
:30:27. > :30:30.base in June text messages better than just having a username and
:30:31. > :30:37.password, but when you are using SMS messages, you really don't know who
:30:38. > :30:40.it's come from. This electrician Adrian had ?27,000 stolen after
:30:41. > :30:47.responding to a text he also thought was from Santander, and it couldn't
:30:48. > :30:51.have happened at a worse time. It was two days before Christmas, it
:30:52. > :30:55.was terrible. We did have a wedding to plan for, and a honeymoon. I
:30:56. > :30:58.started crying, because I could see what had happened and I just felt
:30:59. > :31:03.sick. When Adrian spoke to what he
:31:04. > :31:07.believed was his bank, he is adamant he simply answered several security
:31:08. > :31:13.questions, but Santander refuse to refund the money he'd lost, claiming
:31:14. > :31:16.he'd been negligent by giving out a one-time pass code, something Adrian
:31:17. > :31:21.insists he did not do. What's more, he can prove he didn't
:31:22. > :31:27.respond to a genuine text Santander are sent at the time the fraudsters
:31:28. > :31:32.were stealing his cash. The bank had asked him to confirm the
:31:33. > :31:35.transaction. Without that confirmation, no money should have
:31:36. > :31:38.been transferred, but the bank did it anyway.
:31:39. > :31:43.It just leaves a bitter taste in your mouth, that something like that
:31:44. > :31:48.can happen so easily, without giving them all the information.
:31:49. > :31:54.Losing the money meant Adrian had to delay his honeymoon with pride Holly
:31:55. > :31:57.and borrow from friends and family. I've never been in debt and neither
:31:58. > :32:05.has Adrian, so to start life off like that, married life, is not
:32:06. > :32:09.really what you intended. So, is Santander are being fair in
:32:10. > :32:16.accusing customers of negligence? I have brought our research fraud
:32:17. > :32:19.investigator and expert witness to see what he thinks that really
:32:20. > :32:26.means. Santander are arguing that customers
:32:27. > :32:30.have been negligent in giving out their one-time password, what do you
:32:31. > :32:34.think? Gross negligence... This is not just about being callous, it's
:32:35. > :32:39.writing down the pin for your debit card on a piece of paper and keeping
:32:40. > :32:44.it in your wallet or purse with your credit card. In my view, what has
:32:45. > :32:48.happened in these cases is not gross negligence. They haven't given out
:32:49. > :32:52.their one-time pass code. They were disclosing it to Santander, as far
:32:53. > :32:57.as they were concerned. Here is the hundred thousand dollar question, as
:32:58. > :33:03.they say, should Santander give the customers their money back? Simple
:33:04. > :33:08.answer - yes. Their processes are extremely weak and they are being
:33:09. > :33:14.exploited by fraudsters. Santander should be refunding their money.
:33:15. > :33:20.We bank customers can never afford to relax, we must remain alert to
:33:21. > :33:23.spot these scams, but shouldn't the banks have a responsibility to
:33:24. > :33:28.ensure their systems are not open to abuse? Clearly a very convincing
:33:29. > :33:29.scam. Well, Santander's told us it
:33:30. > :33:31.dedicates substantial resources to protect customers from this kind
:33:32. > :33:34.of criminal activity, using robust technology, and continuously
:33:35. > :33:37.educating customers. It says it prevents the vast
:33:38. > :33:40.majority of fraud, but if a customer provides their passwords
:33:41. > :33:43.or passcodes to fraudsters, this can allow a criminal to make
:33:44. > :33:48.fraudulent payments. It says both our cases divulged
:33:49. > :33:50.vital personal details. But the bank accepts it could have
:33:51. > :33:53.handled Paul's case better and has And since then Paul has
:33:54. > :33:57.managed to retrieve ?4,000 from the bank the fraudulent
:33:58. > :34:04.transaction was paid into. The bank also points out
:34:05. > :34:06.that the cases in our film And it's given three rules
:34:07. > :34:11.to protect against fraud: Never download software or let
:34:12. > :34:15.people log on to your account And never enter your online banking
:34:16. > :34:20.details after clicking It's stressed it will never ask
:34:21. > :34:38.you to do any of these things. A solicitor specialising in fraud of
:34:39. > :34:41.exactly this type. I will be honest, I'm worried, I'm confused and
:34:42. > :34:45.worried now put I thought the banks were there to protect me from
:34:46. > :34:51.exactly this sort of thing. Where does the bank's responsibility to me
:34:52. > :34:55.as a customer to protect me begin and end? The payment service
:34:56. > :35:00.regulation puts the onus on banks to ensure they provide secure banking
:35:01. > :35:04.facilities. They should be infiltrated, copied or mimicked. If
:35:05. > :35:07.it is used to imitate a one-time pass code on a text message, that is
:35:08. > :35:10.the bank's responds pretty, they are failing and they should be
:35:11. > :35:16.protecting, that is their responsibility. If we're talking to
:35:17. > :35:18.third parties in giving away our information voluntarily, that's our
:35:19. > :35:22.responsibility. But if the bank allows our confidence to be
:35:23. > :35:26.breached, it's their failing. High-street banks are disappearing
:35:27. > :35:30.at a rate. A lot of us have no option but to use telephone and
:35:31. > :35:33.online banking services, using our mobiles. Is the reality that we are
:35:34. > :35:38.not up to speed and that these services that we have to use now are
:35:39. > :35:41.too difficult for a lot of people? I think it's a fair comment. I think
:35:42. > :35:45.we are pushed onto remote banking services a lot more and there's lots
:35:46. > :35:48.of ways that those be defrauded. We may need to take more responsibility
:35:49. > :35:53.at times but it's about being vigilant, taking a bit more time to
:35:54. > :35:56.think about who you are communicated with, what you're being asked to do
:35:57. > :35:59.and phone your bank if you are unsure. Thank you very much.
:36:00. > :36:10.Our swab mob checked in - to check them out.
:36:11. > :36:12.Back to tonight's Rogue Traders, where 24-hour callout plumbers
:36:13. > :36:16.Faster Response are highly skilled at performing emergency
:36:17. > :36:22.We've invited one of their oppos into our house full of cameras.
:36:23. > :36:29.Will they use it to get a hold of our money?
:36:30. > :36:38.Our expert Mike has set a fault which should cost no more than ?100
:36:39. > :36:42.to fix and has settled into the hide. Faster Response plumber Zach
:36:43. > :36:45.is on the loo in a flash and in a few minutes he had spotted the
:36:46. > :36:51.problem and is off to get a part. Half an hour later, Zak is back and
:36:52. > :36:56.ready to tend to the faulty toilet flush. Well, nearly ready. A
:36:57. > :37:03.screwdriver, you say question yes, I imagine as a plumber that could come
:37:04. > :37:07.in handy. Tools finally in hand, it takes just a few minutes to get the
:37:08. > :37:09.toilet flushing. Speedy. Now he just needs to tell us how much we owe
:37:10. > :37:16.him. Sorry? ! ?630?! Yes, please say that
:37:17. > :37:46.again. Oh, that's including VAT, right.
:37:47. > :37:52.Perfectly reasonable, for one hour's work.
:37:53. > :38:31.Doris hands over the money, but we still can't get over the fact this
:38:32. > :38:39.couldn't have cost more than ?100 to fix.
:38:40. > :38:46.Same-day service, well, that's good to know for future reference. It
:38:47. > :38:52.will be important later. Mike takes a look at what we got the
:38:53. > :38:57.nearly ?500. We've got a ?10 part, fitted to the
:38:58. > :39:02.toilet, and wages would have embarrassed a barrister in this day
:39:03. > :39:07.and age. I can't believe it. In the city where they dug up a king, we've
:39:08. > :39:12.have been charged a kings ransom for a throne. But the digging doesn't
:39:13. > :39:15.there. This dump any claims to be gas safe registered but the number
:39:16. > :39:20.they give doesn't check out. I mean, you don't just make a mistake with
:39:21. > :39:24.something like that. Normally we'd give a company the benefit of the
:39:25. > :39:29.doubt at this stage, but this is starting to feel like... Everybody
:39:30. > :39:36.deserves a second chance, otherwise we would never have got to see the
:39:37. > :39:40.film diplomat. Break out the tiny cameras, wiggling again. And that's
:39:41. > :39:43.what we did, and other house with another Mike Griffin fudge up, this
:39:44. > :39:49.time on the water tank. The fault I'm going to said today, I'm going
:39:50. > :39:59.to bend the arm of the valve ever so slightly, in order to allow extra
:40:00. > :40:01.water into the tank so the water will run out of the overthrow and
:40:02. > :40:04.trip outside. No more than ?100 to fix again, no matter how much of an
:40:05. > :40:07.emergency it is. And it turns out it's not much of an emergency as far
:40:08. > :40:11.as the company is concerned. We called at 11:30am. They richly said
:40:12. > :40:13.early afternoon, then for a crock, then five. What was the reason they
:40:14. > :40:23.gave before for being so expensive? I did say it would be important, and
:40:24. > :40:27.at 520 we are told engineer Richard will definitely not be able to make
:40:28. > :40:32.it out to our emergency today. They eventually tell us you will come in
:40:33. > :40:33.the morning instead. Richard finally arrived the next day, 20 minutes
:40:34. > :40:44.later than promised. Mike's watching the action unfold,
:40:45. > :40:45.and without even taking the lid off our tag or checking the ball valve,
:40:46. > :40:56.Richard is off to the shops. Stuff, like repairing stuff, for
:40:57. > :41:00.repairing things? Richard is actually off to buy a ball valve
:41:01. > :41:03.that shouldn't be too hard to find, it's a very common part to find and
:41:04. > :41:09.there is a plumber's merchant a few minutes up way. 50 minutes later he
:41:10. > :41:16.arrives at the new ball valve. He heads upstairs to fix it and in no
:41:17. > :41:20.time at all our tank is in fact fixed. Richard then heads out to
:41:21. > :41:24.call the office to get that elusive price. Just under ten minutes later,
:41:25. > :41:27.he's back, and it seems the price he is about to deliver is so shocking
:41:28. > :42:11.he can't even bring himself to say it.
:42:12. > :42:14.Does it feel like Richard is trying to distance himself from Faster
:42:15. > :42:31.Response? Yes folks, that's right, ?768 for
:42:32. > :42:39.changing a ball valve. Farewell to you benefit of the doubt. Goodbye!
:42:40. > :42:43.So, a company that scams oldies out of hundreds by bumping up prices.
:42:44. > :42:46.We've seen in encouraging people not to pay their VAT, and if you choose
:42:47. > :42:52.to complain about any of this, they will brush you off like the dirt
:42:53. > :42:55.from Jay-Z's shoulder. One for the kids! Then there's the small matter
:42:56. > :43:00.of who is actually running the company first remember, up until
:43:01. > :43:03.February, the directors were Russell Canfield and Liam Cuffe, but they
:43:04. > :43:07.resigned. So why have we spotted them going into the office almost
:43:08. > :43:12.every day? Why are they the only people who go into that office not
:43:13. > :43:16.dress for work? Come on, flip-flops! Their cars aren't exactly plumber 's
:43:17. > :43:26.vans and also why is there very little information on the named
:43:27. > :43:29.directors anywhere else? Is it because Russell and Liam are in fact
:43:30. > :43:31.still in control of the company were trying to avoid any more scrutiny by
:43:32. > :43:33.appearing to step away? Well... They can dodge the VAT, but they can't
:43:34. > :43:36.dodge the Matt. Yes, in about 10 minutes
:43:37. > :43:38.we'll seek answers from Russell Canfield and Liam J Cuffe -
:43:39. > :43:41.and crown them Rogue Traders. But before that, Nikki
:43:42. > :43:44.and her team have been ploughing through the messages you've been
:43:45. > :43:53.sending while we've been on air. Last week's tweets, the coffee hit
:43:54. > :43:58.the fan. We are getting loads on rogue traders but what else? Lots of
:43:59. > :44:02.people getting in touch about their Virgin Media broadband speeds. Glenn
:44:03. > :44:07.got in touch, thank you so much, he lives in Mansfield. He says his
:44:08. > :44:11.Virgin was brilliant and a year ago and now his speeds are fluctuating
:44:12. > :44:16.quite dramatically. Another viewer, Will has got in contact, he says his
:44:17. > :44:19.Virgin service is disastrous. He was told it would be fixed for two years
:44:20. > :44:23.but he doesn't get a decent service at any time of day. And lots of
:44:24. > :44:28.people are concerned about the use of text messages by Santander. I
:44:29. > :44:32.really want to hear about that, all banks, the way they communicate with
:44:33. > :44:38.you and what might have happened. I understand, once again, you have
:44:39. > :44:42.been out with the world fame as swap mob. Yes. This week we have been
:44:43. > :44:47.swapping some of Britain's biggest hotel chains.
:44:48. > :44:55.There are some things we are used to finding in a hotel room, tiny shower
:44:56. > :44:59.jels, undrinkable coffee and of course a plug socket miles away from
:45:00. > :45:02.the bed. Above all, what you always expect is a room that's been
:45:03. > :45:06.thoroughly cleaned. Because, let's face it, none of us really like to
:45:07. > :45:09.think too much about who's been in the room the night before. We
:45:10. > :45:14.certainly don't want to find any reminders of them being there. But
:45:15. > :45:19.according to some viewers even the biggest hotel chains don't always
:45:20. > :45:28.deliver the standards you might hope for. Liska stayed at a Travellodge
:45:29. > :45:32.over Christmas. What did you find in the room? It was a very dirty room.
:45:33. > :45:35.We were up to our calves in water in the shower in the bottom of the
:45:36. > :45:40.bath, so there was obviously a blockage. How did it affect your
:45:41. > :45:45.Christmas? It was meant to be a treat. They did ruin Christmas a
:45:46. > :45:49.little bit. Travellodge did eventually refund the stay. Each of
:45:50. > :45:53.the UK's three largest chains says you will get a good quality room
:45:54. > :46:01.from the moment you arrive. Premier Inn promises outstanding quality in
:46:02. > :46:05.every one of its 65,000 rooms. Holiday Inn says guests deserve a
:46:06. > :46:09.clean comfortable room. Travellodge says it will have your room made up
:46:10. > :46:14.ready for you on arrival. What did our swab mob find when we checked in
:46:15. > :46:17.We tested ten hotels from each of the three big chains, right across
:46:18. > :46:21.the UK. As well as completing a thorough
:46:22. > :46:26.visual inspection, we also tested for dirt that isn't visible to the
:46:27. > :46:30.naked eye. Swabbing for bacteria and using an ultra Violet light to see
:46:31. > :46:35.the unseeable. Delia is a fellow of the British
:46:36. > :46:41.Institute of Cleaning Science, I have come to her training centre to
:46:42. > :46:47.see what she makes of our results. . What should we reason plea expect
:46:48. > :46:52.from a hotel when staying the right? -- staying the night? All fixtures
:46:53. > :46:59.wiped down, carpet thoroughly vanningual cleaned. Fresh I also
:47:00. > :47:02.like to have the mattress checked. Yes, yes, I know I have dressed like
:47:03. > :47:06.the wall paper, but down to business.
:47:07. > :47:12.First, we looked at ten rooms from Holiday Inn. One of them right away
:47:13. > :47:15.had a small but obvious sign that some cleaning had been missed.
:47:16. > :47:19.That's unacceptable really, you are paying for a room, you see that.
:47:20. > :47:22.Straightaway approximate puts you on the back foot, you think if this
:47:23. > :47:28.hasn't been cleaned what else is wrong? In teven seven out of the ten
:47:29. > :47:32.rooms we found problems with bedding or towels, like stains or objects
:47:33. > :47:38.left behind. That's worrying. If they're soiled like they are it's an
:47:39. > :47:42.indication that maybe there is no pillow protectors and they were long
:47:43. > :47:48.due for the pillow graveyard. In another room, this.
:47:49. > :47:55.It looks like we have got a toe nail on that, darling. There you have a
:47:56. > :47:59.scabby lump of somebody's nail on the bed you are about to lie in. Not
:48:00. > :48:03.nice. Looks like a scratchy one, as well.
:48:04. > :48:07.We also found stains on the mattresses in eight of the ten rooms
:48:08. > :48:14.we checked. And splash stains next to the toilet in six of the ten
:48:15. > :48:19.bathrooms. That indicates inferior cleaning because the stains should
:48:20. > :48:22.be removed. Next, premier Inn. On the mattress front they did well.
:48:23. > :48:27.Two of the ten rooms showed up stains. But we found more problems
:48:28. > :48:33.with the bedding or towels in seven of the ten rooms. Those bathroom
:48:34. > :48:41.stains in eight. I asked Delia what the splash stains meant and how I
:48:42. > :48:45.wish I hadn't! When the toilet is flushed, we have a thing called a
:48:46. > :48:51.fountain, the spray from the toilet can go up as far as 15 feet in the
:48:52. > :48:56.air. They're going to land on the surfaces. Every surface has to be
:48:57. > :49:08.cleaned thoroughly when the guest leaves. The floral faecal fountain,
:49:09. > :49:13.three words I will never forget! Travel Lodge. There were more
:49:14. > :49:19.problems with sheets or towels too. The mattresses stole the show here.
:49:20. > :49:23.Nine out of ten stained. This is possibly the worst mattress I think
:49:24. > :49:29.we have seen. Dreadful. Absolutely dreadful. That does look like blood.
:49:30. > :49:37.That's a common stain on hotel mattresses. That's why the checking
:49:38. > :49:41.is so important. That can be cleaned up and that is absolutely
:49:42. > :49:46.disgraceful. In each of the three chains we also took samples that we
:49:47. > :49:51.then sent to a lab to get a better idea of the hygiene levels you can't
:49:52. > :49:54.see. In each room we swabbed the TV remote, the toilet flush, the
:49:55. > :49:59.bathroom door handle and the bathroom tap. In a freshly cleaned
:50:00. > :50:04.room, all the samples should come back with a low bacteria count and
:50:05. > :50:08.reassuringly most of ours did. The tap, flush and door handle were
:50:09. > :50:15.usually pretty clean. However, on one bathroom tap in a Travellodge we
:50:16. > :50:22.discovered a high level of bacteria known to be potentially harmful.
:50:23. > :50:27.It's a bacteria we don't want to be coming across, it can be dangerous,
:50:28. > :50:31.disease-causing and we don't want it in bathrooms where guests are
:50:32. > :50:37.staying. Finally, the TV remote. It was a very mixed picture across our
:50:38. > :50:42.hotels. Just one of the ten we swabbed at Holiday Inn had high
:50:43. > :50:48.levels of bacteria. Premier Inn and Travelodge both had six out of ten
:50:49. > :50:54.remoats with high bacteria levels. A clean sign they hadn't been cleaned
:50:55. > :50:57.properly. We found some really dirty TV remoats. What's going wrong? A
:50:58. > :51:02.number of hands are handling the remote. Those hands have been in
:51:03. > :51:07.various places, hand washing techniques may not be all that. It's
:51:08. > :51:12.also important to remember not all bacteria are dangerous. Some we
:51:13. > :51:17.need. So, it's important that we don't sort of go all bananas on the
:51:18. > :51:21.fact, the remote is going to kill me, no, it isn't. The cleaning
:51:22. > :51:27.process that follows should reduce the risk. That's why training,
:51:28. > :51:33.education and vigilance is so crucial. I am slightly gagging. I am
:51:34. > :51:37.staying in one of those tonight! Don't be leaving your toe nails on
:51:38. > :51:40.the bed! All three hotels chains have
:51:41. > :51:42.stressed how seriously they take cleanliness,
:51:43. > :51:44.and while they're all confident of the systems and processes
:51:45. > :51:46.in place to ensure high standards - each of them has now launched
:51:47. > :51:48.investigations to identify Holiday Inn told us it's rolling
:51:49. > :51:54.out the latest version of a "rigorous five-step"
:51:55. > :51:56.cleaning training programme. Premier Inn said that nearly 95%
:51:57. > :51:59.of its guests score them either "very good" or "good"
:52:00. > :52:02.for room cleanliness. And while Travelodge accepts
:52:03. > :52:04.occasionally mistakes can be made, it says it too has a robust,
:52:05. > :52:20.10-step cleaning process. There you go, ten steps. That's
:52:21. > :52:30.twice five. Good maths. More Rouge Traders? I cannot get enough. That's
:52:31. > :52:37.a shame, this is the last bit. Russell Ska Canfield and Liam Cuffe
:52:38. > :52:41.have attempted to distance themselves from the company. We have
:52:42. > :52:47.spotted them looking very much like the men in charge a number of times.
:52:48. > :52:52.We are on our way to the offices of Faster Response where we would like
:52:53. > :52:55.to meet Russell Canfield and Liam Cuffe. They're not now the directors
:52:56. > :52:59.of Faster Response but they still seem to be there and it's doing now
:53:00. > :53:05.what it did then, which is ripping people off. Big questions to ask and
:53:06. > :53:10.I am the fella that's going to ask them, because that's my job,
:53:11. > :53:14.question-asking man! It does seem like on this occasion
:53:15. > :53:23.the question-asking man has already been spotted, though.
:53:24. > :53:33.OK. Here we have the situation where we are in the offices of Faster
:53:34. > :53:41.Response. The door here is shut. Strong hand keeping it shut.
:53:42. > :53:47.We know he is in here, Liam Cuffe who was director up to February of
:53:48. > :53:53.this year. If he is no longer part of this business, what is he
:53:54. > :53:56.concerned about? You don't behave like this unless
:53:57. > :54:06.you have done something that you know is wrong.
:54:07. > :54:11.This is Matt Alwright from BBC Rouge Traders. We want to talk to you
:54:12. > :54:18.about Faster Response and about how it overcharges people, how it
:54:19. > :54:23.targets the elderly. How it uses the fact it calls itself an emergency
:54:24. > :54:28.service to charge way over the odds. We would like to talk to you about
:54:29. > :54:33.VAT, all of those things. You know we are in no hurry, so we
:54:34. > :54:36.decide to stick around in the hope of finally getting some actual
:54:37. > :54:41.answers. Luckily, the office has lots of things to keep me occupied.
:54:42. > :54:46.Never been any good at this. But the wall of silence remains. So
:54:47. > :54:52.we change our plan. And see if the men supposedly now in charge would
:54:53. > :54:59.be interested in having a chat. Maybe you would like to give us
:55:00. > :55:04.details for Ben... We would love to talk to them, as well. To be honest,
:55:05. > :55:07.the company's been doing the same thing when you were directors and
:55:08. > :55:10.now they're directors, so doesn't make too much difference, does it?
:55:11. > :55:15.You are not giving yourself a chance to answer this. You have an
:55:16. > :55:18.opportunity here to tell me why these things are happening. You are
:55:19. > :55:24.sort of... Locked yourself in a room.
:55:25. > :55:29.We are clearly not getting anywhere with Liam Cuffe and Russell
:55:30. > :55:34.Canfield. They can hide behind their office door and nameless adverts but
:55:35. > :55:40.they can't hide from this. It's only a small sign but it sums up very
:55:41. > :55:45.much what we feel about Faster Response and about its former
:55:46. > :55:58.directors Liam Cuffe and Russell Canfield. Here we go.
:55:59. > :56:10.Don't know about you, but I am quite proud of that.
:56:11. > :56:14.Well, they are clearly in charge. They've explained in a letter they
:56:15. > :56:16.employed two managers who were promoted to directors but this
:56:17. > :56:20.change had nothing to do with trading standards getting involved.
:56:21. > :56:23.They admit they failed to control the business and customers have lost
:56:24. > :56:27.out as a result for which they apologise. Despite being present in
:56:28. > :56:31.the office most days, they claim they were unaware of VAT being
:56:32. > :56:36.waived and of people's bills inflated. They've told us, Zach and
:56:37. > :56:39.Richard, the plumbers we saw in the film behaved professionally but were
:56:40. > :56:43.let down by the management in the office and they say that the
:56:44. > :56:47.business is not registered with Gas Safe but it doesn't offer any gas
:56:48. > :56:51.services. This is good, though. They've sent back the money we paid
:56:52. > :56:55.and they say they are closing down Faster Response which is curious, as
:56:56. > :56:59.earlier this afternoon they were still answering the phones. So, we
:57:00. > :57:03.will be keeping and eye on that. We need to. Keep sending your
:57:04. > :57:06.stories, details of how you can get in touch are on the screens now.
:57:07. > :57:12.Thank you so much to everyone who has been in touch tonight. You have
:57:13. > :57:18.been working superhard again, Nikki. Yes, all right, we have had a strong
:57:19. > :57:27.reaction to my hotel hygiene film. Filthy. I know, all about me! Mark
:57:28. > :57:35.says some suspicious looking stains. I am never going to unhear the words
:57:36. > :57:42.floral faecal fountain. I am having a t-shirt made! Duncan said don't
:57:43. > :57:45.use glasses in a hotel bathroom unless they're individually wrapped
:57:46. > :57:51.not even in upscale luxury hotels. Thank you for getting in contact. We
:57:52. > :58:00.have got Stuart on Twitter who says now I need to carry that light in
:58:01. > :58:03.every room I stay in. Ignorance is bliss. Thank you we will be back
:58:04. > :58:11.live next week at the same time. Citizen Khan himself -
:58:12. > :58:14.will be investigating