:00:10. > :00:14.Hello, I'm Lucy Owen. I am at Rhodri Owen, welcome to the
:00:14. > :00:20.programme. Tonight, another unhappy customer left in the lurch by
:00:20. > :00:26.Newport builder Stephen Roberts. Canine confusion in a Nantyglo -
:00:26. > :00:36.where the stock orders up in arms? Yes Loans - we have investigated
:00:36. > :00:44.
:00:44. > :00:50.them for years. Now the Office of Fair Trading is pulling the plug.
:00:50. > :00:53.Tonight at we're in the to Methley, home of the Scarlets. With the Big
:00:53. > :00:59.Six Nations match this weekend, later we will be speaking to the
:00:59. > :01:04.rugby fan's rugby fan, Rick O'Shea about the astronomical amount some
:01:04. > :01:08.supporters are handing over for tickets. First, back in February,
:01:08. > :01:16.Richill was on the trail of Newport builder Stephen Roberts. Since then,
:01:16. > :01:19.we've been hearing from other unhappy customers.
:01:19. > :01:24.When former army doctor at Tom Cayless decided to renovate his
:01:24. > :01:31.first home, he called in at Newport based Buildtech Construction 33 Ltd
:01:31. > :01:36.Ltd, run by Stephen Roberts. Tom was quoted �22,000 for an eight-
:01:36. > :01:42.week job last April but 11 months and �34,000 later, the work still
:01:42. > :01:46.is not finished. I cannot move in in the state it is then at the
:01:46. > :01:50.moment. The electricity has not been completed, the central heating
:01:50. > :01:55.is not completed so it is completely uninhabitable. After we
:01:55. > :02:00.wrote to him, Stephen Roberts had a quantity surveyor who claimed the
:02:00. > :02:04.finished work would be worth �35,000. Mr Roberts said there were
:02:04. > :02:09.only two weeks' work lead on the job but are chartered surveyor, Tim
:02:09. > :02:15.Davies, had a different view. would say this about six or eight
:02:15. > :02:19.weeks to do this properly. To leave this just beggars belief. It is a
:02:19. > :02:25.complete mess. He disagreed with the sums of money that Stephen
:02:26. > :02:30.Roberts and his company quoted. can't see how you could justify
:02:30. > :02:38.�34,000 worth of work having been properly completed in the property.
:02:38. > :02:42.My view is that this is more likely to be around �20,000. It is not
:02:42. > :02:46.just the money, Tim has issues about the standard and safety of
:02:46. > :02:49.the work. My main concern is that a lot of work is still outstanding
:02:50. > :02:56.and a lot of work that has been supposedly completed has not been
:02:56. > :03:01.done correctly in the right sequence. I am very concerned about
:03:01. > :03:07.things like lead pipework being left in, it is readily identifiable.
:03:07. > :03:10.To leave the old lead piping is quite unforgivable. What concerns
:03:10. > :03:13.me is they have no distribution pipework for hot and cold water.
:03:13. > :03:18.From what I have seen, it does not convince me that this has been
:03:18. > :03:22.carried out by experienced building professionals. It is a worrying
:03:22. > :03:27.picture but Mr Roberts told us in February that he was always going
:03:27. > :03:30.to finish Tom's property. At the time, Stephen Roberts told us his
:03:30. > :03:35.business had run into difficulties because his previous business
:03:35. > :03:39.partner had taken money from him. He reassured us verbally he would
:03:39. > :03:45.finish the job and that it should take two weeks but he later seemed
:03:45. > :03:50.to backtrack on that promise. Tom is not the only one to be left
:03:50. > :03:56.severely out of pocket after harrowing Stephen Roberts. Here in
:03:56. > :04:00.Cardiff, Charly Tabash has had the same experience. The landlord and
:04:00. > :04:03.property developer wanted to renovate this House into two flats.
:04:03. > :04:08.Stephen Roberts came highly recommended by a builder he had
:04:08. > :04:11.used in the past. Think he was in safe hands, Charlie hired them both
:04:12. > :04:18.last September, the same time Tom was waiting for his renovation to
:04:18. > :04:24.be finished. How did he set himself, what did Stephen Roberts tell you
:04:24. > :04:27.about himself? That he represented Buildtech and that it was a big
:04:28. > :04:32.company and that they did a lot of work in Newport and all over the
:04:32. > :04:36.country. He came across as a professional builder, became with
:04:36. > :04:40.the tools, with the uniforms and the bans with the locals on the
:04:40. > :04:44.vans. Stephen Roberts was displaying Guild of Master
:04:44. > :04:48.Craftsmen logo was on his official paperwork and vans. Both Tom and
:04:48. > :04:56.Charlie believed they were genuine but when we got in contact, the
:04:56. > :05:01.Guild said Stephen Roberts was not a member. Charlie was quoted
:05:01. > :05:05.�45,000 for a ten-week renovation and started paying from day one.
:05:05. > :05:09.They have passed from the start to be paid half in cash, half by
:05:09. > :05:13.cheque but every time I came to write a cheque for them, they
:05:13. > :05:18.refused to ticket and they said they want to pay the wages for the
:05:18. > :05:21.builders so in the end I had to run and get cash every time. There was
:05:21. > :05:25.one big in particular when I had to go with them to the building
:05:25. > :05:30.supplying merchant and I had to give them �2000 myself to the
:05:30. > :05:35.supplier. No work on a property began well, Charlie soon found
:05:35. > :05:43.himself in the same position as Tom, choosing the builders when they
:05:43. > :05:50.started to disappear. Six months later, Charlie has paid around
:05:50. > :05:53.�48,000 but he has not seen the builders since December. The last
:05:53. > :05:56.three months, it has been a nightmare because I want it
:05:56. > :06:02.finished to rent it out and since the beginning of December, nothing
:06:02. > :06:06.has happened on this House. Like Tom, Charlie is still waiting for
:06:06. > :06:10.the big jobs like plumbing to be finished. Stephen Roberts has told
:06:10. > :06:16.him that the builder who introduced them has taken some of the money
:06:16. > :06:19.but that builder told Charlie a different story. They are blaming
:06:19. > :06:24.each other and I am right in the middle and I don't know who to
:06:24. > :06:27.believe. Sounding familiar? Mr Roberts also told us that Tom's
:06:27. > :06:31.renovation had fallen into difficulty because of previous
:06:31. > :06:36.business associate had taken money. He stopped working with them but
:06:36. > :06:40.yet didn't call the police. So is Mr Roberts and bad judge of
:06:40. > :06:48.character when it comes to business partners? Either way, it is not
:06:48. > :06:54.good news for customers left counting the cost of hiring him.
:06:54. > :06:58.Let's get an update on this. These are definitely not isolated cases
:06:58. > :07:02.because since we aired Tom's story and be filmed at Charlie, we have
:07:02. > :07:07.heard from other unhappy customers and suppliers who feel let down by
:07:07. > :07:11.Stephen Roberts. What has Stephen Roberts had to say for himself?
:07:11. > :07:16.has been back to their properties and is promising to finish the work.
:07:16. > :07:20.He has only done that since we got in touch because prior to that, Tom
:07:20. > :07:23.and Charlie tried unsuccessfully to get him to go back to their
:07:23. > :07:28.properties and finish the work so would he have done it if we hadn't
:07:28. > :07:33.got involved? Who knows. What does Stephen Roberts say about what our
:07:33. > :07:37.surveyor made of the work he had done on Tom's house? We have put
:07:37. > :07:42.his findings to Stephen Roberts and he has declined to comment on them.
:07:42. > :07:48.How did Stephen Roberts explained the problems? He is still blaming
:07:49. > :07:54.these business partners who he says took money from him. However, we
:07:54. > :08:02.have seen no evidence of that. will keep an eye on how the work
:08:02. > :08:05.goes on Tom and Charlie's houses. A couple of weeks ago Lucy was in
:08:05. > :08:10.Dolgellau where local sports pitches have been covered in dog
:08:10. > :08:17.mess. I have been to Nantyglo were council attempts to tackle a
:08:17. > :08:21.problem have made some dog owners very angry.
:08:21. > :08:24.Meet Mac, a three-year-old Jack Russell. He might be small but this
:08:24. > :08:30.little terrier has sparked a big row over where he and his friends
:08:30. > :08:35.can play. This pathway in Nantyglo has been a public right of way for
:08:35. > :08:40.decades and today it is very popular with dog walkers. Cherie
:08:40. > :08:44.Morgan has walked her dogs here for 30 years. I have always walked here
:08:44. > :08:48.and everybody in the area has always walk their dogs here.
:08:48. > :08:53.January, her grandson it took Mac out for a walk on the playing
:08:53. > :08:57.fields but he had a nasty surprise. He was approached by two security
:08:57. > :09:02.guards and told that he was breaking the law. I grandson said,
:09:02. > :09:08.what have I done? They said you are in the dock exclusion zone. They
:09:08. > :09:12.issued him with a �75 a fixed penalty notice. They had not
:09:12. > :09:16.realised the council had created a dog exclusion zone. It is part of
:09:16. > :09:24.their new dog control orders which applied to several public places in
:09:24. > :09:27.plano Gwent. I was so flabbergasted and so annoyed. We have used these
:09:27. > :09:31.deals were for so many years, we didn't know we were breaking the
:09:31. > :09:36.law. I phoned the council and told them there is no way of this fine
:09:36. > :09:39.will be paid. I will fight them every inch of the way, I will go to
:09:39. > :09:44.any court they say and they can put me in prison but I won not pay the
:09:44. > :09:47.fine. The council says there was publicity for the new rules in the
:09:47. > :09:53.lead-up to the changeover but Cherie says there are not enough
:09:53. > :09:57.signs showing where you can and cannot walk your dog. This is the
:09:57. > :10:02.entrance used for the park, where are the signs? This is my point, if
:10:02. > :10:07.we don't know we are breaking the law, how can they find us? If there
:10:07. > :10:11.was a sign here, we wouldn't use it. Cherie isn't the only one who was
:10:11. > :10:14.unaware of the changes. Mr Jones has been walking his dog in the
:10:14. > :10:21.playing fields for years and at the entrance he uses, there are no
:10:21. > :10:26.signs either. Two chaps came across and said that the dog was off the
:10:26. > :10:30.lead and in an exclusion zone and they were going to summons me. I
:10:30. > :10:37.said, there are no fences or signs you to say I cannot bring the dog
:10:37. > :10:41.here. Did you get a �75 find? I did. What are your thoughts on
:10:41. > :10:45.that? It was hard for me to pay it because we are both pensioners but
:10:45. > :10:51.we were so worried about it because it went to court, we would have to
:10:52. > :10:55.pay extra. I have looked at the Welsh Assembly guidelines for dog
:10:55. > :11:00.control orders. They say science must be placed at regular intervals
:11:00. > :11:03.on or near land to which the order applies. That is not the case at
:11:03. > :11:09.the entrance Cherie and Mr Jones used but what about other ways into
:11:09. > :11:13.the fields? Here is an entrance that lots of the dog walkers use
:11:13. > :11:18.and there is a sign so let's take a look. This green area is where you
:11:18. > :11:24.can go with the dogs and the red area is where you cannot. Next
:11:24. > :11:29.year? It is not quite that simple. Once you get into the park, there
:11:29. > :11:34.are no markers to show where the exclusion zone starts or Ms and
:11:34. > :11:39.local dog walkers are confused. From the designated zones, they
:11:39. > :11:44.have got up, they are double Dutch. They have a green zone at the red
:11:44. > :11:49.zone and they had no lines to say that you on the green. There is no
:11:49. > :11:53.cut-off area at all. It is impossible. Looking around, there's
:11:53. > :12:00.nothing to say whether we are in the exclusion zone are not so, for
:12:00. > :12:02.all I know, this dog's left pocket now be in the exclusion zone at his
:12:02. > :12:12.right porker be fine but there's nothing to say whether we are in
:12:12. > :12:14.the right or wrong. The dog walkers in Llandudno and not a happy pack.
:12:14. > :12:19.They say if they enter the park through the main gates, they have
:12:19. > :12:25.to go through the exclusion zone to get to the area where they can walk
:12:25. > :12:33.their dogs. It looks like there's only way to get there. It is no
:12:33. > :12:36.wonder everyone, including the dogs, are up in arms. Why ever council
:12:36. > :12:41.bringing these stupid rules in where they won't sign ass. If we
:12:41. > :12:46.know we are breaking the law, obviously we won't. But if they
:12:46. > :12:50.don't but the signs are, how are we supposed to know?
:12:50. > :12:54.The council says that although the entrance Cherie Morgan uses is a
:12:54. > :12:57.right of way, it is not an official entrance. They say there are signs
:12:57. > :13:00.at the official entrances and they will look into whether they can
:13:00. > :13:09.make it clearer for dog walkers to understand where they can and
:13:09. > :13:12.Now, as these pictures taken in Victoria Park in Cardiff show, some
:13:12. > :13:14.people are finding interesting ways to highlight their concerns about
:13:14. > :13:18.dog mess in their area! They're using the website Flickr to
:13:18. > :13:21.document all the dog mess on paths through the park, because they want
:13:21. > :13:25.people to be shamed into scooping the poop! That's one idea! Next
:13:25. > :13:28.week, I'll be in Tywyn in Gwynedd where a local businessman has his
:13:28. > :13:37.own ideas about how to deal with the problem Next, Lucy's on the
:13:37. > :13:40.Andy Collett and partner Sarah Williams from Abergavenny were
:13:40. > :13:50.looking forward to a once-in-a- lifetime holiday to Las Vegas -
:13:50. > :13:54.
:13:54. > :13:57.until Sarah became ill and they had We thought we were covered by the
:13:57. > :14:07.insurance company but they won't pay out and we've lots hundreds of
:14:07. > :14:08.
:14:08. > :14:14.Andy and Sarah knew a trip to Vegas would mean placing some bets. But
:14:14. > :14:22.they didn't bank on their travel insurance being a gamble. Hi, Lucy,
:14:22. > :14:27.The couple had always dreamt of a holiday to Las Vegas. They'd never
:14:27. > :14:31.been on a long-distance trip so decided to save. We booked it in
:14:31. > :14:34.May of last year. It was a dream holiday for us. We've never been to
:14:34. > :14:43.somewhere so far away - it's always been a couple of beach holidays
:14:43. > :14:46.here and there. They paid �2,200 for the week-long holiday, which
:14:46. > :14:48.they booked at their local travel agent, and signed up online for a
:14:48. > :14:52.travel insurance policy with Columbus Direct.
:14:52. > :15:02.So you were looking forward to the holiday but then you had some bad
:15:02. > :15:07.
:15:07. > :15:10.news? I'd had an ulcer that wasn't healing so I went to see my GP. He
:15:10. > :15:14.diagnosed me with oral thrush with an ulcer and so he gave me some
:15:14. > :15:17.antibiotics to clear it up. But it didn't so I went back a few weeks
:15:17. > :15:20.later where I had a biopsy taken and then the following week it was
:15:20. > :15:23.diagnosed as oral cancer. Sarah faced major treatment. It was 10
:15:23. > :15:26.hours in surgery, where they removed about a third of the part
:15:26. > :15:30.of the tongue. And then they replaced it with a graft from my
:15:30. > :15:33.arm and I had to have my lymph glands removed. The holiday company
:15:33. > :15:35.refunded half the cost of the break and suggested Andy contact his
:15:35. > :15:38.travel insurance company for the rest. By now Sarah was recovering
:15:38. > :15:42.from her surgery and was starting to feel better - until Columbus
:15:42. > :15:45.Direct rejected their claim. They tried to say that we knew that I
:15:45. > :15:55.had the cancer before we took out the insurance, because I'd visited
:15:55. > :15:56.
:15:56. > :15:59.my GP, about what we assumed was just an innocent ulcer. And all we
:15:59. > :16:03.want is the remainder of the money back and we'll be happy. A
:16:03. > :16:07.conclusion to it all. Sarah, Andy - I'm on the case.
:16:07. > :16:10.Well, it seems Andy and Sarah have done everything they can to get
:16:10. > :16:14.their money back, so who can you turn to if you have a complaint
:16:14. > :16:17.about your travel insurance? Well, the Financial Ombudsman can help.
:16:17. > :16:22.They advise that you first register a dispute with your insurance
:16:22. > :16:26.company, giving them eight weeks to look into the problem. If you're
:16:26. > :16:28.still not happy, the Ombudsman will take up your case. Interestingly,
:16:28. > :16:36.last year there was a 27% increase in complaints about travel
:16:36. > :16:38.insurance. So what about Andy and Sarah? Well, Columbus Direct say
:16:38. > :16:44.they refused the claim because they thought Sarah had bought her
:16:44. > :16:48.insurance policy after she was diagnosed with cancer. They blame a
:16:48. > :16:51.mix-up with the dates on her medical notes. However, they now
:16:51. > :16:55.admit that the claim hasn't been handled satisfactorily and that
:16:55. > :16:58.Sarah has suffered unnecessarily. Columbus Direct say they'll review
:16:58. > :17:08.their procedures and have now settled the claim in full, sending
:17:08. > :17:08.
:17:08. > :17:11.Andy and Sarah a cheque for �1,180. Thank you, Lucy and X-Ray. We've
:17:11. > :17:21.got our money back from the insurance company and we've booked
:17:21. > :17:21.
:17:21. > :17:26.our next holiday to Las Vegas. Great news for Andy and Sarah -
:17:26. > :17:30.that holiday is long overdue. Now, we often get complaints from
:17:30. > :17:33.viewers about companies who take up front fees over the phone. One
:17:33. > :17:37.company that's been in our sights many times is Cwmbran-based Yes
:17:37. > :17:40.Loans. Last Thursday, the company - along with two sister companies,
:17:40. > :17:49.Blue Sky Personal Finance and Money Worries - were declared unfit to
:17:49. > :17:54.hold a consumer credit licence by the Office of Fair Trading. The OFT
:17:54. > :17:57.described their business practices as 'deceitful and oppressive'.
:17:57. > :18:00.is a business we've been investigating for years.
:18:00. > :18:05.Customers looking for loans found deals on offer weren't what they
:18:05. > :18:11.expected. The loan they were offering me was more like 40%,
:18:11. > :18:14.rather than 25.9. 40% - that's a crazy amount. Despite the name, Yes
:18:14. > :18:17.Loans don't give out loans. They're brokers for other businesses, but
:18:17. > :18:21.that hasn't always been clear - as we discussed with the group's
:18:21. > :18:31.managing director at the time. The name itself makes people assume
:18:31. > :18:32.
:18:32. > :18:39.that you actually lend money. says very clearly... Excuse me
:18:39. > :18:45.while I find my glasses. This might tell you how clear it is! It is
:18:45. > :18:48.very clear. They promised to clean up their act
:18:48. > :18:51.- but nine months later we were still getting complaints from
:18:51. > :18:55.customers upset that they couldn't get their fees back. I can't
:18:55. > :19:01.believe companies are allowed to trade in this in this way.
:19:01. > :19:07.years on, customers were still complaining. I'd just like to get
:19:07. > :19:11.my money back but at the moment I've achieved nothing. And five
:19:11. > :19:16.years ago one former employee spoke to us about how the firm was
:19:16. > :19:19.reluctant to refund customers. people actually needed money to
:19:19. > :19:22.arrange funerals or even medical treatment and it made me feel very
:19:22. > :19:32.low to have to steer these people towards a service from us that
:19:32. > :19:34.
:19:34. > :19:39.would mean they lost their �49.50. Today Yes Loans is run by this man
:19:39. > :19:41.- Simon Chorlton. The Office of Fair Trading says it will withdraw
:19:41. > :19:48.the company's credit license, although the business has 28 days
:19:49. > :19:52.to appeal and can trade in the meantime. And the claims management
:19:52. > :19:56.company we featured last week - We Fight Any Claim - is also run by
:19:56. > :20:01.Yes Loans director, Simon Chorlton. And last week there was bad news
:20:02. > :20:04.for them too. High Street banks were told to write to their
:20:04. > :20:10.customers and tell them to claim back any missold insurance directly
:20:10. > :20:13.from them. So will that mean an end to claims management companies?
:20:13. > :20:16.Apparently not, because some of them are already finding new ways
:20:16. > :20:19.to sign up customers. Last October, Douglas Vranch from Blackwood got a
:20:19. > :20:23.phone call out of the blue from Toucan Claims, who have a base in
:20:23. > :20:33.Bridgend. They said if his credit card limit had been increased
:20:33. > :20:41.
:20:41. > :20:46.without him being informed, he could be entitled to compensation.
:20:46. > :20:50.I said, "Really? I could get up to �1500"? Any pensioner would be
:20:50. > :20:53.tempted by �1500 - maybe I had pound signs in my eyes! There was a
:20:53. > :20:56.fee of almost �250 plus 10% of any compensation. The company took
:20:56. > :20:59.Douglas's fee straight away, before he'd seen any paperwork - which is
:20:59. > :21:02.against Ministry of Justice rules. But Douglas had second thoughts.
:21:02. > :21:12.suddenly thought, "What if compensation is only a few hundred
:21:12. > :21:13.
:21:13. > :21:21.pounds? If they take 10% of that and my fee, I could end up owing
:21:21. > :21:25.them money. So Douglas cancelled and Toucan promised his money back.
:21:26. > :21:29.But five months on he's still waiting. I can't believe I was so
:21:29. > :21:32.gullible to fall for all their talk. I feel at my age I should have
:21:32. > :21:35.known better. But Douglas isn't alone. We've had other complaints
:21:35. > :21:37.about Toucan, and so has the Ministry of Justice. They suspended
:21:37. > :21:45.the company's licence before Christmas - they're now trading
:21:45. > :21:48.again, but aren't allowed to take upfront fees. Well, Toucan claim
:21:48. > :21:51.the 10% they charge is lower than many rivals. They insist Douglas
:21:51. > :21:54.DID see written information BEFORE he paid his fee - but Douglas
:21:54. > :22:00.denies this. Toucan say they've authorised his refund but it's
:22:00. > :22:02.stuck with their payment provider in Denmark! So can you claim claim
:22:02. > :22:08.compensation from a bank, just because they've raised your credit
:22:08. > :22:18.limit? Well, the answer is no, unless you've lost out financially
:22:18. > :22:21.
:22:21. > :22:31.because of it. It makes you wonder offering to help you get money back
:22:31. > :22:32.
:22:32. > :22:36.for something unusual, we'd love to We have a big weekend of sport
:22:36. > :22:39.ahead. 75,000 fans will pack out the Millennium Stadium but for some
:22:39. > :22:44.of them, it will be a very expensive day out.
:22:44. > :22:50.It has been a great six nations and when Wales go for the Grand Slam
:22:50. > :22:54.this weekend, the Millennium Stadium is the place to be. But
:22:54. > :23:03.getting in there is not easy. Tickets like this for the big games
:23:03. > :23:08.are like gold dust, but more expensive. Jon from poured Madog
:23:08. > :23:13.loves travelling to Cardiff for the internationals. I have been
:23:13. > :23:20.fortunate enough to see two Grand Slams. Thanks was quick to spot the
:23:20. > :23:25.Biles-France game as the ticket of the tournament. -- Wales-France.
:23:25. > :23:30.found a site that sold the tickets but they go for ridiculous kind of
:23:30. > :23:37.money. Up to �700 a ticket, which has a lot of money to spend. It is
:23:37. > :23:42.not just their. It is stopping real fans from going. -- it is just not
:23:42. > :23:50.fair. A how do you feel about not going to the game? It is really
:23:50. > :23:55.frustrating. I just can't do it. Fans have always been angered by
:23:55. > :24:00.ticket touts. It is ridiculous, that you have to pay that amount
:24:00. > :24:05.over the odds - absolutely terrible. Fans haggling with touts on street
:24:05. > :24:09.corners became part of the match- day experience. But in the age of
:24:09. > :24:13.the internet, ticket touting has become a multi-million-pound
:24:14. > :24:17.business. There is no need to deal with dodgy touts. All you need is
:24:17. > :24:23.an internet connection. Prices on the Net are not for the faint-
:24:23. > :24:28.hearted and it is not just sporting events. Tickets for a Madonna gig
:24:28. > :24:36.are on sale on one site for �5,000 each. These sites have loads of
:24:36. > :24:46.tickets for the big match on Saturday. Have a look at this. 600,
:24:46. > :24:50.
:24:50. > :24:54.901 here for nearly �1,000. -- and a one it here. I would ever pay it.
:24:54. > :25:02.It is out of the reach of the public. For the average supporter,
:25:02. > :25:08.they just haven't got the money. The website people used to resell
:25:08. > :25:14.tickets are doing pretty well out of the market, charging around 25%
:25:14. > :25:17.commission on each sale. But one of the websites cashing in it really
:25:17. > :25:23.bothers Jon. Let's look at this website that you are concerned
:25:23. > :25:30.about. Which one is it? This is GetMeIn.com. They have got tickets
:25:30. > :25:35.for sale for the game, greeting from �280 to �660. -- ranging from
:25:35. > :25:39.of. I can see quite clearly on the Web site GetMeIn.com and
:25:40. > :25:46.Ticketmaster. Ticketmaster is the website that officially sells the
:25:46. > :25:50.tickets. They allow people to sell them on and take a commission. It
:25:50. > :25:56.means that they are effectively acknowledging that people have to
:25:56. > :26:02.spend more. All this happens even those selling tickets at inflated
:26:02. > :26:08.prices is against Wales rugby union terms and conditions. But it is not
:26:08. > :26:11.actually illegal, so the union says they cannot stop the sales. But
:26:11. > :26:18.they do say that fans buying touted tickets could be turned away from
:26:18. > :26:23.the game. Jon will not be one of them. Disappointingly, we will
:26:23. > :26:26.probably end up in a pub at home. It would be nice to be cheering on
:26:26. > :26:29.the lads in the Millennium Stadium but it does not look like it is
:26:29. > :26:33.going to happen. It is not as thanks who thinks
:26:33. > :26:37.there should be a clampdown on ticket touts. The Welsh Rugby Union
:26:37. > :26:42.say the same laws that apply to rugby tickets as football tickets
:26:42. > :26:45.and a Olympics tickets, making touting illegal. The English rugby
:26:45. > :26:50.union is currently fighting a high- profile legal battle to force one
:26:50. > :26:54.online firm to reveal who is selling the tickets. A Scrum V
:26:54. > :26:58.viewers will be familiar with Rick O'Shea. Good to see you. What is
:26:58. > :27:01.your take on this? This is one of the difficult situations that you
:27:01. > :27:06.get in sport. It is a combination of people wanting to watch rugby
:27:06. > :27:09.and market forces. You have the Welsh Rugby Union who are in good
:27:09. > :27:14.faith issue tickets for their product, and you have the end
:27:14. > :27:18.consumer. Once you have the ticket in your hand, if you got it
:27:18. > :27:24.legitimately, it is your property. What about the grassroots fans like
:27:24. > :27:28.Jon who want to go to the big games but can't afford to pay �600?
:27:28. > :27:32.have got every sympathy for Jon because it is their big games that
:27:32. > :27:39.you want to be at. The Welsh Rugby Union give a lot of product for the
:27:39. > :27:45.Welsh fan. Some argue that Wales macro give too many home games. It
:27:45. > :27:52.is the big games that we all want to be at. Grand Slam deciders and
:27:52. > :27:58.World Cup games. Your prediction for Saturday's game? Something like
:27:58. > :28:04.23-18. You may remember we told you a few weeks ago about some unhappy
:28:04. > :28:07.SCS customers. Since then, we have had complaints from all over Wales.
:28:08. > :28:11.From Swansea to Bodfari, the Rhondda to Prestatyn, we have heard
:28:11. > :28:15.from 18 customers unhappy with the sofas and customer-service they
:28:15. > :28:20.have had from the firm. Once again, we will get in touch with SCS to
:28:20. > :28:30.pass on these complaints. That is all we have time for tonight. If he
:28:30. > :28:33.