:00:00. > :00:13.Have you been ripped off? Conned? Or just short changed? We're here to
:00:14. > :00:17.fight for your rights. At the end of their tether. Spotting the latest
:00:18. > :00:21.scams - and making sure you make the most of your money. And at my age
:00:22. > :00:25.I'm effectively having to sell the house and the equity will pay off
:00:26. > :00:28.the majority of my debt and I start from nothing. Exposing the rogues,
:00:29. > :00:41.confronting the conmen - we're here to help you fight back.
:00:42. > :00:53.Tonight - we confront the Swansea call centre boss whose company took
:00:54. > :00:58.thousands of pounds from customers. You people have signed terms and
:00:59. > :01:01.conditions, I believe. They have been misled by your salespeople.
:01:02. > :01:10.The e-cigarettes which give you more of a kick than you'd expect. About
:01:11. > :01:19.ten, maybe 15 minutes later, there was a massive bang, like a firework
:01:20. > :01:23.going off. And Rhodri turns detective. This is
:01:24. > :01:27.the mysterious case of the missing birthday present. We did it go and
:01:28. > :01:31.whodunnit? Tonight we're in Ebbw Vale - where
:01:32. > :01:34.we're going to be hearing about a few ways to save money on your
:01:35. > :01:37.holidays. But first - companies which are leaving customers
:01:38. > :01:40.thousands of pounds out of pocket and making promises they can't
:01:41. > :01:45.possibly keep. Rachel has been investigating this latest cold
:01:46. > :01:51.calling menace. Roll up, roll up, roll up. This is
:01:52. > :01:55.the Too Good To Be True Claims company. We will save you money.
:01:56. > :01:59.Have a look at that - 10% of your mortgage back and your credit card
:02:00. > :02:10.debts written off. How does that sound? Good. I'd be very suspicious.
:02:11. > :02:13.It is too good to be true. Too Good To Be True. It certainly sounds it.
:02:14. > :02:16.But there's a real call centre in Swansea operated by companies making
:02:17. > :02:23.exactly these claims - and charging customers thousands in upfront fees.
:02:24. > :02:27.Nearly a year and a half ago a company operating as CCS Advice was
:02:28. > :02:32.based there - and it was targeting people in debt - like David Parry
:02:33. > :02:35.from Pontypridd. I was in a vulnerable spot without a doubt, you
:02:36. > :02:42.know, my debt was gradually increasing. Probably across my
:02:43. > :02:52.credit cards at the time about ?20,000-?25,000. So when CCS Advice
:02:53. > :02:55.rang out of the blue David was desperate to hear anything which
:02:56. > :03:02.could help ease his financial plight. I resisted the urge to put
:03:03. > :03:05.the phone down, as I normally would and tolerated it for a few moments
:03:06. > :03:09.and the longer the conversation went on, the more plausible it sounded.
:03:10. > :03:12.They had a number of customers who had had their debt written off due
:03:13. > :03:16.to breaches in the Consumer Credit Act. And they were getting a high
:03:17. > :03:21.success rate of getting credit cards and loans written off. For David it
:03:22. > :03:25.sounded like a lifeline. But it wasn't going to be cheap. The
:03:26. > :03:33.company wanted a ?3,800 upfront fee, with the promise that he'd have his
:03:34. > :03:37.money back within a few months. It scared the heck out of me to be
:03:38. > :03:40.honest, but II can get one of my credit cards written off, just one,
:03:41. > :03:44.which was easily attainable from what they were saying, then I'd be
:03:45. > :03:48.in a much better position. I would have had a bit of disposable income
:03:49. > :03:54.to have a bit of a better life for me and my children. But the quick
:03:55. > :04:01.pay out never materialised - and David is now in worse financial
:04:02. > :04:05.trouble than ever. I was just about treading water, and reducing the
:04:06. > :04:10.balance. I'm now, as I say, worse off. I'm actually in a position now
:04:11. > :04:13.where I'm having to sell my house. I was going to rent my house. And at
:04:14. > :04:17.my age I'm effectively having to sell the house and the equity will
:04:18. > :04:25.pay off the majority of my debt and I start from nothing. Can I speak to
:04:26. > :04:28.the householder please? The company David was dealing with was called
:04:29. > :04:31.Claim Credit Services Ltd - run from the basement of this building in
:04:32. > :04:37.Swansea. It's had various trading names - but the tactics stayed much
:04:38. > :04:40.the same. When they rang Melanie Forrer offering a refund on her
:04:41. > :04:46.mortgage they were trading as CCS Review. They told me that I would be
:04:47. > :04:54.entitled to compensation of I think it was about ?14,000 and after their
:04:55. > :04:58.fees I'd receive about ?10,000. She paid them ?2,400 - but when she
:04:59. > :05:03.asked for her money back - she discovered another company had taken
:05:04. > :05:08.over. They checked the files and they said we had no record of you. I
:05:09. > :05:11.said you must have a record of me, you are CCS Review. At that point,
:05:12. > :05:15.they said no, we're CCS-hyphen-Review. We're a different
:05:16. > :05:18.company, we're nothing to do with the other company, we're based in
:05:19. > :05:22.Poole in Dorset and the other company are in Swansea. So I said
:05:23. > :05:27.well you all seem to have Welsh accents. That's because the calls
:05:28. > :05:31.were still coming from that basement in Swansea - although it was now run
:05:32. > :05:36.by a different company with headquarters in England. Melanie did
:05:37. > :05:43.manage to get her money back through them. I want to find out if the
:05:44. > :05:48.claims being made by this new company any more realistic. Going
:05:49. > :05:51.off the minimal claim value there you are looking at getting
:05:52. > :06:00.compensation back of just over ?25,000. It's 25,252. And I've got a
:06:01. > :06:03.few questions for the man behind the company which took David's money.
:06:04. > :06:06.Nicholas Harle? We're from X-Ray. Why have you been misleading your
:06:07. > :06:09.customers? You've got the wrong person, sorry. We haven't got the
:06:10. > :06:13.wrong person. It's Nicholas Harle, isn't it? Sorry, no.
:06:14. > :06:16.And you can see the shocking claims which that call centre made to
:06:17. > :06:20.Rachel later in the programme. Now, if you're booking your summer
:06:21. > :06:24.holiday you may be booking a hire car to get around when you're there.
:06:25. > :06:28.It's not something many of us do very often. So guess what? The car
:06:29. > :06:31.hire companies have plenty of tricks up their sleeve to bump up the
:06:32. > :06:36.price. Well, travel writer Tom answer is with me now. Let's talk
:06:37. > :06:40.first of all about the fuel tank because this is one area where we
:06:41. > :06:43.can be caught out, isn't it? Well, something to watch out for with car
:06:44. > :06:47.hire companies now days especially budget companies is when they try to
:06:48. > :06:51.loan you the car with a full tank of fuel that you can then return to
:06:52. > :06:55.them empty. Now that fuel is going to cost more than you are able to
:06:56. > :06:59.buy for elsewhere in the country that you're renting the car in and
:07:00. > :07:03.you're never going to use it all up, so you're going to end up returning
:07:04. > :07:07.the car back to them with some fuel left in there which they will gladly
:07:08. > :07:11.sell on to somebody else for the same price again. Yeah, you don't
:07:12. > :07:14.want to do that. OK, let's take a look in the back of the car. The
:07:15. > :07:18.child's car seat, an essential piece of kit isn't it if you've got kids.
:07:19. > :07:22.Any advice on keeping the costs down? It's another one of those
:07:23. > :07:27.little extras, It'll be about ten or 11 quid a day, can be even more and
:07:28. > :07:31.do you know what you can take one of these on the plane for a tenner and
:07:32. > :07:35.it's going to be your own one and you know exactly how to fit it into
:07:36. > :07:39.that car. Now, in the front, we've got a sat nav. You may well need one
:07:40. > :07:42.of those if you're exploring a foreign country. Any advice on that?
:07:43. > :07:46.Well, these are again another little add on but it is far cheaper and
:07:47. > :07:51.more economical to try and take care of yourself. Tenner a day but for 25
:07:52. > :07:54.quid you can rent one privately for two weeks. You can also quite easily
:07:55. > :07:57.re-condition your own to work in European countries. But you know
:07:58. > :08:01.what? You're on holiday, why not go with the traditional method of a
:08:02. > :08:04.paper map and just get lost in a beautiful country you travel to! The
:08:05. > :08:08.excess waiver. Do you really need one of those? Most car hire
:08:09. > :08:11.companies are going to include a collision damage waiver but this
:08:12. > :08:15.means there will still be an excess. A big excess of an average of about
:08:16. > :08:19.700 quid. You can pay for the excess to be waivered completely but this
:08:20. > :08:23.is going to cost you again at least a tenner a day with most companies.
:08:24. > :08:26.You can get private damage excess waivers from other companies online
:08:27. > :08:29.from as little as 25 quid per week, maybe even less. That's really great
:08:30. > :08:32.advice, Tom, thank you. Now, when things get lost in the
:08:33. > :08:37.post, it can be really frustrating. But for one family, it became a bit
:08:38. > :08:39.of a detective story - as Rhodri's been finding out.
:08:40. > :08:43.This is the case of the missing birthday present. It's a tale of
:08:44. > :08:48.mystery and intrigue-where did it go and who done it. The victim in this
:08:49. > :08:54.mystery - Lucy Myers Sleight, a business development manager from
:08:55. > :08:56.Quakers Yard near Treharris. Last October she and husband Keith
:08:57. > :09:01.treated themselves to a little getaway. It was Lucy's Birthday so
:09:02. > :09:08.on their return they thought they'd come home to a few nice surprises.
:09:09. > :09:12.When we got back we actually only found one or two cards and there
:09:13. > :09:18.was, you know the one we expected to see from my mum nothing was there at
:09:19. > :09:22.all. Keith's mum Barbara lives near Leeds. She'd been to the local post
:09:23. > :09:34.office, popped ?50 cash in a card and paid ?4.10 to send it via the
:09:35. > :09:38.First Class Signed For service. Yes, I could've put it through the bank
:09:39. > :09:41.but I like, it's not the same really is for a Birthday present. I like
:09:42. > :09:44.the excitement of them opening something and seeing what's inside
:09:45. > :09:49.and what have you. Barbara told them she's sent something - so they were
:09:50. > :09:54.looking out of it. -- looking out for it. She's very good to be
:09:55. > :09:58.honest, you know she'd sent it in advance so that it would be there in
:09:59. > :10:02.time. So when we got back from our weekend away and we looked through
:10:03. > :10:05.the cards and we could see that her's wasn't there it was a little
:10:06. > :10:08.bit confusing as to what had happened. So Keith went online to
:10:09. > :10:11.track the present. The website revealed that the card had been
:10:12. > :10:15.delivered to the right address and signed for in the name of Myers
:10:16. > :10:22.Sleight. But the signature was like nothing they'd ever seen before-so
:10:23. > :10:24.who had signed for it? Well, when I saw the signature it was
:10:25. > :10:27.unrecognisable really, it didn't look like a signature, it just
:10:28. > :10:31.looked like a couple of letters. Obviously it didn't resemble our
:10:32. > :10:34.signature at all-we weren't here. I was really perplexed at that point
:10:35. > :10:38.as to where the card had actually gone. I thought, oh, has somebody
:10:39. > :10:41.been stood on our doorstep waiting for the postman and stolen it or
:10:42. > :10:45.something like that? So the couple decided to do some detective work.
:10:46. > :10:52.Keith went off to investigate at the local delivery office in Pontypridd.
:10:53. > :10:59.And Lucy asked the neighbours if they knew anything about it. But
:11:00. > :11:03.both trails went cold. With still no trace of the card they filled in an
:11:04. > :11:08.official Royal Mail compensation form to try and claim back the money
:11:09. > :11:12.they had lost. And that's how the mystery was solved. The Royal Mail
:11:13. > :11:18.wrote to Barbara and the identity of the letter signer was revealed. It
:11:19. > :11:22.was a postman. He'd signed for it himself and he said posted it
:11:23. > :11:27.through their door. Unbelievable. But Royal Mail wouldn't give the
:11:28. > :11:31.family their money back. Every letter we've received has been, you
:11:32. > :11:37.know, blah blah blah we've looked into it, end of story, we can't do
:11:38. > :11:40.anymore. Well, Royal Mail says it has
:11:41. > :11:44.disciplined the postie concerned but they've not been sacked. They say
:11:45. > :11:48.that Lucy's mum used the wrong service to send cash - it went first
:11:49. > :11:52.class signed for - when it should have gone Special Delivery
:11:53. > :11:56.Guaranteed. If it had it would have been covered for the loss. But the
:11:57. > :12:02.Royal Mail have now agreed to refund the ?50, so Lucy can have that
:12:03. > :12:06.special treat after all. Now, you might have seen people
:12:07. > :12:09.smoking things like these - e cigarettes. There's been lots of
:12:10. > :12:13.debate over there health benefits - but not so much has been said about
:12:14. > :12:20.the risk of them exploding. Lucy's been finding out more.
:12:21. > :12:25.Electronic cigarettes. More than a million people are using them and
:12:26. > :12:30.the market is booming. But they're controversial, and some pubs and
:12:31. > :12:31.restaurants have banned them. As for the long-term impact on health,
:12:32. > :12:43.well, the jury's still out. That's not what's troubling Keirran
:12:44. > :12:46.Francis and his family in Neath. A month ago a friend came round and
:12:47. > :12:53.asked to charge her e-cigarette in his kitchen. About 15 minutes later,
:12:54. > :13:03.there was a massive bang, like a firework going off. First thing, we
:13:04. > :13:06.turned the electric off by the mains to obviously, just in case it was an
:13:07. > :13:10.electrical fault, and then scarpered into the kitchen and realised then
:13:11. > :13:13.that it was the e-cigarette that did actually blow up. Basically, it's
:13:14. > :13:20.shot across the room, caused a little of damage to the window sill,
:13:21. > :13:30.it's melted parts of the floor. Have you thought about what could have
:13:31. > :13:34.happened if you weren't here? If we were out, obviously, the house would
:13:35. > :13:37.have gone up in flames, but more importantly if we were here all in
:13:38. > :13:40.bed then obviously it could have cost, cost our lives. A Florida man
:13:41. > :13:44.is recovering from severe injuries to his mouth and face after an
:13:45. > :13:48.electronic cigarette exploded in his mouth. Cases of exploding cigarettes
:13:49. > :13:52.have been reported around the world. I was charging one of my electronic
:13:53. > :14:02.cigarette batteries via the USB cable and check out what happened.
:14:03. > :14:06.Look, the damn thing exploded! They're a problem across Britain too
:14:07. > :14:11.- and they caused a blaze at this Derbyshire nursing home which left
:14:12. > :14:15.one woman dead. And X-Ray has learned of at least six other cases
:14:16. > :14:19.dealt with by fire-fighters in Wales in the past two years, and that
:14:20. > :14:28.could just be the tip of the iceberg if more people aren't reporting
:14:29. > :14:33.incidents. In my left hand we have got the remains of the rechargeable
:14:34. > :14:38.battery. Then we have got the actual cigarette. So how are these fires
:14:39. > :14:41.starting then? The users charge their e-cigarettes too long. Unlike
:14:42. > :14:44.other rechargeable batteries like in mobile phones for example they
:14:45. > :14:47.aren't fitted with a default setting which switches off the charger to
:14:48. > :14:49.prevent the battery from overcharging. There's also people
:14:50. > :14:52.using different components to charge different e-cigarettes so that's a
:14:53. > :15:00.cause in itself because they're set at different ratings. What do you
:15:01. > :15:03.think needs to be done to find out more about what's causing this? It's
:15:04. > :15:07.obvious that more testing needs to be carried out and maybe more
:15:08. > :15:10.regulation needs to brought in. Trading Standards are investigating
:15:11. > :15:15.the problem - and this lab in Blackwood is among the first to
:15:16. > :15:25.conduct tests. Overseeing this test is senior safety engineer Leigh
:15:26. > :15:28.Picton. Hi, Leigh. Hi. So, what's going on here? Um, basically, we are
:15:29. > :15:31.measuring the surface temperatures of these e-cigarettes using these
:15:32. > :15:34.temperature sensors, and we'll be monitoring the temperatures using
:15:35. > :15:37.this graph and what we'll be looking for is any sharp rises in
:15:38. > :15:44.temperature, and that could indicate that something is going wrong with
:15:45. > :15:47.the batteries. As the test progresses, one of the e-cigarette
:15:48. > :15:56.chargers appears to be heating up more than the others. What does it
:15:57. > :16:01.show you? Straightaway, looking at that graph, I can see a spike there.
:16:02. > :16:04.This spike here, this was basically the temperature of this particular
:16:05. > :16:09.charger. The battery was initially empty so it was an initial surge of
:16:10. > :16:13.power. But the fact that it eased off, you're satisfied that these
:16:14. > :16:16.devices are safe? Yeah. In this instance, because the temperature
:16:17. > :16:22.just started to decrease, it's considered safe. If the voltage did
:16:23. > :16:24.not drop off as you can see here, then what can happen is temperatures
:16:25. > :16:32.increase, increase and increase until the battery potentially could
:16:33. > :16:36.rupture. With more testing, it's hoped that e-cigarettes can be made
:16:37. > :16:43.safer but until then, users need to take care. It's important we get the
:16:44. > :16:46.message out and say, buy them from reputable sources, make sure you
:16:47. > :16:48.don't mix and match, and don't overcharge them, don't leave them
:16:49. > :16:52.unattended when you're charging them.
:16:53. > :16:56.If you do anything on the internet, you will have ticked those endless
:16:57. > :16:59.boxes which say, I agree to the terms and conditions. Pages and
:17:00. > :17:04.pages of waffle usually and most of the time we just tick. But ignoring
:17:05. > :17:13.the boring bits of a web page can be expensive as Lucy's been finding
:17:14. > :17:16.out. We all know the dangers of e-mail
:17:17. > :17:24.scams, fake websites and virus threats. But when we're using the
:17:25. > :17:33.websites of well-known companies, we can let our guard down. That can be
:17:34. > :17:36.expensive. Back in September, paramedic Malcolm Morrison used the
:17:37. > :17:44.Trainline.com to buy tickets for a trip to London for him and his wife
:17:45. > :17:48.Sue. A few days later the website sent us another e-mail asking if we
:17:49. > :17:56.wanted to buy some West End show tickets and we thought that was a
:17:57. > :18:00.good idea, so we did. Malcolm entered his credit card details and
:18:01. > :18:11.that's when another window popped up with some great news - he was
:18:12. > :18:15.entitled to a free gift. One stuck out, Lift Serum Pro, which is
:18:16. > :18:21.supposed to be better than Botox and so I thought well, my wife might
:18:22. > :18:28.like it. Bet she was pleased about that! Malcolm pressed on and was
:18:29. > :18:32.asked to pay ?1.99 postage. I had my credit card in my hand so I paid the
:18:33. > :18:35.?1.99 postage and there was obviously this little box you had to
:18:36. > :18:39.tick to accept the terms and conditions of the offer which you
:18:40. > :18:45.always do on the internet, so I ticked that. So Malcolm and Sue went
:18:46. > :18:50.off to enjoy their weekend in London. When we come back, the
:18:51. > :18:56.package was there, inside was this Lift Serum Pro. I gave it to my wife
:18:57. > :19:00.and I thought that was the end of that. Malcolm had paid the?1.99
:19:01. > :19:07.postage for the sample, but when he checked his statement the next
:19:08. > :19:11.month, he had a nasty surprise. There was ?85.00 gone out to the
:19:12. > :19:14.same company and I thought, what an earth is this? I thought there's
:19:15. > :19:18.been a mistake, apparently that terms conditions box I'd ticked,
:19:19. > :19:22.I'd agreed for them, after 14 days, to take ?85.00 out to pay for that
:19:23. > :19:25.first supply, and worse than that, I was going to receive another supply
:19:26. > :19:40.every month until I asked them to stop. I was suckered into this one.
:19:41. > :19:46.So how did Malcolm fall for this? I'm asking consumer law expert Huw
:19:47. > :19:51.Evans to look at the website. You go onto the Lift Serum Pro website and
:19:52. > :19:56.at first glance you can see why he thought he was signing up for ?1.99.
:19:57. > :19:59.You've just got to read the first line of the small print, you
:20:00. > :20:03.wouldn't think you'd need to read any further, it says we will send
:20:04. > :20:07.you a 30 day supply of the product for just shipping and handling fee
:20:08. > :20:11.of ?1.99. Then you've got above, the prominence, get your risk free trial
:20:12. > :20:15.today. It's only when you read a lot further down in the small print at
:20:16. > :20:18.the bottom of this page that you see this sun of ?84.71. It's not
:20:19. > :20:23.prominent, you are directed towards ?1.99. The issue that you have to
:20:24. > :20:28.pay this extra amount on top of the ?1.99 is not mentioned in any
:20:29. > :20:34.prominent form whatsoever. I could be fooled by that. Is this illegal?
:20:35. > :20:42.On the face of it, I think we have misleading selling here, and that it
:20:43. > :20:46.should be stopped. We wrote to Lift Serum Pro's head office in Las Vegas
:20:47. > :20:49.but they've not responded to any of our letters or e-mails.
:20:50. > :20:53.Thetrainline.com which is the website that Malcom says he was
:20:54. > :20:57.using when he saw the Lift Serum Pro pop up, says it has nothing to do
:20:58. > :21:02.with that company and it doesn't allow any pop up adverts on its
:21:03. > :21:05.booking confirmation page. Earlier we met victims of a company
:21:06. > :21:11.which made big promises to cut customers debts, then failed to
:21:12. > :21:18.deliver. Time for Rachel to pose as a customer and hear the sales pitch
:21:19. > :21:23.for herself. David Parry is a victim of a Swansea
:21:24. > :21:27.company cold Claim Credit Services. He was deeply in debt when they
:21:28. > :21:32.cold, offering to wipe out his credit card balances. But they
:21:33. > :21:37.wanted a fee of nearly ?4,000. Now ease worse off than ever. I was just
:21:38. > :21:42.about treading water, and reducing the balance. I'm now, as I say,
:21:43. > :21:45.worse off. I was going to rent my house out. I'm a chilly in a
:21:46. > :21:49.position now where I'm having to sell my house. At my age, I'm
:21:50. > :21:53.effectively having to sell the house and the equity will pay off the
:21:54. > :21:56.majority of my debt and I start from nothing. The company that took
:21:57. > :22:01.David's money had this mild Nicholas Harle as its director. It was based
:22:02. > :22:05.in the basement of this listed building in Swansea. It has no
:22:06. > :22:10.connection with the other companies based there. This is a place with a
:22:11. > :22:13.bit of history as a call centre. It used to be home to one of misty
:22:14. > :22:20.Harle's businesses, Consortium Reclaim. They were on X-Ray a few
:22:21. > :22:27.years ago. Then came CCS Advice, CCS Review, and most recently
:22:28. > :22:31.CCS-Review. That last one is a chilly a different company and it's
:22:32. > :22:36.not run by Nicholas Harle but it works out of the same call centre
:22:37. > :22:42.and offers the same services. Are the claims made by this company any
:22:43. > :22:49.more realistic than the last? I ring them and tell them I'm up to my neck
:22:50. > :22:52.in debt, and desperate. We specialise in financial hardship and
:22:53. > :22:55.in regards to the misselling of mortgages as well. This is how we
:22:56. > :23:00.can get compensation for clouds like yourself. Fantastic! Compensation,
:23:01. > :23:03.just what I need when I'm in debt. They're going to make some big
:23:04. > :23:09.promises. First up, a massive reduction in my debts. Going off the
:23:10. > :23:13.minimal claim value there, you're looking at getting compensation
:23:14. > :23:19.back. If you want to write this down for me, it's just over ?25,000. It's
:23:20. > :23:25.?25,252. That's just on the mortgage. He then promises nearly
:23:26. > :23:30.?25,000 off my credit card debts. With the mortgage agreement, that is
:23:31. > :23:33.a lot of money back for you. Then obviously, with the debt getting
:23:34. > :23:37.eliminated, it is like a ?50,000 swing for you too, isn't it? Second,
:23:38. > :23:44.we have to pay a ?3,200 fee but they'll charge that to my credit
:23:45. > :23:49.cards and it'll be wiped out, too. The ?3214 is gone with the credit
:23:50. > :23:55.card debt you have. There's nothing left for you to pay on that. Next
:23:56. > :23:59.up, I'll have the money in just a few months. Right, well what's the
:24:00. > :24:03.month today? It's January today, call it say start of February.
:24:04. > :24:08.You're probably looking at April to get the money back. So are these
:24:09. > :24:14.claims realistic? I've come to ask an expert. Processing the claim
:24:15. > :24:18.forwards and obtaining compensation within 90 days then. Is that
:24:19. > :24:21.feasible? It's wholly unrealistic. A mortgage misselling claim could,
:24:22. > :24:25.certainly if it turned into litigation, go on for up to 18
:24:26. > :24:32.months. The notion that you could get compensation back in that sort
:24:33. > :24:35.of timescale is ridiculous. We have a 100% success rate. With the FSA
:24:36. > :24:39.assessment, we haven't had an unsuccessful outcome. He is giving
:24:40. > :24:43.the impression that they have done this for 28,500 people. They've
:24:44. > :24:50.never had an unsuccessful case. What do you make of that? On the face of
:24:51. > :24:52.it, it seems to be a completely wild and unrealistic claim. No lawyer is
:24:53. > :24:57.100% successful. It's just unrealistic. You have got a business
:24:58. > :25:00.which is claiming to be professional, which is behaving in a
:25:01. > :25:03.thoroughly unprofessional manner. Preying on vulnerable, financially
:25:04. > :25:06.distressed people, offering them a service which they must know they
:25:07. > :25:15.can't realistically deliver on, and in a timescale which is also wholly
:25:16. > :25:19.unrealistic. David Parry faces losing his house after falling for a
:25:20. > :25:23.similar sales pitch from the company which used to operate that call
:25:24. > :25:28.centre. He gave them nearly ?4,000 when he was deeply in debt. Now I
:25:29. > :25:34.want to find out what happened to his money. Time to pay a visit to
:25:35. > :25:40.director Nicholas Harle. Nicholas Harle - we're from X-Ray. Why have
:25:41. > :25:45.you been taking thousands of pounds for a service you can't deliver? I
:25:46. > :25:48.think you've got the wrong person. No I haven't, It's Nicholas Harle.
:25:49. > :25:52.Why have you been misleading your customers? You've got the wrong
:25:53. > :25:56.person, sorry. We haven't got the wrong person, it's Nicholas Harle
:25:57. > :26:02.isn't it? Sorry, no But he finally remembers who he is. You signed for
:26:03. > :26:08.a letter here in the name of Nicholas Harle. OK, yeah. But can he
:26:09. > :26:12.remember what happened to David's money? Your member of staff told him
:26:13. > :26:17.there was no wind, no fee. He hasn't won but ease paid the fee. Nearly
:26:18. > :26:21.?4,000. Ease never seen that money again. You'll have to speak to the
:26:22. > :26:25.legal representative. I don't want to speak to a legal representative,
:26:26. > :26:28.I want to speak to you. You're the director of the company. I'm unable
:26:29. > :26:32.to comment on it, sorry Tell me your staff haven't been misleading
:26:33. > :26:36.people. I'm unable to comment on it, sorry. Why are you unable to
:26:37. > :26:39.comment? If you're the mild whose name is registered to the company,
:26:40. > :26:43.why aren't you prepared to talk? You're prepared to ring people up in
:26:44. > :26:47.their homes and mislead them and get them to pay over thousands of pounds
:26:48. > :26:50.to your company, but you're not prepared to sit here and answer
:26:51. > :26:57.questions. Do you know what that makes you look like? Spineless! So
:26:58. > :27:04.you've got nothing to say to the people who are thousands of pounds
:27:05. > :27:08.in debt? No. Because of you and your company. These people have signed
:27:09. > :27:13.terms and conditions I believe. They were misled. They were misled by
:27:14. > :27:17.your sales people. I don't think that's the case. Obviously I
:27:18. > :27:20.apologise if somebody's lost money but I don't think that's the case.
:27:21. > :27:24.You apologise if people have lost money? Are you going to give them
:27:25. > :27:28.their money back? I don't have their money. So who's got the money,
:27:29. > :27:36.because somebody's got it? I don't know, sorry. So that's Nicholas
:27:37. > :27:40.Harle, a mild who's quite prepared to disturb you at home and ask you
:27:41. > :27:47.lots of personal questions, but he really doesn't like it when you try
:27:48. > :27:51.and do it to him. So that was the mild in charge of
:27:52. > :27:55.running the call centre when David lost his money. By the time Rachel
:27:56. > :27:59.rang, it was a different company and another mild in charge - Simon
:28:00. > :28:03.Helliwell from Dorset. He didn't respond to our letters. Since our
:28:04. > :28:09.investigation, his company has a new trading name - The Full Financial
:28:10. > :28:15.Review. Let us know if you get a call from them. We'll see if they've
:28:16. > :28:18.cleaned up their act. Next week, they promised her a
:28:19. > :28:23.lifetime guarantee after she spent thousands on laser eye surgery. Now
:28:24. > :28:28.they've changed their mind. It's the worst thing I ever did, Until then -
:28:29. > :28:38.if you have anything you want us to investigate, give us a call.
:28:39. > :29:06.Hello, I'm Ellie Crisell with your 90 second update. There's still no
:29:07. > :29:09.sign of a Malaysia Airlines plane that suddenly disappeared three days
:29:10. > :29:13.ago. The search area has been widened but so far no wreckage has
:29:14. > :29:14.been found. Officials say it's an unprecedented mystery. The latest