:00:05. > :00:11.programme - The Cardiff alarm company charging thousands for its
:00:11. > :00:14.security guard service. But does it really exist?
:00:14. > :00:19.How one couple's battle with their jeweller took the shine off their
:00:19. > :00:29.big day. And are supermarket promotions always the special offers
:00:29. > :00:40.
:00:40. > :00:43.Hello, and welcome to the programme. This week we're enjoying the
:00:43. > :00:47.stunning views on the seafront here in Swansea.
:00:47. > :00:51.Yes, it's a great place to get away from it all. But whether you live a
:00:51. > :00:54.big town like this, or a village in the country there's one problem
:00:54. > :00:57.which can affect us all. If you're worried about being
:00:57. > :01:02.burgled, protecting your home with an alarm may seem like money well
:01:02. > :01:10.spent but only if the service you paid for actually works. Rachel's
:01:10. > :01:14.been finding out more. We all want to feel safe in our own
:01:14. > :01:20.home, but sadly you never know if or when an uninvited visitor might come
:01:20. > :01:27.calling. Across England and Wales, a home is burgled every two minutes
:01:27. > :01:30.and the destruction the thieves leave behind can be devastating. So
:01:30. > :01:37.it's no surprise that lots of us consider investing in an alarm
:01:37. > :01:42.system to make us feel that bit more secure in our homes. But some alarm
:01:42. > :01:45.companies seem to play on that fear. These customers all paid a fortune
:01:45. > :01:49.for systems they say were mis-sold by a firm called Preferred Security
:01:49. > :01:59.UK Ltd who claim to be based on the top floor of this building in
:01:59. > :02:00.
:02:00. > :02:03.Cardiff. Annette Taylor from Newport was called out of the blue last
:02:03. > :02:06.autumn. I had a telephone call offering an
:02:06. > :02:16.alarm system free of charge and it would be installed for �99 instead
:02:16. > :02:20.
:02:20. > :02:24.The very next day, a representative from Preferred Security paid Annette
:02:24. > :02:32.a visit, but the system he was offering would cost a lot more than
:02:32. > :02:35.the �99 she'd been quoted over the phone. The price had rocketed to
:02:35. > :02:42.�3,000 for the alarm, servicing and five years monitoring, to be done by
:02:42. > :02:49.a separate company. When Annette said that was too much, they dropped
:02:49. > :02:52.the price to �900, plus �100 a month for a year.
:02:52. > :02:55.We would be monitored with a monitoring company and there would
:02:55. > :02:58.be a Manguard service so that if the alarm went off and they could not
:02:58. > :03:06.get a response from either ourselves or our key holders, then the
:03:06. > :03:15.Manguard would come. A Manguard conjures up all kinds of
:03:15. > :03:20.images. So what exactly did Preferred Security mean? Well their
:03:20. > :03:24.website doesn't clearly explain the Manguard's duties. What they do say
:03:24. > :03:30.is he'll arrive quickly, day or night and even carry out first aid.
:03:30. > :03:35.Sounds great! So this is the system then, which obviously looks quite
:03:35. > :03:39.flash, but has it done the job? No, it hasn't. It's gone off several
:03:39. > :03:43.times. We've had no response. So you actually had a false alarm,
:03:43. > :03:48.but nobody came? No, no Manguard. We've got no proof
:03:48. > :03:56.of this Manguard. No one seems to know what company it is or where
:03:56. > :04:00.they're based, so as far as we can see we haven't got Manguard cover?
:04:00. > :04:02.Retired priest, Keith Beardmore, also lives in Newport. Preferred
:04:02. > :04:08.Security rang him in September, again pushing free alarm
:04:08. > :04:16.installation. But the salesmen then persuaded Keith to hand over almost
:04:16. > :04:19.�3,000. Keith already had an alarm, but was
:04:19. > :04:24.impressed by the Manguarding service and the salesman's claims that
:04:24. > :04:27.systems were linked to the police. So he signed up, but when his alarm
:04:27. > :04:33.went off whilst he was on holiday, the monitoring centre didn't even
:04:33. > :04:38.have his contact details! We were amazed to find out Preferred
:04:38. > :04:41.Security hadn't told them the names of our key holders. And the
:04:41. > :04:47.monitoring company said, "Well what do you expect us to do?" So we said
:04:47. > :04:50.surely the Manguard could have come out then? And they said, "What is a
:04:50. > :04:55.Manguard?" Over in Bridgend Donald Cole also fell for the salesman's
:04:55. > :05:04.patter when he got a call from Preferred Security.
:05:04. > :05:09.He paid �2,000 for his system in March. But when Donald's alarm did
:05:09. > :05:12.go off, no Manguard arrived. He also says he wasn't told about the hefty
:05:12. > :05:21.charges for automatic calls from his alarm to the monitoring company,
:05:21. > :05:25.sometimes several times a day. It was only about 23p a time, but
:05:25. > :05:28.there was quite a lot of them. They mount up.
:05:28. > :05:31.None of these Preferred Security customers has ever seen a Manguard.
:05:31. > :05:34.They all say they weren't told about those expensive automatic calls to
:05:34. > :05:40.the monitoring company and for two of them that monitoring centre
:05:40. > :05:43.didn't have their key holders' details. No wonder they're unhappy.
:05:43. > :05:49.Even more disturbingly, we've been contacted by the family of a
:05:49. > :05:51.91-year-old woman with dementia. They say she handed over �1500 last
:05:51. > :06:01.month to a Preferred Security salesman, with another �1500 due in
:06:01. > :06:07.instalments. The woman couldn't remember signing up. Luckily, the
:06:07. > :06:10.engineer wasn't happy to go along with the installation. Preferred
:06:10. > :06:16.Security makes lots of grand claims, including that they're one of the
:06:16. > :06:19.few companies in Britain offering both police and Manguard response.
:06:19. > :06:22.Now, some alarm companies do have the right approval to get a police
:06:22. > :06:31.response to your home but Preferred Security isn't one of them, so
:06:31. > :06:33.shouldn't be making that claim. In fact, last summer South Wales Police
:06:33. > :06:41.issued a warning that Preferred Security were not endorsed by them
:06:41. > :06:46.and appeared to be using aggressive tactics to sell their alarms. But
:06:46. > :06:52.what about that Manguard service? To find out whether it really exists,
:06:52. > :06:56.we're going to test the alarms of some disgruntled customers.
:06:56. > :07:00.This is the little alarm button that I press. First, Donald Cole in
:07:00. > :07:03.Bridgend. We've told his key holders to ignore any phone calls from the
:07:03. > :07:09.monitoring centre. Because if no-one answers, Preferred Security should
:07:10. > :07:13.send out a Manguard. They've stopped ringing so I'm
:07:13. > :07:18.expecting any minute to see someone arrive.
:07:18. > :07:22.Unlike most alarms, this one only goes off inside the house. So
:07:22. > :07:26.neighbours are unlikely to call the police. We're on our own.
:07:26. > :07:29.OK, it's been half an hour and still no-one's arrive, so I'll turn it
:07:29. > :07:35.off. Really annoyed actually, I was expecting someone to come around and
:07:35. > :07:43.inspect the place. Next stop - Annette's home in
:07:43. > :07:48.Newport for a second test. Right, there we are. That's the
:07:48. > :07:51.alarm set. Along comes Mr Burglar to let himself in. It's just before
:07:51. > :07:54.twenty to two? He's in, isn't he. Let's see how long our Manguard
:07:54. > :07:58.takes to come and save the day. Do you think he'll be handsome?
:07:58. > :08:02.Here's hoping! Our fake burglar is making himself
:08:02. > :08:06.at home. Annette says she was told a Manguard would arrive within five
:08:06. > :08:10.minutes. Enough time for our helpful housebreaker to knock up a little
:08:10. > :08:13.snack. I don't know of many burglars who'll
:08:14. > :08:21.do that for you, but if he had been a real burglar, we'd still be
:08:21. > :08:30.waiting for a Manguard. After ten minutes the alarm stops ringing, so
:08:30. > :08:40.we set it off again and then wait?and wait. I spy with my little
:08:40. > :08:43.eye something beginning with B. Birds? No. So it's actually been
:08:43. > :08:48.over half an hour, we're still waiting, how do you feel? How secure
:08:48. > :08:53.do you feel? I don't feel secure at all. Half an
:08:53. > :08:58.hour and the Manguard should be here in five minutes, it's not good. The
:08:58. > :09:03.system is not what they sold us. Two alarm tests, two no-shows, and
:09:03. > :09:08.these Preferred Security customers want their money back. Time to see
:09:08. > :09:11.what the company has to say, so we head to their registered office.
:09:12. > :09:14.So this address in Cardiff is the last known place that Preferred
:09:15. > :09:22.Security UK Ltd operated from but the people say they haven't seen
:09:22. > :09:27.them for over a week, so it would appear that they've moved on.
:09:27. > :09:32.But we're not giving up that easily. Our investigation leads us across
:09:32. > :09:35.the Severn Bridge, to the seaside town of Weston-super-Mare. We've
:09:35. > :09:42.spoken to a Preferred Security customer who's been told in the last
:09:42. > :09:48.few days that they've moved here. It's not on any official paperwork,
:09:48. > :09:51.but let's see if we can find them. And we discover that a number of
:09:51. > :09:56.people who've been connected to the company have just rented an office
:09:56. > :10:00.here. It appears they're in the process of setting up a new alarm
:10:00. > :10:03.company. Doubtless they're going to be looking for new customers but the
:10:03. > :10:11.question is, what does all this mean for the people who've already paid
:10:12. > :10:16.thousands of pounds for an alarm from Preferred Security UK Ltd?
:10:16. > :10:19.Some very unhappy customers there. Now we've been trying to get to the
:10:19. > :10:23.bottom of all this. Rachel's here to tell us more. Hi Rachel. So what do
:10:23. > :10:26.we know? Well it's a very tangled mess as you
:10:26. > :10:29.saw in the report Preferred Security UK Ltd, the company our viewers
:10:29. > :10:34.bought their alarms from, are being very cagey about where they're
:10:34. > :10:38.actually operating from these days. Remember, the company has also
:10:38. > :10:43.changed ownership and management in the past few months. Quite some
:10:43. > :10:46.going for a firm that's only just over a year old. We've also
:10:46. > :10:52.discovered that one of the original people involved in the company
:10:52. > :10:55.already had a dubious track record in the alarm industry. This is also
:10:55. > :10:58.someone who is a fraudster who uses multiple identities and has been
:10:58. > :11:05.jailed for his part in stealing large sums of money from vulnerable
:11:05. > :11:08.elderly people. X-Ray would like to name him, but at the moment we can't
:11:08. > :11:13.do that at we have managed to speak to the current management on the
:11:13. > :11:18.phone. They insist that this man hasn't had anything to do with
:11:18. > :11:22.Preferred Security UK Ltd for some time. But his name keeps cropping up
:11:22. > :11:26.in our investigation and we're yet to be convinced about that.
:11:26. > :11:28.OK, and what about have the company had to say about their Manguarding
:11:28. > :11:32.service, which our viewers say doesn't work?
:11:32. > :11:36.Well, they insist it does exist and they deny mis-selling alarms. They
:11:36. > :11:39.say the reason no Manguard turned up when we did the test at Annette's
:11:39. > :11:46.house was that she'd cancelled her contract by then, which is news to
:11:46. > :11:49.her! But that doesn't explain why they didn't turn up for our test at
:11:49. > :11:53.Donald's house or all the other times our viewers alarms went off,
:11:53. > :11:58.between October and May. They do admit there have been problems and
:11:58. > :12:02.say they switched to a new Manguarding company last November.
:12:02. > :12:05.Now we've spoken to the company they used before that date and they told
:12:05. > :12:09.us they only ever attended one job and stopped providing the service
:12:09. > :12:13.because they never got paid. Preferred Security denies this.
:12:13. > :12:18.Remember they also say there'll be a police response in an emergency too
:12:18. > :12:21.even though the police told us they're not on their approved list.
:12:21. > :12:26.Their explanation for that is, you've guessed it, the Manguard
:12:26. > :12:28.could call the police. If, of course, they ever turn up. Now,
:12:28. > :12:34.Preferred Security have finally agreed to give Annette, Keith and
:12:34. > :12:39.Donald their money back and we'll be checking to make sure that they do.
:12:39. > :12:49.Rachel, thanks very much. Don't forget, if you've got story
:12:49. > :12:58.
:12:58. > :13:01.you'd like us to look into, do get for two years so why can't Philip's
:13:01. > :13:11.sat nav find it? And the couple who say their jeweller ruined their
:13:11. > :13:14.
:13:14. > :13:24.engagement ring. One of the many costs for families
:13:24. > :13:35.
:13:35. > :13:38.is the food costs. Are the deals all I do love a good bargain in the
:13:38. > :13:48.supermarket, you see something on offer and you quickly grab it while
:13:48. > :13:49.
:13:49. > :13:52.you can. Everybody likes a bargain don't they? My sister is one for
:13:52. > :13:55.stocking up on like multi deals and extra value deals and things like
:13:55. > :14:02.that, definitely. Sometimes sugar is dear one week and cheap the next, so
:14:02. > :14:06.when it's cheap I buy more. But what if you went back to the same
:14:06. > :14:15.supermarket the following week and it was still on offer, and the week
:14:15. > :14:20.after that, and the week after that? You might start to wonder whether
:14:20. > :14:25.that sale price was such a special offer after all? Last year, the
:14:25. > :14:27.Office of Fair Trading gave our supermarkets a good talking to. It
:14:27. > :14:33.said we were getting confused in the aisles because supermarkets weren't
:14:33. > :14:37.always making their deals fair and meaningful. And it stressed that
:14:37. > :14:42.consumers needed to be able to trust that a promotion really was a
:14:42. > :14:46.special, time-limited bargain. The supermarket giants agreed that
:14:47. > :14:50.things weren't always so clear for customers. And so, more than six
:14:50. > :14:55.months ago they signed up to a new set of voluntary principles approved
:14:55. > :15:05.by the OFT. All the major players apart from Asda said they'd play
:15:05. > :15:06.
:15:06. > :15:09.ball. One of those principles clearly states that supermarkets
:15:09. > :15:12.shouldn't sell a product at a lower, discounted rate for longer than
:15:12. > :15:15.they've already sold it as its higher, original price. The
:15:15. > :15:18.principles came into effect last November, so we decided to check out
:15:18. > :15:23.the three biggest supermarket chains to see how they're running their
:15:23. > :15:27.promotions these days. Now obviously the big supermarkets stock tens of
:15:27. > :15:34.thousands of products every day, so we chose just 60 that you might find
:15:34. > :15:37.in your average shopping basket. We then asked independent price checker
:15:37. > :15:47.mysupermarket.com to monitor the price of each product between first
:15:47. > :15:49.
:15:49. > :15:52.February and the 30th April at Tesco, Sainsbury's and Asda. From
:15:52. > :15:55.the products we looked at we found three examples where Tesco seems to
:15:55. > :15:57.have broken the code, four from Sainsbury's and three from Asda,
:15:57. > :16:07.although remember Asda didn't actually sign up to follow the
:16:07. > :16:09.rules. And seeing as we're talking about prices going up and then down
:16:09. > :16:18.again, we thought we'd ask Cardiff University's cheerleading squad, the
:16:18. > :16:24.Snakecharmers, to help explain what we're talking about. First up,
:16:24. > :16:27.Sainsbury's. Their price for Robinsons apple and blackcurrant
:16:27. > :16:33.squash was constantly going up and down. Over the three months it
:16:33. > :16:36.changed price five different times. During March and April that included
:16:36. > :16:46.�1.40 for 14 days, after which it was on promotion for �1 for 28 days
:16:46. > :16:52.- twice as long, and definitely not in the spirit of those rules.
:16:52. > :16:57.Secondly, Tesco. Of the three examples we found, let's see what
:16:57. > :17:00.happened to the price of an eight-pack of Pepsi cans. Over the
:17:00. > :17:08.three months we monitored it, this product was sold at three different
:17:08. > :17:11.prices. And how did they break the code? Well, it was sold at its
:17:11. > :17:21.'full' price of �3.99 for just 16 days, but the 'special offer' of
:17:21. > :17:23.
:17:23. > :17:26.�1.99 lasted more than twice as long - 33 days! And finally, Asda. They
:17:26. > :17:33.sold Heinz reduced salt and sugar ketchup at �1.80 for a whopping 64
:17:33. > :17:38.days. They described it as 'rolled back' from its full price of �2.14,
:17:38. > :17:44.but it hadn't been at that price since last year. And even then for
:17:44. > :17:48.just 46 days! But the big question is - why should we care about all
:17:48. > :17:58.this? Surely sales that last a long time are great for consumers, aren't
:17:58. > :18:02.
:18:02. > :18:04.they? James Foord is from mysupermarket.com. In my view it's
:18:04. > :18:08.misleading because the sale price becomes the real price, so actually
:18:08. > :18:11.customers aren't getting an offer at all they are getting the product at
:18:11. > :18:14.its normal price. But the trouble is the consumer has no way of knowing
:18:14. > :18:18.what they are getting is a genuinely good deal unless they are prepared
:18:18. > :18:22.to put in the leg work and crunch the numbers and all the other things
:18:22. > :18:29.that none of us have time to do. do you think consumers feel about
:18:29. > :18:32.the apparent need for these principles? There's probably a hint
:18:32. > :18:35.of sadness and frustration, because there's no smoke without fire and I
:18:35. > :18:37.think the fact the OFT have introduced such principles means
:18:37. > :18:40.clearly there are areas where retailers clearly need to change the
:18:40. > :18:44.way they market and show these promotions. On the other hand I
:18:44. > :18:47.think consumers will be quite glad because at least it means there's a
:18:47. > :18:50.good chance that things will get more transparent for them. These
:18:50. > :18:53.principles had been in place for more than two months before we
:18:53. > :18:58.started our research, so what did the supermarkets have to say about
:18:58. > :19:06.the apparent breaches we discovered? Both Sainsbury's and Tesco have held
:19:06. > :19:09.their hands up to the examples we found and apologised. They say it
:19:09. > :19:16.has taken a while to train up staff but they are committed to sticking
:19:16. > :19:19.to the principles. And Asda told us they're dedicated to clear and
:19:19. > :19:21.accurate pricing and welcomed the OFT's work but didn't sign up to the
:19:21. > :19:24.principles because they believed they'd actually encourage yo-yo
:19:24. > :19:30.pricing. For now, James thinks promotions should be taken with a
:19:30. > :19:34.pinch of salt. Don't take everything for granted. When you see that big
:19:34. > :19:38.red poster telling you this is the best offer of the year, don't
:19:38. > :19:42.necessarily grab it. Now if you've ever splashed out on
:19:42. > :19:45.an engagement ring, you'll know how special...and expensive it can be!
:19:45. > :19:55.But one Bridgend couple's battle with their jeweller has really taken
:19:55. > :19:57.
:19:57. > :20:01.the shine off their big day. Rachel's got the story.
:20:01. > :20:07.Wearing an engagement ring is a symbol, it will always remind you of
:20:07. > :20:10.the day that you said yes to the man you married. So you want to make
:20:10. > :20:17.sure it's the right ring, especially if your hubby is spending the best
:20:17. > :20:23.part of �3,000. Back in 2009, Gareth Holt and his now wife Rachel bought
:20:23. > :20:33.her engagement ring from Ernest Jones in Swansea. It cost a whopping
:20:33. > :20:33.
:20:34. > :20:37.�2,950. She tried it on and loved it immediately. It was definitely,
:20:37. > :20:42."Yes, this is the one for me, this is the one I want." And Gareth's
:20:42. > :20:45.proposal to Rachel had gone perfectly too. I think she was
:20:45. > :20:49.expecting me to propose on her birthday but I actually did it the
:20:49. > :20:53.evening before as we were just on the banks of the Thames. With the
:20:53. > :20:56.big day looming, next on the list was the wedding ring. Because the
:20:56. > :21:00.engagement ring is quite a strange shape, they actually had to make the
:21:00. > :21:05.wedding ring a specific shape that's like cut out to fit the engagement
:21:05. > :21:08.ring so that they sat nicely together. So Gareth used a custom
:21:08. > :21:17.design company to make his wife's wedding ring to make sure they
:21:17. > :21:19.fitted together perfectly - just like Gareth and Rachel. Aah! They
:21:19. > :21:23.just complemented each other. To see Rachel smiling, that's something
:21:23. > :21:29.that's going to stick with me forever. And in the summer of 2011
:21:29. > :21:32.they got married. I do love a happy ending. But just a few months later
:21:32. > :21:40.things got a little rocky for the couple, when they discovered a small
:21:40. > :21:44.splinter in the gold of Rachel's engagement ring. Because we bought
:21:44. > :21:47.it through Ernest Jones, and it was under warranty we took it back to
:21:47. > :21:51.Swansea. They confirmed it was a defect with the ring and it was no
:21:51. > :21:55.damage that we'd caused in any way and agreed to repair it for free.
:21:55. > :22:01.took two months, but finally Ernest Jones called to say the ring was
:22:01. > :22:04.ready to collect. But straightaway, the couple spotted a problem.
:22:04. > :22:08.had changed the claw setting on it completely so her wedding ring and
:22:08. > :22:17.engagement ring no longer sat together there was a gap between the
:22:17. > :22:21.two. Rachel was devastated, I was upset. And they never asked your
:22:21. > :22:25.permission at any time. Never at any time did Ernest Jones contact us to
:22:25. > :22:28.tell us what they were doing. was then asked to leave both her
:22:28. > :22:31.engagement ring and her wedding ring at the Swansea store, so the company
:22:32. > :22:34.could investigate further. How did you feel about the idea of
:22:34. > :22:38.handing over your wedding band given what had happened to your engagement
:22:38. > :22:41.ring? Given what had happened to the engagement ring, a mixture of fear
:22:41. > :22:47.and dread really. Over the coming weeks the couple tried in vain to
:22:47. > :22:49.agree a solution with Ernest Jones. We were fobbed off between several
:22:49. > :22:55.different call centre staff, supposed managers, manager's
:22:55. > :22:58.managers, all came up with different stories. They couldn't return it to
:22:58. > :23:01.its original shape because the collar was discontinued. It was
:23:01. > :23:04.impossible for them to hand-make a collar to fit the ring. At one stage
:23:04. > :23:13.they actually suggested to us that they change the wedding ring as well
:23:13. > :23:17.to suit what they had done to the engagement ring. To suit them and
:23:17. > :23:19.what they had done? To suit them and their mistake! Ernest Jones made one
:23:19. > :23:23.final offer to the couple and suggested finding a new engagement
:23:23. > :23:26.ring for Rachel that would fit her wedding ring. It's like taking your
:23:26. > :23:32.car in for repair and saying we can't do anything with it do you
:23:32. > :23:36.want something else instead? That was the ring she'd chosen, that was
:23:36. > :23:39.the ring she had expected to have for the rest of her life, and for
:23:39. > :23:45.them to turn around and just offerto just change it for something else
:23:45. > :23:48.because it suits us, unbelievable. What a nightmare! But things are
:23:48. > :23:51.finally looking up for Gareth and Rachel. The engagement ring has now
:23:51. > :23:55.been repaired by a different jeweller - the one which made their
:23:55. > :23:58.wedding rings - and it's looking as good as new. Ernest Jones have
:23:58. > :24:05.apologised - they're going to pay for those repairs and they're going
:24:05. > :24:12.to refund the full cost of the engagement ring - almost �3,000!
:24:12. > :24:16.What a great result! Now, when it comes to driving, I'll
:24:16. > :24:26.admit, I'm not the best at finding my way from A to B. But relying on
:24:26. > :24:28.
:24:28. > :24:31.new technology may not always work either, as Rhod's been finding out.
:24:31. > :24:35.I like to think I have a pretty good sense of direction. But whenever I
:24:35. > :24:40.head out on a journey, I still like to have a map for that extra back
:24:40. > :24:47.up. But big paper ones can be a bit tricky to drive with. I like to put
:24:47. > :24:51.a postcode into a nifty bit of kit and get going. These days, millions
:24:51. > :24:54.of people rely on one these - a sat nav - but they're not foolproof.
:24:54. > :24:57.We've all seen the news stories about sat navs taking drivers down
:24:57. > :25:01.the wrong path. And that's why updating your machine is crucial.
:25:01. > :25:06.Philip Bell from Anglesey relies on his sat nav for his voluntary work.
:25:06. > :25:10.In the past he's downloaded new maps and was due for another update.
:25:10. > :25:16.got an email from TomTom saying that I could upgrade my maps, and they
:25:16. > :25:25.were 100% reliable, accurate. staying up to date doesn't come
:25:25. > :25:28.cheap. A new TomTom costs from around �120. The company brings out
:25:28. > :25:36.an updated map every three months. You can sign up to a year's supply
:25:36. > :25:40.for �74.95. Or do what Philip did and buy a single map for �39.95.
:25:40. > :25:43.Philip downloaded his new map of the UK and Ireland onto his device, but
:25:43. > :25:46.when he drove along the three-mile Porthmadog bypass on the A487, which
:25:47. > :25:56.opened back in 2011, he couldn't work out why it was missing from his
:25:56. > :26:03.TomTom. Here we are on this lovely millions of pounds' worth of bypass
:26:03. > :26:06.and I'm in the middle of a field. I can see the little arrow pointing me
:26:06. > :26:12.in this green area, it's showing the river which we are about to cross
:26:12. > :26:17.but it's not showing the bypass or the road. As you can see, it's just
:26:17. > :26:21.absolutely nowhere. As soon as Philip spotted the missing roads he
:26:21. > :26:25.got in touch with TomTom. He says he was told to check his serial number
:26:25. > :26:35.to make sure he had downloaded the latest map. They confirmed he had,
:26:35. > :26:35.
:26:35. > :26:39.so Philip assumed the maps weren't accurate. So I asked for my money
:26:39. > :26:43.back and so they said you can't have you money back because you have now
:26:43. > :26:46.used the map. So I'm thinking to myself, yes, of course I have used
:26:46. > :26:49.the map, but unless I used it how would I know if you haven't updated
:26:50. > :26:53.it. Philip was offered a voucher worth �40 but that didn't solve his
:26:53. > :27:03.map problems. TomTom suggested that he go online where he could report
:27:03. > :27:07.
:27:07. > :27:10.errors or missing roads to them. thinking to myself, why have I just
:27:10. > :27:13.paid nearly �40 for me to tell them the road changes? After a phone
:27:13. > :27:16.conversation and sending five emails to TomTom, Philip was no closer to
:27:16. > :27:21.finding out why major roads were missing from his map. So what's
:27:21. > :27:24.going on? When we asked TomTom to investigate, they told us the new
:27:24. > :27:27.bypass is on the map that Philip bought and his problems are down to
:27:27. > :27:35.the way he downloaded it. According to TomTom, in the past Philip bought
:27:35. > :27:45.maps for Western Europe, but this time he chose a UK and Ireland map.
:27:45. > :27:46.
:27:46. > :27:48.And that makes a difference. If he'd bought the same map, the new one
:27:48. > :27:52.would have automatically replaced the old one. But because it covered
:27:52. > :27:55.a different region, Philip needed to change his settings, to tell his sat
:27:55. > :27:59.nav to use the latest version. But what's driven Philip round the bend
:27:59. > :28:03.is that he feels TomTom could have solved this weeks ago when he first
:28:03. > :28:13.told them about his missing roads. Luckily for Philip, X-Ray has
:28:13. > :28:13.
:28:13. > :28:16.steered him in the right direction with a map he can rely on.
:28:16. > :28:20.Well, hopefully now Philip can get back on the road with confidence.
:28:20. > :28:22.Yes, and that's it for this week, and for this series. But we'll still
:28:22. > :28:28.be hard at work over the summer, investigating your consumer